The Share Issue statement from the OS last Friday

I posted this on the Grim Outlook and someone suggested it should get a wider audience. So here it is, slightly edited because I know you Fishy lot are sensitive/scared of Fenty objecting to a fans and shareholders opinion, for you to consider...



I know this whole issue has been touched upon in another post but I felt this statement and the issue in general deserves to be taken apart on its own thread.

And here it is in all it's glory...

Quoted Text

The Share Issue

TO set the scene I would just like to repeat that the current share apportionment is not one of my making. And it is not likely to be appealing/ healthy to any would be investors when they could be removed from the board within 21 days.

There are two single blocks of shares alone that combined can remove any board member from the GTFC board within 21 days.

My standing down as chairman was to enable other potential interest in our club to come forward, and if I that resulted in my removal from the board, I would not at any time put the club under pressure to repay my loans whatsoever - unless they were affordable. And in football you never know what is around the corner.

Centered around this throughout, I have maintained that I am not turning my back on the club, but just giving others the potential to take on the club or join the board of GTFC.

The fact of the matter is that the club technically run out of funds as originally projected last December when I pledged another £150k this season alone into the club which would see us through to January. Previous to this I had said publicly that I wouldn't pledge further funds until control returned to the board room.

My change of mind came about when the Mariners Trust Board made serious efforts to deal with this concern.

A few points.

As I remember it Parker and Fenty agree to invest another £500,000 each to cover the latter part of 2010-11 and the 2011-12 season. Parker did this (despite having left the board in the mean time) by doubling his shareholding. He subsequently gifted these £500,000 of shares to the Supporter's Trust.

When all this rubbish kicked off earlier in the season it was stated by Parker (and confirmed on the company accounts) that Fenty had so far put in £150,000 of his promised £500,000. He did this by way of a £75,000 loan and by purchasing a further £75,000 of shares.

From this it seems that the £150,000 he so generously put in to see us through to January was actually money he had already pledged nearly a year previously.

Which leaves £200,000 left of his pledged £500,000 (to match Parker). Which funnily enough is what he is promising to invest if the Mariners Trust donate just under 40% of their shareholdings to our multi-millionaire former Chairman.

Now, it's bad enough that Fenty is holding a gun to the Mariners Trust board and hoping their inexperience will see them capitulate. But the fact that he is doing it over money he has previously promised makes his actions seem even more suspicious.

And he keeps mentioning this mythical "control returned to the boardroom" rubbish with every official statement he subjects us to.

Load of rubbish. When have the board of directors ever accounted for 50% of the shares in GTFC? Here's a run down from the end of year accounts stretching back to 2001. All figures are for May 31st of the year in question...

2001: 46.1%
2002: 44.7%
2003: 46.7%
2004: 34.2%
2005: 18.5%
2006: 42.2%
2007: 42.1%
2008: 42.0%
2009: 42.0%
2010: 42.1%
2011: 39.9%

And currently with in the region of £1.85 million of shares issued Fenty, Elsom and Chapman have 32.4% of the shares between them.

Now, if you add into the equation the £200,000 of shares that the Mariners Trust have given voting power to Fenty for the board room actually has 43.1% of votes.

So, actually the board has more direct control over the club (in terms of shareholder voting rights) than at anytime since 2003.

And these 2 single blocks of shares that leave all board members looking over their shoulders...

Well Parker has £500,000 of shares and the Mariners' Trust have approx £522,000. This equates to 55% of shares and therefore votes.

But wait a minute, the Trust have already given £200,000 of voting rights to Fenty haven't they? So actually Parker and the trust have £822,000 worth of shares to physically vote with between them. Which is only 44% of votes and not enough to force out any board member.

And anyhow are the Mariners Trust really going to try and force a director out? Of course they aren't. It's just an excuse for Fenty to water down Parker stake in the club, and pay half the market price for doing so. And he would get the Mariners Trust's power reduced as the cherry on the cake.

Here's how the shares would lie if Fenty gets his way...

Fenty 975,000
Elsom 25,500
Chapam 500

BOARD 1,001,000 (48.7%)

Trust 322,000
Parker 500,000
A.N.Other 234,000

NON-BOARD 1,056,000 (51.3%)

The board still wouldn't own the magical 50% of the shares in the club. Maybe Fenty could achieve that by asking for another load of shares from the Mariners Trust this time next year?

