- Print Topic - Archive

Anyone looking for "NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING"

It's here: https://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/siteassets/documents/notice-of-general-meeting-05052021.pdf

With this exciting me the most.

Quoted Text

Reasons for the transactions The aims of 1878 Partners are to modernise the values, operations and capabilities of the organisation, to take the GTFC up through the professional divisions and to re-establish GTFC at the heart of the community. 1878 Partners wants to build a culture of inclusion, trust and high performance within GTFC and for GTFC to become a beacon of pride, progress and aspiration for the local community. 1878 Partners will explore the prospect of bringing the Mariners home to a new community stadium in Grimsby, provided that this can be delivered in a financially viable and sustainable manner. An immediate priorit y is to upgrade the day-to-day training facilities of GTFC and other infrastructure of GTFC. 1878 Partners will also seek to build on the excellent work being carried on by the Grimsby Town Sports and Education Trust. The new GTFC directors have stated that the governance of the club will be transparent and open, which will be initiated by a fans survey to be launched imminently.

Quoted from JMT

Anyone looking for "NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING"

It's here: https://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/siteassets/documents/notice-of-general-meeting-05052021.pdf

With this exciting me the most.

Everything you want to hear - a complete change of culture throughout GTFC.

Will John Fenty be kept on to wash the kit or clean the toilets?

I have nightmares that he will be kept on in some capacity.

Quoted from cannylad68

Will John Fenty be kept on to wash the kit or clean the toilets?

I have nightmares that he will be kept on in some capacity.

Lifetime president I would imagine whatever this is or banished to the main stand

"The new GTFC directors have stated that the governance of the club will be transparent and open"

I wonder if that will include how much we buy or sell players for, unlike the current poker players we have, keeping their cards close to their chest.

I would love to know how much we wasted spent on getting LJL back here.

They want to change all the things Fenty thinks are good about the club...gives you an insight in to how flipping useless he has been...

Quoted from Madeleymariner

no need to let the world see your accounts (inc non board member shareholders I think?

Not so.
The published accounts of public and private limited companies are available to download from the Companies House website, along with all sorts of other documentation.

There used to be a charge for this, but more recently under the Beta version of the facility, they can be accessed for free.

There are many benefits of switching their incorporation from public to private, especially in terms of protecting their stakes in future investment and regeneration.

Also, and as I alluded to some weeks ago, I was interested at that time to know whether the consortium were buying the shares personally, or if they were going to use a holding company to buy the shares, a holding company in which they own the shares. The statement confirms that it’s the latter, whereby we will become owned in majority by a business called 1878 Partners Limited. This offers them a tax efficient way of for both incoming investment, and the extraction of funds by what would currently be dividends to all shareholders, by way of management charges instead, payable from or to 1878 Partners Limited. Clever and sensible way forward for them, and very normal.

So in summary, a decent start to the day for Mariners fans. But let’s hope the day finishes well too hey, with 3 points in the game v Bradford City

#UTM

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Not so.
The published accounts of public and private limited companies are available to download from the Companies House website, along with all sorts of other documentation.

There used to be a charge for this, but more recently under the Beta version of the facility, they can be accessed for free.

There are many benefits of switching their incorporation from public to private, especially in terms of protecting their stakes in future investment and regeneration.

Also, and as I alluded to some weeks ago, I was interested at that time to know whether the consortium were buying the shares personally, or if they were going to use a holding company to buy the shares, a holding company in which they own the shares. The statement confirms that it’s the latter, whereby we will become owned in majority by a business called 1878 Partners Limited. This offers them a tax efficient way of for both incoming investment, and the extraction of funds by what would currently be dividends to all shareholders, by way of management charges instead, payable from or to 1878 Partners Limited. Clever and sensible way forward for them, and very normal.

So in summary, a decent start to the day for Mariners fans. But let’s hope the day finishes well too hey, with 3 points in the game v Bradford City

#UTM

I thought they’d set the business up this way no real surprise there , they clearly have a vision for the way forward how refreshingly different from the shambles we’ve all been used to

So straight in to a tax avoidance scheme. They are low lifes.

Quoted from realist

So straight in to a tax avoidance scheme. They are low lifes.

I mean it’s not like we’ve seen that before at the club...

Very promising.
Not popping any corks until the deal is done though.

Not fully conversant with boards, company set ups etc but why does JF have to resign ? If he has got rid of all his interest wouldnt that mean he isnt involved automatically ?
I hope this doesnt mean he has been able to retain some share still.

Quoted from aldi_01

They want to change all the things Fenty thinks are good about the club...gives you an insight in to how flipping useless he has been...

You need to read my post above

If John Fenty had used a separate limited company to hold his shares, you lot would have been giving him grief over that

I can imagine the scenario now.

1. John’s shareholding is made by way of a limited company he owns.

2. John forces the change from a public company to a private company.

3. Assume new stadium and other regeneration things went ahead, including other activities that went ahead to create additional revenue streams. Assume this resulted in the club generating good profits.

4. Other shareholders sat there rubbing their hands as they expected the share value to rise and profits maybe to be distributed by way of dividends.

5. But hold on, John was clever, and those profits are extracted from the private limited company, in a tax efficient way, by way of management charges being paid across to the very private limited company that owns John’s shares. So absolutely nothing going to any other shareholders after all.

In Summary:
HAD JOHN INITIATED THIS SORT OF CHANGE TO THE INCORPORATION STATUS OF GTFC PLC, YOU LOT WOULD HAVE COMPLETELY CRUCIFIED HIM, SO PLEASE STOP HERALDING THIS AS SOME SORT OF CHANGE THAT JOHN MISSED OR DIDN’T UNDERSTAND

Ding dong. I haven’t commented too much on this takeover, partly through fear it would never happen, but this is very exciting and much needed. A seminal moment in this football club I believe, and our energies should now focus on on the future rather than the past - that cannot be changed.

I know very little about Andrew Pettit, and I don’t know Jason Stockwood personally. However, due to the nature of my line of work I have on occasion encountered Simply Business, of which Jason Stockwood has been CEO for a number of years.

