AGM for 2017

All things related to the Castleford Tigers.
Easy Tiger 2
Kirk Dixon
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:35 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Easy Tiger 2 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:30 pm

Robbo

Can I ask is the idea that we sell the ground when/if the new stadium gets built and that’s when they’ll get their money back?

Otherwise I can’t see how they’ll get it back as most clubs run at a loss and also I have doubts that the ground would sell for enough to pay it off anyway.

User avatar
Exiled
Kirk Dixon
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:16 pm
Location: LS1

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Exiled » Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:43 pm

oops was reply to @Robbo

What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.

The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.

When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.

The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.

As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.

Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.

I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.

On point B

Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.


Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.

User avatar
Robbo
Dean Widders
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:56 am

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Robbo » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:08 pm

Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo

What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.

The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.

When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.

The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.

As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.

Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.

I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.

On point B

Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.


Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
Simple fact is that Fulton’s had a charge on the assets that’s how you protect your money.
In the event of the club folding the value in WR more than covered the loan. It’s a secured debt.
If the new ground valued at 10m plus is ever built 96% of it is owned by them.
Plus the value of WR
It’s the control that worries me.
I will try to screen shot the document Re the debt to be paid on death.
Cheers Robbo
Truth is always best !

User avatar
Exiled
Kirk Dixon
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:16 pm
Location: LS1

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Exiled » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:35 pm

Robbo wrote:
Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo

What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.

The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.

When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.

The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.

As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.

Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.

I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.

On point B

Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.


Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
Simple fact is that Fulton’s had a charge on the assets that’s how you protect your money.
In the event of the club folding the value in WR more than covered the loan. It’s a secured debt.
If the new ground valued at 10m plus is ever built 96% of it is owned by them.
Plus the value of WR
It’s the control that worries me.
I will try to screen shot the document Re the debt to be paid on death.
Cheers Robbo
Not sure what a charge on assets is? Was the loan secured against the ground in contract? That would need to be voted on and passed,and if so so was this pre or post redistribution of shares? Either way with a sale or CVA the value of the ground would be included as covered in my previous post.

Looking at the distribution of shares and the money paid for those shares initially the 4% of the value of the new ground and the sale of WR would easily be worth more than the original investment. So a win for all.

Not trying to take sides or doubt either view, but just make some sense of it all from a supporters point of view. I do believe that the club could be a little bit more reassuring to the supporters in their disclosure, however they are under no obligation to do so other than the legal requirements.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you do seem a little aggrieved at the situation you find yourself in. Going from, as you see it, an 'equal' shareholder or at least within some sort of trusted parity -to being out muscled into a marginalised minor share holder? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that it is the money that concern's you, rather the control taken over the club by an individual?

I guess every club be it R.L, R.U or football etc would rather be fan owned - Barcelona style. Unfortunately that is rarely the case and most clubs are owned by a single person.

The only real concern I have as a supporter, and one that potentially could have a huge impact on the club is the fact that on death of either one of the two directors that are owed owed money, the club would be forced into an immediate call in of those debts. As mentioned above I find this highly irregular and very concerning.

tigerfeat
Dale Fritz
Posts: 7021
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:07 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by tigerfeat » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:55 pm

If what robbo says is right and the Fultons have already said vote for this or I might call in the loans and there's a stipulation in place that on death of a director the loan will be called on the club think everybody would find this concerning

User avatar
Robbo
Dean Widders
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:56 am

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Robbo » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:04 pm

Exiled wrote:
Robbo wrote:
Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo

What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.

The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.

When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.

The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.

As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.

Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.

I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.

On point B

Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.


Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
Simple fact is that Fulton’s had a charge on the assets that’s how you protect your money.
In the event of the club folding the value in WR more than covered the loan. It’s a secured debt.
If the new ground valued at 10m plus is ever built 96% of it is owned by them.
Plus the value of WR
It’s the control that worries me.
I will try to screen shot the document Re the debt to be paid on death.
Cheers Robbo
Not sure what a charge on assets is? Was the loan secured against the ground in contract? That would need to be voted on and passed,and if so so was this pre or post redistribution of shares? Either way with a sale or CVA the value of the ground would be included as covered in my previous post.

Looking at the distribution of shares and the money paid for those shares initially the 4% of the value of the new ground and the sale of WR would easily be worth more than the original investment. So a win for all.

Not trying to take sides or doubt either view, but just make some sense of it all from a supporters point of view. I do believe that the club could be a little bit more reassuring to the supporters in their disclosure, however they are under no obligation to do so other than the legal requirements.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you do seem a little aggrieved at the situation you find yourself in. Going from, as you see it, an 'equal' shareholder or at least within some sort of trusted parity -to being out muscled into a marginalised minor share holder? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that it is the money that concern's you, rather the control taken over the club by an individual?

I guess every club be it R.L, R.U or football etc would rather be fan owned - Barcelona style. Unfortunately that is rarely the case and most clubs are owned by a single person.