I just hope the Trust members tell Fenty where to go.

Quoted Text

And here's the rest of his drivel for anyone with a couple of hours spare...

I have not played hard ball with the MT one bit, or held them to ransom as some are suggesting. I see them as passionate fans of the club with common objectives to myself.

Nevertheless their new found Shareholding in the club, in my opinion, would put off any potential further investment because it is too high at 27 / 28 percent.

Not one person in football who has shown interest in the club's current position thinks it is healthy. Nor do I know anyone who'd make funds available to any football club under the current circumstances.

Let's face it, if I was playing hard ball I would have let the club run out of money and have forced the situation.

My position has always been one of wider ownership. To cement this fact I used my shareholding in the past, which cost me considerably more than par value at (£2.50 each), to remove a block on shares being available to others. I could have also changed the cost of new shares to £2.50, irrespective of how much mine cost me, I left them at an affordable £1.00.

I own by far the most expensive block of shares in the club and at that time could so easily have taken total ownership, a position I have never wanted.

Most Trusts hold considerably less than 10 percent of the clubs they represent. Should the MT proposal find favour with its members and be ratified, it will retain approximately 14 percent of the shares in GTFC. This sum will enable the Trust to call an EGM and call for a poll vote at meetings.

There are an odd few who repeatedly question my motives and spin all sorts of rubbish about me and make preposterous scenarios/suggestions.

If there were no investment forthcoming ultimately the shares in GTFC are worth nothing. If I were holding a gun to the MT's head as some wish to suggest I am, then the first step would have been to stop paying the players and threaten administration. The likely outcome would be that the entire shareholding in GTFC would be acquired for £1.00 in a SVA, pre-pack or administration process.

The facts are that the club requires approximately £100k plus the Ryan Bennett income net of football fortune to barely scrape through to the end of this season.

This will not allow any latitude to secure player contract extensions or strengthen the squad further in an effort to build on recent good form.

To suggest that the sell on income was certain and i knew of this is rubbish. The club could not possibly forecast this as certain income. In reality, Swansea and Norwich were the only clubs interested in Ryan - irrespective of Barry Fry working his magic. Also the deal went to the wire, with only one minute to deadline.

Our club's concession to make this deal happen means that our proportion follows the receipt from Norwich to Peterborough after deducting the initial proceed of the principle sale value. The remaining certain income will hit the bank in twelve month's time.

In term of next year's funding, the projections are losses of £500k which would provide a modestly competitive playing budget which has no wriggle room and in truth is unlikely to be enough to keep the squad together or afford the purchase of players.

Going concern is always an issue (the ability for a business to pay its bills when due) and it is possible in a forced sale Liam Hearn could raise vital funds, but there is no doubt that we need him and do not want to be pushed into liquidating one of our finest assets of recent years. To date there has been no offers and I have made it well known he is not for sale.

Additional cash-flow funds are required to repay what was previously a £500k overdraft bank facility which, under duress, has been converted by the bank into a repayment loan to be repaid over 5 years. This sum is not covered in losses and requires further financing.

Without relocation Blundell Park is in serious need of investment to maintain it safety certificate.

Either way there will be some big bills to finance.

Along with this there are inherent and considerable risks associated with a potential down turn in form on gate income and player fitness/turnover etc.

The board of GTFC are purely custodians of our football club for the time being irrespective of shareholding, and if any of its directors are expected to provide vital funding as an when required, then it cannot be a surprise they require a little comfort.

Initially I was adamant that I would not purchase any additional shares to redress this problem. It has been to the Mariners Trust's credit that I have relaxed on this issue. Whereby without this to get to a position of appeasement they would have probably recommended giving away twice as many shares.

Naturally it will now be up to the Mariners Trust's members to decide if the proposal is acceptable to them.

I am just about to crack open a bottle of wine and settle into watching Grimsby v Southport online. That's thanks  to my good lady's ingenuity as I have been able to carry bags, pay bills and still get to see the game.

UTM

John Fenty

If you got to the end of that you have a longer attention span than me.

I should just add that Mike Parker seems to get a lot of criticism thrown at him on this message board.

You might think he deserted the club and whatever else, but he pledged a further £500,000 investment and he still invested it despite having left the board completely. And by donating his shares to the Trust he has shown that this money was in reality a donation, not a loan or an investment.