I can honestly say without bias that whenever Simply Business has cropped up, it has stood out like a shining beacon of success. I say this genuinely, as it occurred to me long before I became aware that the CEO was a Town fan, let alone one who might one day run the club, but every data point and piece of anecdotal evidence points to it being an absolutely brilliantly run business.

The insurance market has been turned on it’s head over the course of the last couple of decades by aggregators, Money Supermarket, Go Compare and that Russian meerkat fella. This is true of pretty much every insurance category going, with the single exception of business insurance. That’s where Simply Business dominates, and I know very well that this is no fluke.

Honestly, I am pleased the previous administration is going, but that’s only meaningful if the new ownership is better than what went before. Not every takeover is a success - there are as many horror stories as there are success stories. I couldn’t be more confident however that this new dawn will lead to an era of phenomenal success for this weary but brilliant old club. It may be bumpy at the beginning - we may well get relegated, but it will come.

Andrew, Jason - welcome. The future is bright, it’s black and white.

UTM x

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Not so.
The published accounts of public and private limited companies are available to download from the Companies House website, along with all sorts of other documentation.

There used to be a charge for this, but more recently under the Beta version of the facility, they can be accessed for free.

There are many benefits of switching their incorporation from public to private, especially in terms of protecting their stakes in future investment and regeneration.

Also, and as I alluded to some weeks ago, I was interested at that time to know whether the consortium were buying the shares personally, or if they were going to use a holding company to buy the shares, a holding company in which they own the shares. The statement confirms that it’s the latter, whereby we will become owned in majority by a business called 1878 Partners Limited. This offers them a tax efficient way of for both incoming investment[b][/b], and the extraction of funds by what would currently be dividends to all shareholders, by way of management charges instead, payable from or to 1878 Partners Limited. Clever and sensible way forward for them, and very normal.

So in summary, a decent start to the day for Mariners fans. But let’s hope the day finishes well too hey, with 3 points in the game v Bradford City

#UTM

Incoming investment from. say Mr Shutes for example?

Quoted from moosey_club

Very promising.
Not popping any corks until the deal is done though.

Not fully conversant with boards, company set ups etc but why does JF have to resign ? If he has got rid of all his interest wouldnt that mean he isnt involved automatically ?
I hope this doesnt mean he has been able to retain some share still.

No not at all.

You do not have to own shares in a company in order to be a director of a company.

My very first board appointment was without shares, and I’ve held several executive board appointments over the years without owning any element of equity stake in those businesses

Quoted from Limerick Mariner

Incoming investment from. say Mr Shutes for example?

My view has always been that Shutes walking at this stage was tactic. He was never the money man, a facilitator or negotiator perhaps but he never appeared as a money man.

I can see him slipping back in to the club before Christmas...

Quoted from Limerick Mariner

Incoming investment from. say Mr Shutes for example?

No

He’s a thing of the past that never happened and never will.

As much as a Larry Let Down as what Ian Holloway was. Good riddance to all time wasters I say

Quoted from aldi_01

My view has always been that Shutes walking at this stage was tactic. He was never the money man, a facilitator or negotiator perhaps but he never appeared as a money man.

I can see him slipping back in to the club before Christmas...

To suggest this is already a suggestion that our new owners are performing underhand tricks already.

There would have been no need to play silly cloak n dagger games like this that weren’t transparent

Shutes has gone, and I have a feeling we’ve had a lucky escape there

Quoted from WayneBurnettsJockstrap

"The new GTFC directors have stated that the governance of the club will be transparent and open"

I wonder if that will include how much we buy or sell players for, unlike the current poker players we have, keeping their cards close to their chest.

I would love to know how much we wasted spent on getting LJL back here.

Yeah our top scoring striker..... shutup man

Quoted from WayneBurnettsJockstrap

I wonder if that will include how much we buy or sell players for, unlike the current poker players we have, keeping their cards close to their chest.

I would love to know how much we wasted spent on getting LJL back here.

Why oh why do people persist in bashing John with so much ridiculous rubbish that has no substance

It’s not unusual for player fees to remain undisclosed following transfers. This is often and a mostly a contractual condition set by the agent or selling club, for several understandable reasons.

So John and GTFC have no option in those cases, but to retain that information privately. That is not about to change under new ownership

Why don’t you give it a rest hey with all of the unfounded John bashing

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

No not at all.

You do not have to own shares in a company in order to be a director of a company.

My very first board appointment was without shares, and I’ve held several executive board appointments over the years without owning any element of equity stake in those businesses

So you’ve always been a hanger on a type 😋

The important question is.......

.................When J S Fenty goes, does Fillipe Noche go as well ?

Quoted from aldi_01

My view has always been that Shutes walking at this stage was tactic. He was never the money man, a facilitator or negotiator perhaps but he never appeared as a money man.

I can see him slipping back in to the club before Christmas...

If he waen't the money man, what would be the strategic value of him pulling out? I dunno, the day before it was announced Shutes had pulled out, he resigned as director of Grimsby Youth Zone, of which Jason Stockwood is also a director. Indicator of potential breakdown in relationship? Interestingly, in that same week Shutes also set up two companies called Grimsby Freeport Holdings Limited and Grimsby Freeport Company Limited. This was hot in the wake of the announcement that Grimsby and Immimgham would be granted freeport status, so maybe Shutes felt he wouldn't have the time to invest in GTFC as he would have wanted to. All complete conjecture but one thing is for certain, interesting times ahead for Grimsby, town and football club.

Quoted from Madeleymariner

Interesting, going private means less regulation, no need to let the world see your accounts (inc non board member shareholders I think?}

Think it also means they can control who could buy shares in the company meaning no takeovers unless they want to sell.

Could increase the value of shares as not reliant on stock market valuations as much.

Interesting times ahead

The price of shares ironically doesn’t rely on stock market valuation. They’re £1 each in effect. That’s pretty much fixed unless an individual wants to sell for less. The switch to private LTD company won’t have any effect necessarily on the value of shares.

