I don`t know what the current breakdown of shares is % wise BUT clearly JF is the majority shareholder.

If JF turned his loans into shares and gave back the shares the Trust gave him he would still be the majority shareholder BUT the Club would no longer owe that money on loans.

Am I not right in thinking financially he would not be any worse off because anyone wanting to take over the Club would have to buy his shares as opposed to paying him for the loans?

If he did the above would that not send out a positive message without actually costing HIM money, how does it work?

Good point Micky maybe somebody could ask that question at the fans forum .

Quoted from 1mickylyons

I don`t know what the current breakdown of shares is % wise BUT clearly JF is the majority shareholder.

If JF turned his loans into shares and gave back the shares the Trust gave him he would still be the majority shareholder BUT the Club would no longer owe that money on loans.

Am I not right in thinking financially he would not be any worse off because anyone wanting to take over the Club would have to buy his shares as opposed to paying him for the loans?

If he did the above would that not send out a positive message without actually costing HIM money, how does it work?

If JF was to convert all his loans to shares and someone wanted control of the club then they could just buy shares to the value of JF shares +1 to have the majority shareholding.
They would not have to buy his shares but could instead put the money in to the club however that would still leave JF as the second highest share holder and thus having some say in the running of the club.
I believe Mike Parker still has a considerable amount of shares  in the club but gave away some so he was not the major shareholder.

He has said before that he wants his loans paid back to him if we have some 'football fortune'. If he turned them into shares then they can of course lose value over time. I'd say he is better off keeping them as benign loans (and he knows that too).

John currently owns 42.86% of the shares in issue of GTFC.

If GTFC as a club went down this route JF would not be the "owner" but would have the controlling interest.

Any votes put to the board would then be yes/no based on his vote alone.

The fact he doesn't own more than 50% of the shares is pretty much his only saving grace now.

I'm just guessing to JF motives, but i think he keeps them as loans as they are held higher than shares if the club was to fold, the loan would have to be paid back first then shares.

Quoted from LeeVanCleef

John currently owns 42.86% of the shares in issue of GTFC.

If GTFC as a club went down this route JF would not be the "owner" but would have the controlling interest.

Any votes put to the board would then be yes/no based on his vote alone.

The fact he doesn't own more than 50% of the shares is pretty much his only saving grace now.

I am not sure that's correct as at board level they have a rule that is 1 vote per 1 board member and is not based on shares at all.
At an AGM where shareholders vote this a different matter as he would have more shares than all the other share holders combined

How likely is it JF will ever see a penny of the loans?

Rob in Grimsby
Why would a new investor acquire additional shares in the Club when they could buy shares from shareholders is the price per share different?

Quoted from 1mickylyons

How likely is it JF will ever see a penny of the loans?

Rob in Grimsby
Why would a new investor acquire additional shares in the Club when they could buy shares from shareholders is the price per share different?

Maybe they would rather put money in to the club rather than JF pocket. JF shares are valued at the price he is willing to sell them at I suppose so could be cheaper,
I was just pointing out that buying JF is not the only option.

Quoted from Rob_in_Grimsby

I am not sure that's correct as at board level they have a rule that is 1 vote per 1 board member and is not based on shares at all.
At an AGM where shareholders vote this a different matter as he would have more shares than all the other share holders combined

You are indeed correct.

I was confusing shareholding votes at AGM's and EGM's over board votes.

There will of course be those that disagree with me, but in my opinion, I believe the worst possible solution would be for JF to have a controlling interest. With his latest post on the fishy today, it's clear the man is a bully (how deliciously ironic), looking to goad the fans for daring to have an opinion of their own.

Quoted from Rob_in_Grimsby

Maybe they would rather put money in to the club rather than JF pocket. JF shares are valued at the price he is willing to sell them at I suppose so could be cheaper,
I was just pointing out that buying JF is not the only option.

On that again if he so wished could he offer sell his shares for a nominal fee of say 10p each or would all other shareholders have to agree to him selling? I am assuming not given what MP did with his shares though he never actually sold them?

Also I would like to formally offer John £1 for the MP shares the Trust gave him so he makes a profit and if he accepts I will donate them back to the Trust for free.

If JF converted his loans to shares then would his total holding be of such a size that legally he would have to make an offer for all the other shares?

I can't remember what the percentage holding trigger is??

Quoted from Cloudy

If JF converted his loans to shares then would his total holding be of such a size that legally he would have to make an offer for all the other shares?

I can't remember what the percentage holding trigger is??

I bet Mike Parker can !!!!!!