Fenty on the other hand has used to threat of not investing (loaning) his previous pledged amount as a weapon against the Mariners Trust.

Who's really the good guy and who's the bad guy in all this?

If we win promotion or the FA Trophy or both this season it is Mike Parker who should get the lion share of the praise, because it was his money over the summer that was used to assemble our squad and has kept our budget at the level it currently is.

There's nothing wrong with your opinion but, yesterday's investments are yesterday's news.  MP did invest heavily but it appears he isn't going to in the future.  JF for all his poor decisions is still here and prepared to put his money where his mouth is.  I don't see any option but to back him (and the Trust) unless a clear alternative shows.  Particularly in the present bright spot.

If all the above happens, maybe Fenty will purchase 56,000 shares, giving the boardroom just over 50% of the shareholding.

Really good post and i think if people can read that and still vote to give Fenty the shares then they are crazy.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

Really good post and i think if people can read that and still vote to give Fenty the shares then they are crazy.

Are you a trust member?

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Are you a trust member?

No.

Golly Mrs Molly you've certainly taken this one apart.

Sorry Mate you are just not right. Mr Fenty held 51% of the shares from way back. I attended an AGM where the shareholders approved this.

So one assume he cannot raise his holding above 50% again without shareholders approval.  And that would need agreement from the Trust as i understand it he could not use his own holding to support this kind of proposal(to me he just wants comfort not control like he once had). Maybe Shareholder could come on and confirm this??? Not seen him for a while????

Is it not!!!! about paying the bills going forward now!!!!!??????

A vast amount of money was lost at the joint decisions of Mr Parker and Mr Fenty IMO. I remember the crowing of we are maintaining a L2 budget and nothing will change.

Think you have to move on. Any deals between them broke down when Mr Parker tuned his back on the club and we have what we have. You seem to be quite specific about what each of them have done how do you know this????and is it fact.
Personally I suspect when Mr Parker pledged to acquire shares the board did not dare turn it down. So this left him with 54% and control and no responsibility. Think you need to get real, would you invest in someones company, particularly when they have control.

Oh and by the way its a bit rich to say Mr Parker gets grief, when in comparison Mr Fenty gets hammered and blamed for all the decisions!! isn't i??. and that's irrespective of him funding the club for years.(I think they are as bad as each other)

While responding a thought just occurred to me. there has been Lots of speculation about budgets and Fenty's benign loans and how he has supported barmy budgeting etc. Who paid of the tax man's £700k debt off from another regime??? Who paid the aborted relocation costs, presumably these are part of the loans too. are they his fault also.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

.Load of rubbish. When have the board of directors ever accounted for 50% of the shares in GTFC? Here's a run down from the end of year accounts stretching back to 2001. All figures are for May 31st of the year in question...

2001: 46.1%
2002: 44.7%
2003: 46.7%
2004: 34.2%
2005: 18.5%
2006: 42.2%
2007: 42.1%
2008: 42.0%
2009: 42.0%
2010: 42.1%
2011: 39.9%.

My advice is to move on Mate and lets make sure the Trust plays a bigger role.

You can quote history as much as you like, but it is the future we Are concerned about Parker has gone fenty is still here propping up our club love him or loath him one thing  is clear without him we would very quickly become The next Darlington.

Ishould have  added to the above unless golly your sitting on millions to invest or you have  got a better plan I suggest you put all this anti fenty talk to bed cos one day he might just say intercourse you all

good work golly. can someone confirm that golly's logic is correct? i.e. the £200,000 that jf has promised to put in is simply the money he had previously pledged. if so not only has he pulled the wool over the trust's eyes about the bennett transfer situation but he's got another 200,000 shares simply for fulfilling his previous agreement with MP! Obviuosly a trick he learnt from Gordon brown - all smoke and mirrors and never any new money, just recycling old pledges in new packages

Quoted from headingly_mariner

No.

Okay, with all due respect, what the Trust does with it's shares has absolutely nothing to do with you.  If you want to influence the Trusts directions and decisions it's highly unlikely that you'll succeed via message board ranting.  Sign up and get involved.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Okay, with all due respect, what the Trust does with it's shares has absolutely nothing to do with you.  If you want to influence the Trusts directions and decisions it's highly unlikely that you'll succeed via message board ranting.  Sign up and get involved.