Quoted from dapperz fun pub

So you’ve always been a hanger on a type 😋

No not at all. I’ve been employed in a number of board roles. In addition to owning 100% and minority equity stakes in various organisations. From buy ins, acquisitions, mergers, rescues and turnaround scenarios. Also when being appointed as an official Administrator and leading on business liquidation projects.

But thanks for the insult. I trust you feel it was adequately deflected

Quoted from Grantham_Mariner

The important question is.......

.................When J S Fenty goes, does Fillipe Noche go as well ?

Absolutely not

Quoted from Grantham_Mariner

The important question is.......

.................When J S Fenty goes, does Fillipe Noche go as well ?

I have got everything crossed here

[img]https://miro.medium.com/max/800/1*Zl8LyaQDGezYPxOMOfCVDw.jpeg[/img]

Someone said something about this means Stockwood and Petit will become majority shareholders. It doesn’t. They are buying Fenty’s shares through ‘1878’. That’s still only 40%.

As a next stage I guess they might offer to buy out the rest. I hope the Trust doesn’t decide to sell out.

Whilst good news that Fenty won’t be on the board, we still don’t know about his minions. Not about his loans - the announcement is silent on that. Whilst he still has outstanding loans he could still be an influence- eg if the terms of the loan is that he can call them in at any time.

Also note Phil revealing that Fenty’s loans are via companies that he controls. If they go into admin they will be forced to recall them (subject to the terms).

Plus there’s plenty of time between now and May 5th for things to go wrong.

Guarded optimism from me.

Quoted from Hagrid

Yeah our top scoring striker..... shutup man

Ridiculous isn't it.

I really don't get the hate of John Lewis, of course he isn't the perfect striker and nobody claims he is, and there are better players out there but the fact is at this present time he offers more than any other striker we have.

And the fact somebody used a thread about Fenty selling up to bring up LJL... I suppose some people are just desperate to criticise John Lewis.

Quoted from immariner

If he waen't the money man, what would be the strategic value of him pulling out? I dunno, the day before it was announced Shutes had pulled out, he resigned as director of Grimsby Youth Zone, of which Jason Stockwood is also a director. Indicator of potential breakdown in relationship? Interestingly, in that same week Shutes also set up two companies called Grimsby Freeport Holdings Limited and Grimsby Freeport Company Limited. This was hot in the wake of the announcement that Grimsby and Immimgham would be granted freeport status, so maybe Shutes felt he wouldn't have the time to invest in GTFC as he would have wanted to. All complete conjecture but one thing is for certain, interesting times ahead for Grimsby, town and football club.

Now you are getting close.

You are now starting to put the pieces into the jigsaw.

Consider for a moment the motivations of the three individuals of the consortium.

Stockwood and Petit certainly have GTFC in their hearts. Shutes has always been driven by regeneration and business opportunities that the Town presents. Particularly with regards to his historical interest with LadyS Rd and the Docks.

I’ve no doubt that Shutes will pop up somewhere again on our journey. Probably when the subject of a community stadium crops up again. He would sooner be profiting from collecting profit from GTFC via rental from a community stadium. He’s more interested in that than he is in the hassle of having to be involved in running a successful football club with fan expectations

Quoted from dapperz fun pub

So you’ve always been a hanger on a type 😋

Fenty's clagnut 😉

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Someone said something about this means Stockwood and Petit will become majority shareholders. It doesn’t. They are buying Fenty’s shares through ‘1878’. That’s still only 40%.

As a next stage I guess they might offer to buy out the rest. I hope the Trust doesn’t decide to sell out.

Whilst good news that Fenty won’t be on the board, we still don’t know about his minions. Not about his loans - the announcement is silent on that. Whilst he still has outstanding loans he could still be an influence- eg if the terms of the loan is that he can call them in at any time.

Also note Phil revealing that Fenty’s loans are via companies that he controls. If they go into admin they will be forced to recall them (subject to the terms).

Plus there’s plenty of time between now and May 5th for things to go wrong.

Guarded optimism from me.

The loans will remain on the balance sheet as loans to 1878 Partners Ltd instead of Fenty. I can't see Stockwood and Pettit paying him off with their own cash, I don't think that has ever been a realistic possibility but I think it's what a lot of supporters assume.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Someone said something about this means Stockwood and Petit will become majority shareholders. It doesn’t. They are buying Fenty’s shares through ‘1878’. That’s still only 40%.

As a next stage I guess they might offer to buy out the rest. I hope the Trust doesn’t decide to sell out.

Whilst good news that Fenty won’t be on the board, we still don’t know about his minions. Not about his loans - the announcement is silent on that. Whilst he still has outstanding loans he could still be an influence- eg if the terms of the loan is that he can call them in at any time.

Also note Phil revealing that Fenty’s loans are via companies that he controls. If they go into admin they will be forced to recall them (subject to the terms).

Plus there’s plenty of time between now and May 5th for things to go wrong.

Guarded optimism from me.

Where does this misconception come from that John only owns 40% of the paid up and called up share capital ?

Quoted from WayneBurnettsJockstrap

"The new GTFC directors have stated that the governance of the club will be transparent and open"

I wonder if that will include how much we buy or sell players for, unlike the current poker players we have, keeping their cards close to their chest.

I would love to know how much we wasted spent on getting LJL back here.

Whatever we spent on LJL was far better value than what we spent on Scannell and the vast array of loanees that we sent packing in Jan

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Now you are getting close.

You are now starting to put the pieces into the jigsaw.

Consider for a moment the motivations of the three individuals of the consortium.

Stockwood and Petit certainly have GTFC in their hearts. Shutes has always been driven by regeneration and business opportunities that the Town presents. Particularly with regards to his historical interest with LadyS Rd and the Docks.

