Mariners Trust statement

Thank you, so in other words JF only needed the support of a further 7% of the shareholding to maintain the stranglehold.

Purely speculative question with no hidden or implied accusation.  I know that there is a threshold somewhere which if exceeded then that particular shareholder must make an offer for all of the other shares.  I think that this was where Mike Parker was heading hence the reasoning behind gifting some of the shares to the Trust.  So the question, what’s the legality behind purchasing shares to just short of the threshold and then using ‘front’ shareholders to secure an overall majority?  Is it illegal or accepted as common practice?  Appreciate it wouldn’t happen in Grimsby.

I’m guessing that part of my previous post answers why JF hasn’t or won’t convert the B9’s into shares.

Quoted from 1mickylyons

I asked someone about this today and their view was Town will get a new ground BUT if he was a betting man it will be going up where the flats come down? Don`t shoot the messenger but most people said from day one the Freemo docks area was best.

Was it someone with any inside info, Mickey?

What I don't get is the theory that the Trust could somehow put out feelers to find 'investors' (i.e. benefactors) after leaving the board of directors.

"Yes, we decided we couldn't work alongside the owner/directors so jumped ship, but how about buying the club off him/them?"

Doesn't make any sense to me at all, I'm afraid. Do trust members (who are all volunteers, of course) generally mix in circles with people with a couple of million quid they don't mind losing? Would any potential 'investors' be more likely to come in if the trust weren't on the board of directors?

Nope, can't see it. Better to grin and bear it and be there to put their point across in board meetings even if they are subsequently outvoted.

Quoted from 139914

Thank you, so in other words JF only needed the support of a further 7% of the shareholding to maintain the stranglehold.

Purely speculative question with no hidden or implied accusation.  I know that there is a threshold somewhere which if exceeded then that particular shareholder must make an offer for all of the other shares.  I think that this was where Mike Parker was heading hence the reasoning behind gifting some of the shares to the Trust.  So the question, what’s the legality behind purchasing shares to just short of the threshold and then using ‘front’ shareholders to secure an overall majority?  Is it illegal or accepted as common practice?  Appreciate it wouldn’t happen in Grimsby.

He doesn’t really need the support of anyone, just that the ‘others’ (nobody really knows who these people are, some may not even be alive anymore) don’t vote alongside the Trust, Parker and Mullen.

I’m not sure what that threshold is but it could be feasible for the Trust to raise enough funds to purchase a block of shares that wouldn’t take them near the threshold of having to make an offer on all shares but would be enough, when added to the holdings of Parker and Mullen, to out-vote JF.

Unfortunately, ‘the board’ AKA JF would decide whether to sanction that share sale or not ... or he could simply purchase a similar amount of shares himself to retain the status quo.

Personally, I’d look into the legality of the share transfer from the Trust to JF all those years ago - it was perfectly feasible for JF and family members / friends to be Trust members who were effectively voting for him to receive 200k of shares for free, and that can’t really be ‘right’.  

A swing of 200k of shares from JF to the Trust could be enough to swing the power away from JF

Quoted from 139914

I’m guessing that part of my previous post answers why JF hasn’t or won’t convert the B9’s into shares.

100%

Plus, if the club folds, as a creditor, he may still get something back but as a shareholder only he’d have little chance.

Quoted from Maringer

What I don't get is the theory that the Trust could somehow put out feelers to find 'investors' (i.e. benefactors) after leaving the board of directors.

"Yes, we decided we couldn't work alongside the owner/directors so jumped ship, but how about buying the club off him/them?"

Doesn't make any sense to me at all, I'm afraid. Do trust members (who are all volunteers, of course) generally mix in circles with people with a couple of million quid they don't mind losing? Would any potential 'investors' be more likely to come in if the trust weren't on the board of directors?

Nope, can't see it. Better to grin and bear it and be there to put their point across in board meetings even if they are subsequently outvoted.

I get your point, and a previous one about pissing into the tent (I chuckled at that).  But is it the £30k a year donation to be on the board that’s the real issue?  Never been a director so my ignorance is total.

Regarding the £30k per year 'donation' for a place on the board, it seems a bit odd to me.

No idea about company law in this regard, but surely a trust place could be a non-executive directorship with no financial input required? More an advisory role?

That said, if this is considered a 'fee' to run the bars with any profits made subsequently going to the trust, I wouldn't have a problem with that really.

Quoted from 139914

Does anyone have the split of shares, who has what percentage and is there any significant others?

Quoted from TheRealJohnLewis

Andrew Newman has £25,000 (1%) worth of shares. (dodgy ticket tout?)
The Mullens have £130,000 (6%) shares
The Trust has £320,550 (14%)
Mike Parker has £500,000 (22%)
John Elsom £75,500 (3%)
(Hopefully the above is correct as I had to search through a hundred odd pages of shares!)

For comparison, Fenty has 43%

The board is not made up of investors apart from Fenty and the Trust represented by Wood.

Quoted from TheRealJohnLewis

Thanks again.  Okay so making some assumptions then.  The total shareholding is around £2.31m.  Just over 11.5% held by unknowns (fans perhaps?), that leaves 88.5% active shareholders.  This is probably over simplifying things but (no idea who is aligned with who), assuming the Trust, Mr Parker, Mr and Mrs Mullen, Mr Elsom and Mr Newman could be persuaded to vote together that would total 45%, enough to overturn the current board.

Worst case being Mr Elsom and Mr Newman voting with Fenty, in which case their shares would need to be bought.  Just over £100k.  Would they sell?  Given that the shares are worthless I’m guessing they would, probably at less than the issue price.

If (big if I know) the trust were able to raise £100k and have the right contacts to make the above happen, I think we just might get to the bottom of what Mr Fenty really wants, his hand would be forced.

Who’s starting the fundraiser?  It’ll take me plus another 499 putting in £200 each to hit the target.  My money is pledged.