I like it

Quoted from crusty ole pie

Ishould have  added to the above unless golly your sitting on millions to invest or you have  got a better plan I suggest you put all this anti fenty talk to bed cos one day he might just say intercourse you all

Run the football club within it's means? Last financial year (ending May 31st 2011) we spent 115% of turnover on Staff costs.

The financial report from May 31st 2004 (just days before Fenty became Chairman) showed an accumulated loss going forward of £1,592,722. On Fenty's watch that had risen to £3,573,604 by May 31st 2011. And you can add another £800,000 or so to that by May 31st 2012 minus anything we might earn if we play at Wembley this season.

And the May 31st 2004 accounts show we had a net debt £2,172,659. That now stands at a massive £2,944,100.

Also issued share capitol has sky rocketed. It's gone from £323,450 in 2004 to a present level of £1,856,900.

This means that in 2004 if somebody had wanted to buy all the issued shares in the club and clear/cover all current debts they would have had to spend £2,496,109 to buy a club playing their first season at League Two level for 14 years.

Fast forward to the time of the 2011 AGM and to do the same would cost at least £4,801.000 for a non-league club running at heavy losses.

And it's apparently the Mariners Trust's 28% shareholding that makes GTFC such an unattractive proposition for would be investors?

As I have said before why did'nt Mr Fenty pay for the shares so the trust would have the funds to take a seat on the board.  

Quoted from Pongo

Golly Mrs Molly you've certainly taken this one apart.

Sorry Mate you are just not right. Mr Fenty held 51% of the shares from way back. I attended an AGM where the shareholders approved this.

So one assume he cannot raise his holding above 50% again without shareholders approval.  And that would need agreement from the Trust as i understand it he could not use his own holding to support this kind of proposal(to me he just wants comfort not control like he once had). Maybe Shareholder could come on and confirm this??? Not seen him for a while????

Is it not!!!! about paying the bills going forward now!!!!!??????

A vast amount of money was lost at the joint decisions of Mr Parker and Mr Fenty IMO. I remember the crowing of we are maintaining a L2 budget and nothing will change.

Think you have to move on. Any deals between them broke down when Mr Parker tuned his back on the club and we have what we have. You seem to be quite specific about what each of them have done how do you know this????and is it fact.
Personally I suspect when Mr Parker pledged to acquire shares the board did not dare turn it down. So this left him with 54% and control and no responsibility. Think you need to get real, would you invest in someones company, particularly when they have control.

Oh and by the way its a bit rich to say Mr Parker gets grief, when in comparison Mr Fenty gets hammered and blamed for all the decisions!! isn't i??. and that's irrespective of him funding the club for years.(I think they are as bad as each other)

While responding a thought just occurred to me. there has been Lots of speculation about budgets and Fenty's benign loans and how he has supported barmy budgeting etc. Who paid of the tax man's £700k debt off from another regime??? Who paid the aborted relocation costs, presumably these are part of the loans too. are they his fault also.



My advice is to move on Mate and lets make sure the Trust plays a bigger role.

He didn't own 51% himself. A good proportion of the shares belonged to his partner (Helen Laight if my memory is correct). The board members themselves have never accounted for a majority of shares whilst Fenty has been involved with the club. Now, I appreciate with his partner's shares over 50% of the shares were friendly to him as Chairman and the board of directors. But is that still not the case now? Are the Mariners Trust really going to use their 28% aggressively? Of course not- it's a load of tripe and an excuse.

The problems we had financially as a L2 team have not been resolved.
If we do gain promotion, I think we will need even more money to maintain equilibrium.
After watching that feature on Stevenage, it was clear that the cost of running a club at L2 level, despite all the extra income streams was much higher than running a BSBP club.
Until GTFC stops losing money year on year, I can't see how it can move forward.
Its all well and good congratulating JF for his generosity etc but costs should be cut so that we are not losing money.
Like I mentioned recently, we have twice as many non-footballing staff as Scunny - this needs resolving!!
Several clubs use YT players to man the turnstiles on match days and help with other duties as part of their contracts (eg ticket office/club shop etc) during busy times.
Quite why we need a 'marketing team' is beyond me, the PR at BP has never really been that good.
Social media is a great way to communicate with fans and its good that town have touched on this but it is free and relatively low maintenance which could again reduce the wage bill.
IMHO, we could be knocking on the door of the football league quite soon with the manager(s) and squad we have but the business part of the club needs streamlining and refreshing so that we don't need JF (or anyone else) to be haemorrhaging money every year. Only then, when we can balance the books, will we be able to move forward and properly attract potential new investors.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Okay, with all due respect, what the Trust does with it's shares has absolutely nothing to do with you.  If you want to influence the Trusts directions and decisions it's highly unlikely that you'll succeed via message board ranting.  Sign up and get involved.