I’ve no doubt that Shutes will pop up somewhere again on our journey. Probably when the subject of a community stadium crops up again. He would sooner be profiting from collecting profit from GTFC via rental from a community stadium. He’s more interested in that than he is in the hassle of having to be involved in running a successful football club with fan expectations

Wouldn't it more likely be rent / development profit from ancillary development to the stadium - with the Community Stadium helping to fund the infrastructure needed through government grant funding via the local authority? I'd always envisaged that any rental deal for the stadium would be with local authority - perhaps with a turnover element if the club increased turnover from promotion.

Quoted from realist

So straight in to a tax avoidance scheme. They are low lifes.

Businesses only pay direct taxes on profit. Name a football club that makes a profit.

Quoted from aldi_01

My view has always been that Shutes walking at this stage was tactic. He was never the money man, a facilitator or negotiator perhaps but he never appeared as a money man.

I can see him slipping back in to the club before Christmas...

Tom Shutes is Santa ???

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Name a football club that makes a profit.

There are football clubs publishing pre-tax profits. Don’t worry about that

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Why oh why do people persist in bashing John with so much ridiculous rubbish that has no substance

It’s not unusual for player fees to remain undisclosed following transfers. This is often and a mostly a contractual condition set by the agent or selling club, for several understandable reasons.

So John and GTFC have no option in those cases, but to retain that information privately. That is not about to change under new ownership

Why don’t you give it a rest hey with all of the unfounded John bashing

Sorry, but totally incorrect. Confidentiality clauses in regards of transfer fees (any form of spending) are not legal. It's up to individual clubs to choose whether to publish figures. Remember that some clubs are traded publicly on stock exchanges. They have to publish full and comprehensive financial details.

Obviously clubs out our level are generally PLCs or Ltds so don't have to publish accounts in such forensic detail. Some clubs publish the bare minimum. Grimsby's are fairly open and detailed. Chesterfield FC's accounts are incredibly open and honest to the point that they declare how many employees they have earning more than £60,000 a year/£1,154 per week (zero).

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Now you are getting close.

You are now starting to put the pieces into the jigsaw.

Consider for a moment the motivations of the three individuals of the consortium.

Stockwood and Petit certainly have GTFC in their hearts. Shutes has always been driven by regeneration and business opportunities that the Town presents. Particularly with regards to his historical interest with LadyS Rd and the Docks.

I’ve no doubt that Shutes will pop up somewhere again on our journey. Probably when the subject of a community stadium crops up again. He would sooner be profiting from collecting profit from GTFC via rental from a community stadium. He’s more interested in that than he is in the hassle of having to be involved in running a successful football club with fan expectations

although i find you generally to be a sanctmonious, condescending t**t , i have to agree with you on this.
Rishi announcing the area is to become a Freeport may well have changed the attitude, and altered the plans, of ABP, Shutes, the council etc.

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

There are football clubs publishing pre-tax profits. Don’t worry about that

Yes, maybe when transfer activity is factored in where a club has received a big transfer fee. But those single year profits just offset previous losses for tax purposes. The average Championship club is losing £500,000 a week/£26 million a year after all. And that was in pre-COVID times. And as you drop down the leagues you find Scunthorpe losing £15m over 3 seasons & Colchester £30m in debt and losing £2.5m a season.

Some people detest Salford City for their spending, but there are "traditional" clubs spending just as much to stand still in League 2 and nobody seems to be bothered about that.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Sorry, but totally incorrect. Confidentiality clauses in regards of transfer fees (any form of spending) are not legal. It's up to individual clubs to choose whether to publish figures. Remember that some clubs are traded publicly on stock exchanges. They have to publish full and comprehensive financial details.

Obviously clubs out our level are generally PLCs or Ltds so don't have to publish accounts in such forensic detail. Some clubs publish the bare minimum. Grimsby's are fairly open and detailed. Chesterfield FC's accounts are incredibly open and honest to the point that they declare how many employees they have earning more than £60,000 a year/£1,154 per week (zero).

I suggest you read and research a bit more.

With regards to accounts publishing, there are conventions which detail how much or how little businesses publish. Depending on business type and size etc. From micro accounts to extremely detailed accounts.

If a business chooses to, they can drill down into minute detail with regards to what they make public.

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Where does this misconception come from that John only owns 40% of the paid up and called up share capital ?

Because it's true...

Total issued shares in GTFC - £2,379,900

John Fenty shareholding - £975,000 (40.97%)

John Fenty bought - £775,000 (32.57%)
John Fenty gifted by Trust- £200,000 (8.40%)

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

I suggest you read and research a bit more.

With regards to accounts publishing, there are conventions which detail how much or how little businesses publish. Depending on business type and size etc. From micro accounts to extremely detailed accounts.

If a business chooses to, they can drill down into minute detail with regards to what they make public.

That is basically what I said. Town's accounts are fairly comprehensive & Chesterfield FC are in even more detail. I never said there was a legal requirement for such detail.

Look at the likes of FGR or Scunthorpe United for publishing the bare legal minimum,

That's cheered an old man up. ;D

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Why oh why do people persist in bashing John with so much ridiculous rubbish that has no substance

It’s not unusual for player fees to remain undisclosed following transfers. This is often and a mostly a contractual condition set by the agent or selling club, for several understandable reasons.

So John and GTFC have no option in those cases, but to retain that information privately. That is not about to change under new ownership

Why don’t you give it a rest hey with all of the unfounded John bashing

Erm........................where have you been the past 20 years?

Shareholders with more than 10% of shares in GTFC...

Total issued shares in GTFC - £2,379,900

John Fenty     - £975,000 (40.97%) - £775,000 (32.57%) paid for
                                     £200,000 (8.40%) gifted from Trust
Mike Parker    - £500,000 (21.01%)
Mariners Trust - £321,050 (13.49%)

I have just received the Notice of General Meeting in the post.

"1878 Partners" is acquiring £979,950 of shares from existing shareholders.

So presumably that's Fenty's £975,000 & £4,950 of other shares.

£4,100 - Marley
£2,950 - Day
£500 - Chapman
£7,550 - TOTAL

That suggests that £2,600 of shares will be retained by current/recent board members.