The only real concern I have as a supporter, and one that potentially could have a huge impact on the club is the fact that on death of either one of the two directors that are owed owed money, the club would be forced into an immediate call in of those debts. As mentioned above I find this highly irregular and very concerning.
The assets were legally charged to the Fulton’s.
I have no issue with that at all.
I am upset at the way it was done.
Yes if they want interest in the loans then fine.
I find that easier to stomach than removing any discussions and having taken money from current shareholders by issuing shares at nil value.
The club had a net worth of 800 k at the last reported accounts.
There were 80,000 shares of which 48000 were given to the Fulton’s.
That’s 10 pounds each
So to issue 42000 shares should have cost 4.2 m
Had they written off the loan and put in 2 million then fine.
However the loan remains .
Ethical? Not in my book
Robbo
Truth is always best !

Digger Dave
Sean Rudder
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:09 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Digger Dave » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:22 pm

It's not difficult to check but there are 8 outstanding charges on the Club: 3 to the Fultons and 5 to the bank (Barclays).

"If the new ground valued at 10m plus is ever built 96% of it is owned by them."

Doubt it. The 'new' ground would be owned by the Stadium Trust not the Club (Fultons) otherwise someone would likely have to pay a hefty tax bill. In addition the stadium is only worth £10m as a stadium; without a Club wanting a stadium it's worth the land value.

fords
Luke Gale
Posts: 3448
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 8:40 am

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by fords » Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:14 pm

Exiled wrote:
Robbo wrote:
Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo

What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.

The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.

When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.

The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.

As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.

Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.

I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.

On point B

Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.


Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
Simple fact is that Fulton’s had a charge on the assets that’s how you protect your money.
In the event of the club folding the value in WR more than covered the loan. It’s a secured debt.
If the new ground valued at 10m plus is ever built 96% of it is owned by them.
Plus the value of WR
It’s the control that worries me.
I will try to screen shot the document Re the debt to be paid on death.
Cheers Robbo
Not sure what a charge on assets is? Was the loan secured against the ground in contract? That would need to be voted on and passed,and if so so was this pre or post redistribution of shares? Either way with a sale or CVA the value of the ground would be included as covered in my previous post.

Looking at the distribution of shares and the money paid for those shares initially the 4% of the value of the new ground and the sale of WR would easily be worth more than the original investment. So a win for all.

Not trying to take sides or doubt either view, but just make some sense of it all from a supporters point of view. I do believe that the club could be a little bit more reassuring to the supporters in their disclosure, however they are under no obligation to do so other than the legal requirements.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you do seem a little aggrieved at the situation you find yourself in. Going from, as you see it, an 'equal' shareholder or at least within some sort of trusted parity -to being out muscled into a marginalised minor share holder? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that it is the money that concern's you, rather the control taken over the club by an individual?

I guess every club be it R.L, R.U or football etc would rather be fan owned - Barcelona style. Unfortunately that is rarely the case and most clubs are owned by a single person.

The only real concern I have as a supporter, and one that potentially could have a huge impact on the club is the fact that on death of either one of the two directors that are owed owed money, the club would be forced into an immediate call in of those debts. As mentioned above I find this highly irregular and very concerning.

The last accts i saw a few year back the fultons were loaning about 300k a year to the club to keep it going. The debt owed to them was about 2.5 million secured against the ground. So if WR is ever sold they will get the money owed back from that.

gateman
Danny Orr
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:40 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by gateman » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:01 am

I have read with interest the views voiced and I must admit a lot goes over my head it seems some of you are more versed than me in such maters, but I always thought when any sports facility was built money for part of the project came from different public body's IE sports England to name one, Normanton Knights have had a big revamp of their facility's sourced by different body's I don't think these people would subscribe into a private purse

St Albans tiger
Dean Widders
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:04 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by St Albans tiger » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:08 am

Isn't 42000 shares at 10 each 420,000 not 4.2 million

User avatar
StevieTheTV
Junior Moors
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by StevieTheTV » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:41 am

St Albans tiger wrote:Isn't 42000 shares at 10 each 420,000 not 4.2 million
Yep!! :shock:
Tigers for Life! Not just for SuperLeague!!

Tawera Nikau = Legend

Oldcasman
Dean Widders
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Oldcasman » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:35 pm

Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo

What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.

The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.

When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.

The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.

As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.

Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.

I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.

On point B

Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.


Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo

What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.

A certain dr at Salford writ off a 7 million debt that he had invested in the club and how much do you think Paul caddick has invested in Leeds plus there are several others that invest in their clubs to keep them at the top, the difference between them and our owner being they live and breathe rugby league.

castigers2010
Kirk Dixon
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:35 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by castigers2010 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:38 pm

St Albans tiger wrote:Isn't 42000 shares at 10 each 420,000 not 4.2 million
Robbo has missed a '0' off the total, it's 420,000 shares that were awarded - roughly 228,000 to Ian Fulton and 192,000 to Janet Fulton.

User avatar
Robbo
Dean Widders
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:56 am

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by Robbo » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:09 pm

Sorry typo
That issued 420,000 shares you are correct
Thank you
Robbo
Truth is always best !

St Albans tiger
Dean Widders
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:04 pm

Re: AGM for 2017

Post by St Albans tiger » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:43 pm

Sorry wS not meant to be arsy just could not see the maths involved. Cheers and good xmas

Post Reply