The decision will have an impact on the that should concern all fans not just the 300 who have put money into the trust. I waited to see what the aims of the new trust would be before i joined and i am not satisfied that me joining a the trust will give me any more voice than i already have. The Trust have shown themselves to be naive and weak and their aims are not consistent with what a supporters trust should be in my opinion.

With regards to the thread Golly has made some excellent points and has raised the real issues as to why the club has not been taken on by anyone else.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

The decision will have an impact on the that should concern all fans not just the 300 who have put money into the trust. I waited to see what the aims of the new trust would be before i joined and i am not satisfied that me joining a the trust will give me any more voice than i already have. The Trust have shown themselves to be naive and weak and their aims are not consistent with what a supporters trust should be in my opinion.

With regards to the thread Golly has made some excellent points and has raised the real issues as to why the club has not been taken on by anyone else.

I agree, the OP raises some interesting points but consider this.  The board of GTFC has never in my lifetime had the best interests of the fans at heart, this is possibly the best and only chance we'll ever get to change that.  The Trust needs greater funds and a wider cross-section of opinion, that can only be achieved by (massively) increased membership.  Don't sit on the outside sniping when it's so easy to become part of the process.

Quoted from STB

The problems we had financially as a L2 team have not been resolved.
If we do gain promotion, I think we will need even more money to maintain equilibrium.
After watching that feature on Stevenage, it was clear that the cost of running a club at L2 level, despite all the extra income streams was much higher than running a BSBP club.
Until GTFC stops losing money year on year, I can't see how it can move forward.
Its all well and good congratulating JF for his generosity etc but costs should be cut so that we are not losing money.
Like I mentioned recently, we have twice as many non-footballing staff as Scunny - this needs resolving!!
Several clubs use YT players to man the turnstiles on match days and help with other duties as part of their contracts (eg ticket office/club shop etc) during busy times.
Quite why we need a 'marketing team' is beyond me, the PR at BP has never really been that good.
Social media is a great way to communicate with fans and its good that town have touched on this but it is free and relatively low maintenance which could again reduce the wage bill.
IMHO, we could be knocking on the door of the football league quite soon with the manager(s) and squad we have but the business part of the club needs streamlining and refreshing so that we don't need JF (or anyone else) to be haemorrhaging money every year. Only then, when we can balance the books, will we be able to move forward and properly attract potential new investors.

i agree we have far to many staff we have managers over managers cull that right down

The fact is that JF is currently the only person willing to put cash into the club. In order to do that he wants a bigger stake in the club, which is fair enough.  I wouldn't invest in the club under his current circumstance, and no one else will either. Without JF we would be another Kettering or Darlington.

We now have a good management team, a fine squad, and a generous and committed benefactor. Let's get behind them all.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

I agree, the OP raises some interesting points but consider this.  The board of GTFC has never in my lifetime had the best interests of the fans at heart, this is possibly the best and only chance we'll ever get to change that.  The Trust needs greater funds and a wider cross-section of opinion, that can only be achieved by (massively) increased membership.  Don't sit on the outside sniping when it's so easy to become part of the process.

If this is the best chance surely throwing shares away for nothing concrete in return is suicide?
The best thing for the trust to do is to prepare for life without Fenty and sit on its shares. The current losses are unsustainable and Mr Fenty will eventually have to stop loaning the club money and at some point the club will need a proactive trust, this is not that time they and Fenty are in danger of screwing up our most promising end to a season in years with off the field bollox.
The only way the trust will get massively increased membership is when the club is about to go pop.

Sometimes doing nothing is more effective than craching about trying to fix everything. The Trust IMO maybe felt a responsibility to act when really it was to early and unecessary for them to do anything.