*The 2 Trust representatives on the board both own £500 of their own personal shares too.

I wonder if there are any plans to convert the Fenty loans to shares, leaving the club debt free. Then the consortium would, by purchasing the new shares, have an outright majority share holding.

Would appear that "1878 Partners" are buying the £200,000 of gifted Trust shares from Fenty.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

I have just received the Notice of General Meeting in the post.

"1878 Partners" is acquiring £979,950 of shares from existing shareholders.

So presumably that's Fenty's £975,000 & £4,950 of other shares.

£4,100 - Marley
£2,950 - Day
£500 - Chapman
£7,550 - TOTAL

That suggests that £2,600 of shares will be retained by current/recent board members.

*The 2 Trust representatives on the board both own £500 of their own personal shares too.

The fact that the number of shares to be acquired ends in '950' suggests Day is selling his shares.

Quoted from RonMariner

I wonder if there are any plans to convert the Fenty loans to shares, leaving the club debt free. Then the consortium would, by purchasing the new shares, have an outright majority share holding.

Can Limited companies issue more shares? I don't think they can. And I think shares can only be transferred to existing shareholders (& maybe employees of the business) and not external people.

I'm sure Felipe will come on and confirm this when he gets over the fact he didn't know that Fenty only has a 40% stake in the club.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Would appear that "1878 Partners" are buying the £200,000 of gifted Trust shares from Fenty.

Be interesting to see if Fenty does the decent thing and donates that portion to the club or the Trust, but I am not holding my breath.

Perhaps his buddy Fillipe could enlighten us?

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Would appear that "1878 Partners" are buying the £200,000 of gifted Trust shares from Fenty.

And of course Mr Fenty will return the £200000 to the trust!

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Can Limited companies issue more shares? I don't think they can. And I think shares can only be transferred to existing shareholders (& maybe employees of the business) and not external people.

I'm sure Felipe will come on and confirm this when he gets over the fact he didn't know that Fenty only has a 40% stake in the club.

I think they can. They would have to pass resolutions to increase the authorised share capital first.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Can Limited companies issue more shares? I don't think they can. And I think shares can only be transferred to existing shareholders (& maybe employees of the business) and not external people.

I'm sure Felipe will come on and confirm this when he gets over the fact he didn't know that Fenty only has a 40% stake in the club.

1. Increase of Authorized Share Capital
Whenever the company decides to increase its authorized capital, the following procedure is to be followed:

1. A resolution should be passed in the general meeting.

2. The resolution should also specify the manner in which the new shares should be issued.

3. A notice of increase along with the particulars regarding the new shares etc. must be filed with the Registrar within 30 days from the date of passing the resolution.

4. If any default is made by the company in complying with the formalities laid above, every officer who authorized the same shall be liable to a fine up to Rs.500 per day.

2. Increase of Subscribed Share Capital
A company, which proposes to increase its subscribed capital, can do it in two ways.

By allotment of further shares.
By conversion of debentures or loans into shares.
1. Allotment of Further Shares
The Companies Act lays down the following procedure relating to the increase of share capital by further issue of shares.

1. Time Limit: An increase of this type can be made at any time after the expiry of two years from the date of registration of the company or after one year from the date of first allotment of the company which ever is earlier.

2. Rights Issue: Any further issue of unissued shares should be first offered to the existing shareholders in proportion to their shareholding in the company. This provision aims to enable the existing shareholders to retain their control over the company.

3. Notice of the Offer: A notice specifying the offer and the number of shares offered must be sent to the existing shareholders. At least 15 days time should be given within which such offer may be accepted.

4. Refusal of the Offer: If the offer is not accepted within the time limit specified, the offer is deemed to have been refused by the existing shareholders. They can also convey their refusal even earlier the time specified.

In those circumstances, the Board of Directors may offer such shares to the public in any manner, which in their opinion, is beneficial to the company.

5. Issue of Shares to Outsiders: The shares can also be offered to outsiders without offering them to the existing shareholders only when-

A special resolution is passed in the general meeting, or
An ordinary resolution is passed to that effect and the sanction of the Central Government is also obtained.

So all options are open.

Quoted from RonMariner

1. Increase of Authorized Share Capital
Whenever the company decides to increase its authorized capital, the following procedure is to be followed:

1. A resolution should be passed in the general meeting.

2. The resolution should also specify the manner in which the new shares should be issued.

3. A notice of increase along with the particulars regarding the new shares etc. must be filed with the Registrar within 30 days from the date of passing the resolution.

4. If any default is made by the company in complying with the formalities laid above, every officer who authorized the same shall be liable to a fine up to Rs.500 per day.

2. Increase of Subscribed Share Capital
A company, which proposes to increase its subscribed capital, can do it in two ways.

By allotment of further shares.
By conversion of debentures or loans into shares.
1. Allotment of Further Shares
The Companies Act lays down the following procedure relating to the increase of share capital by further issue of shares.

1. Time Limit: An increase of this type can be made at any time after the expiry of two years from the date of registration of the company or after one year from the date of first allotment of the company which ever is earlier.

2. Rights Issue: Any further issue of unissued shares should be first offered to the existing shareholders in proportion to their shareholding in the company. This provision aims to enable the existing shareholders to retain their control over the company.

3. Notice of the Offer: A notice specifying the offer and the number of shares offered must be sent to the existing shareholders. At least 15 days time should be given within which such offer may be accepted.

4. Refusal of the Offer: If the offer is not accepted within the time limit specified, the offer is deemed to have been refused by the existing shareholders. They can also convey their refusal even earlier the time specified.

In those circumstances, the Board of Directors may offer such shares to the public in any manner, which in their opinion, is beneficial to the company.

5. Issue of Shares to Outsiders: The shares can also be offered to outsiders without offering them to the existing shareholders only when-

A special resolution is passed in the general meeting, or
An ordinary resolution is passed to that effect and the sanction of the Central Government is also obtained.

So all options are open.

Thanks.

A quick google...

1878 Partners was incorporated on 8th April 2021 with 2 shareholders both owning 50% of the company & holding a £1 share each.

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

No not at all. I’ve been employed in a number of board roles. In addition to owning 100% and minority equity stakes in various organisations. From buy ins, acquisitions, mergers, rescues and turnaround scenarios. Also when being appointed as an official Administrator and leading on business liquidation projects.

But thanks for the insult. I trust you feel it was adequately deflected

Back it up with facts names companies etc and I will gladly retract the insult

I note that in the formal Notice of General Meeting the
actual date is missing.

Was the Telegraph's proof reader involved ?

Quoted from Caveman

I note that in the formal Notice of General Meeting the
actual date is missing.

Was the Telegraph's proof reader involved ?

It's on the front page of the one I received in the post this morning.

edit...

But on Part 2 the word May is missing.

Well my proxy form has been emailed to the club. This is definitely not one to forget!

Quoted from GollyGTFC

But on Part 2 the word May is missing.

Is he back in the mix? I thought Alex had been run out of town?

Today's message says
:
'The Board has long been of the view that it is in the best interests of GTFC to convert to a private limited company.'

Maybe a daft question (I'm not involved in business or finance at all), but if that's the case why haven't they just gone ahead and done that?

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Where does this misconception come from that John only owns 40% of the paid up and called up share capital ?

It's no wonder people think that you're acock. You talk about stuff as if you know the inside track, then you make stupid comments like that, which can easily be shown to be incorrect. What is your mission on here? Are you deliberately spreading misinformation?

There is a clear statement on the club website about what percentage Fenty owns. You can also get the information elsewhere in the public domain, if you know where to look.

https://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/club/ownership/

Quoted from immariner

The loans will remain on the balance sheet as loans to 1878 Partners Ltd instead of Fenty. I can't see Stockwood and Pettit paying him off with their own cash, I don't think that has ever been a realistic possibility but I think it's what a lot of supporters assume.

Where does it say that?

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

Not so.
The published accounts of public and private limited companies are available to download from the Companies House website, along with all sorts of other documentation.

There used to be a charge for this, but more recently under the Beta version of the facility, they can be accessed for free.

There are many benefits of switching their incorporation from public to private, especially in terms of protecting their stakes in future investment and regeneration.

Also, and as I alluded to some weeks ago, I was interested at that time to know whether the consortium were buying the shares personally, or if they were going to use a holding company to buy the shares, a holding company in which they own the shares. The statement confirms that it’s the latter, whereby we will become owned in majority by a business called 1878 Partners Limited. This offers them a tax efficient way of for both incoming investment, and the extraction of funds by what would currently be dividends to all shareholders, by way of management charges instead, payable from or to 1878 Partners Limited. Clever and sensible way forward for them, and very normal.

So in summary, a decent start to the day for Mariners fans. But let’s hope the day finishes well too hey, with 3 points in the game v Bradford City

#UTM

Thanks for the information Fill. I very got my letter today. Yes hope for 3 points.and Colchester lost last night.
UTM.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

m

As a next stage I guess they might offer to buy out the rest. I hope the Trust doesn’t decide to sell out.

That’ll be for the 784 Trust members to decide.

If anyone wants a say in what the Trust do with their £321,050 shareholding, memberships are available online for as little as £1 a month.

http://www.marinerstrust.co.uk/register/

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Where does it say that?

It doesn't, but it's the only realstic likelihood in my opinion.

Quoted from immariner

It doesn't, but it's the only realstic likelihood in my opinion.

Maybe, but we don’t know yet. That would be better than paying Fenty in instalments and have him wanting to meddle.

It would be nice to get clarity before the club egm.

Quoted from ska face

That’ll be for the 784 Trust members to decide.

If anyone wants a say in what the Trust do with their £321,050 shareholding, memberships are available online for as little as £1 a month.

http://www.marinerstrust.co.uk/register/

That it is. Hopefully this time the membership won’t cave in.

https://twitter.com/jstockwood/status/1380852411774992386

you can add your expressions of delight here...

Quoted from KingstonMariner

That it is. Hopefully this time the membership won’t cave in.

As a lifetime member I’m currently leaning towards selling at least some of the shares. Probably a bit short sighted but the shareholding doesn’t come with voting rights in and of itself, nor fan representation on the board.

I’d like to see a full debate around the issue - could the Trust put £250/£300k to good use in the short or medium term? Investment in the fanzone which could lead to a steady turnover in the long term, arrangements for regional supporters groups? Can the new directors provide assurances of a meaningful working relationship going forward?

Plenty of time to work it out I suppose.

Would be no surprise if 1878 Partners Ltd had another partner in the future.

Has anyone read it right through.It means in layman’s terms that Fenty will get his money but turning it into a private company stops other shareholders cashing their shares in ,so us shareholders who wish to cash in won’t be able to.It’s a sneaky way to go about business.I’m able to rite off my few hundred quid.

Quoted from Iknowyoursecret

Has anyone read it right through.It means in layman’s terms that Fenty will get his money but turning it into a private company stops other shareholders cashing their shares in ,so us shareholders who wish to cash in won’t be able to.It’s a sneaky way to go about business.I’m able to rite off my few hundred quid.

Surely as a fan you would buy shares in the club to help support the club financially, and not to sell them later on.

I am a small shareholder and when I purchased those shares I didn't purchase them with the expectation of selling them later.

Quoted from Davec

Surely as a fan you would buy shares in the club to help support the club financially, and not to sell them later on.

I am a small shareholder and when I purchased those shares I didn't purchase them with the expectation of selling them later.

Me as well. I will never sell my shares. I own part of my club, I am part of my club. UTM

Quoted from wigworld

Today's message says
:
'The Board has long been of the view that it is in the best interests of GTFC to convert to a private limited company.'

Maybe a daft question (I'm not involved in business or finance at all), but if that's the case why haven't they just gone ahead and done that?