Quoted from pier39

i agree we have far to many staff we have managers over managers cull that right down

WHS......We have two managers for a start !! Lets get rid of one of them....but which one? Hurst has won games while Scott has been banned so is proven to be able to win solo .......we need Hurst to give an irate rant to the fourth official on Saturday and get banned for a couple of games so we can see if Scott can operate on his own........

I do believe JF had hinted to the trust that members would maybe volunteer to man the turnstiles and other matchday roles and then pay to get in after as well which of course would cut operating costs while maintaining income.

How might each of us might feel if the same situation and chain of events arose in other professional or personal situations? Would it be quite differently morally? Fascinating post Golly, - I personally appreciated a different perspective and feel it is good, healthy and necessary to look at all points of view to better inform any decisions and thoughts.  There are profound assumptions based on the 'wisdom of crowds' that requires healthy challenge  

Quoted from Pongo

Golly Mrs Molly you've certainly taken this one apart.


My advice is to move on Mate and lets make sure the Trust plays a bigger role.

If the Trust continue to give away the shares to a shareholder with a significant holding already, just how do they play a bigger role?, surely their impact on the club will diminish.

copy of email sent to the Trust today. I await the answer with interest....(hope you don't mind the unattributed quotes golly!)


One further question: Re the £200,000 that Mr Fenty is spending on new shares. Earlier in the season it was stated by Mike Parker (and confirmed on the company accounts) that JF had so far put in £150,000 of his promised £500,000. He did this by way of a £75,000 loan and by purchasing a further £75,000 of shares.

From this it seems that the £150,000 he put in to see us through to January was actually money he had already pledged nearly a year previously, making his spend £300,000 of the £500,000 that each of them had agreed to spend.

Which leaves £200,000 left of his pledged £500,000 (to match Parker). So is the £200,000 share purchase simply the balance of his pledge from last year or is it brand new money? If the latter, when was the £200,000 balance paid and how?

Quoted from GollyGTFC

I posted this on the Grim Outlook and someone suggested it should get a wider audience. So here it is, slightly edited because I know you Fishy lot are sensitive/scared of Fenty objecting to a fans and shareholders opinion, for you to consider...



I know this whole issue has been touched upon in another post but I felt this statement and the issue in general deserves to be taken apart on its own thread.

And here it is in all it's glory...



A few points.

As I remember it Parker and Fenty agree to invest another £500,000 each to cover the latter part of 2010-11 and the 2011-12 season. Parker did this (despite having left the board in the mean time) by doubling his shareholding. He subsequently gifted these £500,000 of shares to the Supporter's Trust.

When all this rubbish kicked off earlier in the season it was stated by Parker (and confirmed on the company accounts) that Fenty had so far put in £150,000 of his promised £500,000. He did this by way of a £75,000 loan and by purchasing a further £75,000 of shares.

From this it seems that the £150,000 he so generously put in to see us through to January was actually money he had already pledged nearly a year previously.

Which leaves £200,000 left of his pledged £500,000 (to match Parker). Which funnily enough is what he is promising to invest if the Mariners Trust donate just under 40% of their shareholdings to our multi-millionaire former Chairman.

Now, it's bad enough that Fenty is holding a gun to the Mariners Trust board and hoping their inexperience will see them capitulate. But the fact that he is doing it over money he has previously promised makes his actions seem even more suspicious.

And he keeps mentioning this mythical "control returned to the boardroom" rubbish with every official statement he subjects us to.

Load of rubbish. When have the board of directors ever accounted for 50% of the shares in GTFC? Here's a run down from the end of year accounts stretching back to 2001. All figures are for May 31st of the year in question...

2001: 46.1%
2002: 44.7%
2003: 46.7%
2004: 34.2%
2005: 18.5%
2006: 42.2%
2007: 42.1%
2008: 42.0%
2009: 42.0%
2010: 42.1%
2011: 39.9%

And currently with in the region of £1.85 million of shares issued Fenty, Elsom and Chapman have 32.4% of the shares between them.

Now, if you add into the equation the £200,000 of shares that the Mariners Trust have given voting power to Fenty for the board room actually has 43.1% of votes.

So, actually the board has more direct control over the club (in terms of shareholder voting rights) than at anytime since 2003.

And these 2 single blocks of shares that leave all board members looking over their shoulders...