Needs a 75% majority to pass. There'd be so much talk of it being only to benefit Fenty, that I doubt it'd pass. It'd also need Parker on board, which wouldn't happen because he'd not get his money back. Might suggest Parker will have some involvement or at least back it for a change.

It's the right thing from any owner's perspective. Being a PLC has lots of complications and transparency that have hindered Fenty and this takeover. It does, however, reduce the need for transparency, and accounts won't be as detailed going forwards.

Quoted from 140067

Me as well. I will never sell my shares. I own part of my club, I am part of my club. UTM

You might not have that choice. This decision would be consistent with what they'd do if they wanted 100% control.

A share clean up might be coming.

Quoted from pen penfras

Needs a 75% majority to pass. There'd be so much talk of it being only to benefit Fenty, that I doubt it'd pass. It'd also need Parker on board, which wouldn't happen because he'd not get his money back. Might suggest Parker will have some involvement or at least back it for a change.

It's the right thing from any owner's perspective. Being a PLC has lots of complications and transparency that have hindered Fenty and this takeover. It does, however, reduce the need for transparency, and accounts won't be as detailed going forwards.

If it doesn't pass would that block the takeover? Could there be a broker clause which states if that resolution fails then so will the takeover?

I really hope not

Quoted from Davec

If it doesn't pass would that block the takeover? Could there be a broker clause which states if that resolution fails then so will the takeover?

I really hope not

I guess we don't know the answer to that, but if this was what they needed to get it over the line after terms were already agreed, then it could cause a problem. But I can't see the trust vote being a problem since the fans want it to go through. Even if Parker isn't involved, he'd essentially be sabotaging the club as well as Fenty and would probably make him less popular than Fenty if he caused the deal to fall through.

Quoted from pen penfras

You might not have that choice. This decision would be consistent with what they'd do if they wanted 100% control.

A share clean up might be coming.

Can you be required to sell under certain circumstances?

The Trust have said their board have voted for it so I don't think the members get to vote on this. I also wonder what role they have to play going forward.

Most fans buying shares aren't doing so with the intention of getting it back unless they buy a significant number.

The Trust have 13%, Fenty has 41% and Parker has 21%. If those 3 shareholders vote for it then it doesn't matter how anyone else votes.

Parker has already given away half of his shareholding and was he ever wanting paying back for his investment? I would have thought Parker has been consulted before the statement this morning because his vote is a very important one for the future of our club.

Quoted from pen penfras

I guess we don't know the answer to that, but if this was what they needed to get it over the line after terms were already agreed, then it could cause a problem. But I can't see the trust vote being a problem since the fans want it to go through. Even if Parker isn't involved, he'd essentially be sabotaging the club as well as Fenty and would probably make him less popular than Fenty if he caused the deal to fall through.

Well that is never going to happen. ;D

Even if Parker sabotaged the deal i am not sure anyone would really hold it against him given how he was basically shafted by JF in the first instance and then had to witness Fenty shaft the Trust to basically pocket 200k of his money. If Parker wanted to somehow get his cold revenge by preventing JF walking away with a pocket of cash ( part of which was his ) then it could be perfect for him to serve it up now.

He could think ...Sorry JF , you keep control of the club , you take it down , you struggle to recover your money and be forced to either go admin and lose most of it or stump up more trying to protect your "investment", that is diminishing in value week on week.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

The Trust have said their board have voted for it so I don't think the members get to vote on this. I also wonder what role they have to play going forward.

Most fans buying shares aren't doing so with the intention of getting it back unless they buy a significant number.

The Trust have 13%, Fenty has 41% and Parker has 21%. If those 3 shareholders vote for it then it doesn't matter how anyone else votes.

Parker has already given away half of his shareholding and was he ever wanting paying back for his investment? I would have thought Parker has been consulted before the statement this morning because his vote is a very important one for the future of our club.

I just hope the shareholders know exactly what they are voting for and they do not vote wrongly by accident

Quoted from jamesgtfc

The Trust have said their board have voted for it so I don't think the members get to vote on this. I also wonder what role they have to play going forward.

The board have voted for the change from PLC to Private Company and the resulting change and updating of the Articles of Association. The members will decide whether to sell all, some or none of the £300k+ shareholding.

Quoted from moosey_club

Well that is never going to happen. ;D

Even if Parker sabotaged the deal i am not sure anyone would really hold it against him given how he was basically shafted by JF in the first instance and then had to witness Fenty shaft the Trust to basically pocket 200k of his money. If Parker wanted to somehow get his cold revenge by preventing JF walking away with a pocket of cash ( part of which was his ) then it could be perfect for him to serve it up now.

He could think ...Sorry JF , you keep control of the club , you take it down , you struggle to recover your money and be forced to either go admin and lose most of it or stump up more trying to protect your "investment", that is diminishing in value week on week.

I don`t know MP well but have met him and he WAS 100% GTFC prior to Fenty doing a hatchet job . I honestly think he will want to support the 1878 lot even if not wanting to get involved with the consortium directly himself. I hope MP gets involved because I know he shares a lot of the values and sentiments of the incoming but maybe once bitten twice shy?
The decision to hang on to the 200k of shares from Fenty is nothing short of disgraceful and to me sums up perfectly how I see his character he is NOT and NEVER has been in this for the benefit of GTFC only himself.

Quoted from 1mickylyons

The decision to hang on to the 200k of shares from Fenty is nothing short of disgraceful and to me sums up perfectly how I see his character he is NOT and NEVER has been in this for the benefit of GTFC only himself.

I think the Trust share issue, together with the Alex May situation, are gigantic errors of judgement. Most of us have long held views about his competence to run a football club, the results speak for themselves. But these two issues speak to his integrity.

His legacy will be permanently tarnished by them. But it is not too late for him to donate the shares back to the trust. He clearly does not need the money and the gesture might give at least partial redemption.

Quoted from RonMariner

I think the Trust share issue, together with the Alex May situation, are gigantic errors of judgement. Most of us have long held views about his competence to run a football club, the results speak for themselves. But these two issues speak to his integrity.

His legacy will be permanently tarnished by them. But it is not too late for him to donate the shares back to the trust. He clearly does not need the money and the gesture might give at least partial redemption.

The time for him to return the shares has come and gone, and as for redemption, it's not in his vocabulary. His latest message was all about poor old john and his ego needing a boost from his hardship times at Fenty towers.

If and I mean If he wanted any sort of redemption he could when he first announced he wanted out, have said I'll leave my loans in place until the club can afford to repay them, or words to that effect. But no he was and is all about getting his last 1p out of the club.

Yeah, there is not one shred of justification for hanging onto those shares.

The reason he (supposedly) wanted them was because he didn’t want to be outvoted, and have control of the club “outside the boardroom“. Well he got that. That has come to an end now, so no need to hang onto them.

Come in John. Don’t be a cunf. Do the decent thing. Hand them back. Think how do you want to be remembered.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Yeah, there is not one shred of justification for hanging onto those shares.

The reason he (supposedly) wanted them was because he didn’t want to be outvoted, and have control of the club “outside the boardroom“. Well he got that. That has come to an end now, so no need to hang onto them.

Come in John. Don’t be a cunf. Do the decent thing. Hand them back. Think how do you want to be remembered.

I DID IT MY WAY
regrets I've had a few, but mostly
I DID IT MY WAY

Quoted from cannylad68

Will John Fenty be kept on to wash the kit or clean the toilets?

I have nightmares that he will be kept on in some capacity.

He will be responsible for checking and replacing the light bulbs.

i have been informed, on a number of occasions, that Parker ( as have the Mullins and other large shareholders) has been kept abreast of developments by the consortium for the last few months (& that's probably a conservative reading of events)

ps i've just posted another lie for Pen Penfras to pick up on ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quoted from rancido

He will be responsible for checking and replacing the light bulbs.

I thought it would be for inspecting lady parts looking for smoke bombs or deconstructing the flags of small children.

The fact Fenty hasn’t even commented on the 200k, and appears to want every single last penny gives you an indication that GTFC was never at the heart of anything he did, more his own pocket and the fact he can’t see his shortcomings and has recently put out another woe is me statement tells you so much.

Great news this however it still gets to me that effectively Fenty will be paid a net profit of 200k for his total failure over the last 16 years.

Every single penny he’s put in to cover his inept management and 200k he shafted the trust out of!

How much is non league cost is?!

Quoted from forza ivano

i have been informed, on a number of occasions, that Parker ( as have the Mullins and other large shareholders) has been kept abreast of developments by the consortium for the last few months (& that's probably a conservative reading of events)

ps i've just posted another lie for Pen Penfras to pick up on ;D ;D ;D ;D

Your breaking news of Fenty keeping £200k of shares and the deal falling through because Fenty changed the goal posts were both lies. Whether you made them up or repeated them is irrelevant, you came on here to spread lies that does no good for anybody.

Quoted from Mikey_345

Great news this however it still gets to me that effectively Fenty will be paid a net profit of 200k for his total failure over the last 16 years.

Every single penny he’s put in to cover his inept management and 200k he shafted the trust out of!

How much is non league cost is?!

There was a deal that Fenty would invest money into the club if he was given those shares, and I'm sure that must have happened or else the trust would have pursued legal action. So maybe that's where some of the "repaid loans" comes from on the accounts and they were in fact written off as part of that deal.

Quoted from pen penfras

Your breaking news of Fenty keeping £200k of shares and the deal falling through because Fenty changed the goal posts were both lies. Whether you made them up or repeated them is irrelevant, you came on here to spread lies that does no good for anybody.

I must've misses the statement where jsf explains that because it's the only right n proper thing to do ,he will be returning the 200,000 shares to the trust

I’ve voted by email, and don’t xpect to sell my shares either now or in the future

Quoted from forza ivano

I must've misses the statement where jsf explains that because it's the only right n proper thing to do ,he will be returning the 200,000 shares to the trust

Or, he put £250k into the club in return for them as per his agreement with the trust.

Quoted from pen penfras

Or, he put £250k into the club in return for them as per his agreement with the trust.

In the intervening years, he took a damn sight more out.

Quoted from pen penfras

Or, he put £250k into the club in return for them as per his agreement with the trust.

As a loan...which he's now had repaid.....and kept the profit from the shares. Good old Honest John.

If Fenty owns just over 40% and the Trust 13% then that takes it over the 50% needed for a motion to be carried. If this is the case then isn't everything else just going through the process of voting upon which the result has already been decided?

Quoted from DB

If Fenty owns just over 40% and the Trust 13% then that takes it over the 50% needed for a motion to be carried. If this is the case then isn't everything else just going through the process of voting upon which the result has already been decided?

This motion has to be passed by a margin of 75% not 50%.

Quoted from barralad

This motion has to be passed by a margin of 75% not 50%.

I didn't realise that, but if you throw in Parkers shares then that'll be the 75%, then the vote is a foregone conclusion.

Quoted from pen penfras

Or, he put £250k into the club in return for them as per his agreement with the trust.

A further loan you mean, which he is getting back. So he has not paid a penny for those shares.

It seems to me the vote is just a box ticking exercise which is required by law as I think we all know that both resolutions will be passed.

To pass they need 75% of votes cast, I am assuming Fenty, Parker and the trust will all vote for, that alone is just under 75% of the votes so you just need to find an extra 1% and given a lot of people who are shareholders want this to happen finding that 1% is a certainty it seems.

So what us the difference between a private Ltd company and a publicltd company.
Can someone who knows answer as opposedto i think it's.....or some bullshitter making an answer up

Quoted from The_Laughing_Mariner

So what us the difference between a private Ltd company and a publicltd company.
Can someone who knows answer as opposedto i think it's.....or some bullshitter making an answer up

Differences can vary, but the main differences will be that the company isn't bound by 'the code' or the takeover panel. Accounts don't have to be audited and can contain much less detail.

The new articles will set out a lot of how the company is to be run, and some of them are not what I'd expect, but they may be subject to change in the future.