Well Parker has £500,000 of shares and the Mariners' Trust have approx £522,000. This equates to 55% of shares and therefore votes.

But wait a minute, the Trust have already given £200,000 of voting rights to Fenty haven't they? So actually Parker and the trust have £822,000 worth of shares to physically vote with between them. Which is only 44% of votes and not enough to force out any board member.

And anyhow are the Mariners Trust really going to try and force a director out? Of course they aren't. It's just an excuse for Fenty to water down Parker stake in the club, and pay half the market price for doing so. And he would get the Mariners Trust's power reduced as the cherry on the cake.

Here's how the shares would lie if Fenty gets his way...

Fenty 975,000
Elsom 25,500
Chapam 500

BOARD 1,001,000 (48.7%)

Trust 322,000
Parker 500,000
A.N.Other 234,000

NON-BOARD 1,056,000 (51.3%)

The board still wouldn't own the magical 50% of the shares in the club. Maybe Fenty could achieve that by asking for another load of shares from the Mariners Trust this time next year?

I just hope the Trust members tell Fenty where to go.



If you got to the end of that you have a longer attention span than me.

It's a great post Golly and a very interesting read... Maybe you will get a reply on the offical website from our saviour...

Quoted from forza ivano

good work golly. can someone confirm that golly's logic is correct? i.e. the £200,000 that jf has promised to put in is simply the money he had previously pledged. if so not only has he pulled the wool over the trust's eyes about the bennett transfer situation but he's got another 200,000 shares simply for fulfilling his previous agreement with MP! Obviuosly a trick he learnt from Gordon brown - all smoke and mirrors and never any new money, just recycling old pledges in new packages

What makes you think Wally Golly is right?? Good work my foot. The only broken agreement as i see it that Parker took control of Fenty in the first place in return for sharing in the funding of GTFC this is undeniable fact and was voted . Sombody posted the ageement on here the other month which was aparantly ratified at an AGM.

Quoted from STB

Like I mentioned recently, we have twice as many non-footballing staff as Scunny - this needs resolving!!

really are you sure and can you back this statement up as the Trust should take it on if its true. Please evidance this

Only then, when we can balance the books, will we be able to move forward and properly attract potential new investors.

Not being funny but who balances books repeatedly in football!!! you are joking surely

Quoted from crusty ole pie

You can quote history as much as you like, but it is the future we Are concerned about Parker has gone fenty is still here propping up our club love him or loath him one thing  is clear without him we would very quickly become The next Darlington.

well put imho Iam with you 100% if I was him and got all the slagging off he gets I would with draw and say enough your on your own I will have whats owed me but no he is honest unlike a certain share holder who threw his rattle and ran give him a go.
He as not done a bad job this season as he so far with SD&H and the players.utmD

Quoted from Squarkus

Not being funny but who balances books repeatedly in football!!! you are joking surely

Sorry but I'm with STB on this one.  As more and more clubs go into admin the 'Chester and Maidstone' scenarios will become commonplace.  It's just damn right naive to believe that any business can be run at a constant loss and rely on windfalls and sugar daddies to continue trading.  We all want success but surely not at any risk and total reliance on being a rich mans hobby.  The club simply has to find its feet financially and get into a position where it can be in control of it's own destiny.  The Trust in my opinion needs to become the custodian of common sense and use it's considerable influence effectively.

I'm really torn on the share situation, one part of me is saying do whatever it takes to keep the funding coming into the club, while the other part is saying call his bluff.  Mike Parker gifted a considerable share holding to the trust, effectively making Trust members part owners.  It isn't Mr Fentys personal possession, he simply has a larger ownership share and has put the club into a position where it is wholly liable to him.  Unfortunately there isn't a quick fix, at the moment we really do need John Fenty, or at least his money.  The only way forward is to change that.

Quoted from cleefish

he is honest unlike a certain share holder who threw his rattle and ran

Is that certain 'shareholder' the one who put in the £500,000 he promised (and in shares too not as a silly 'benign loan') unlike the 'honest' one, who only now is prepared to make his final investment of the £500,000 he also promised, but only in return for £200,000 worth of shares the other poor sucker paid for?

Quoted from cleefish

but no he is honest unlike a certain share holder who threw his rattle and ran

So you are calling Mr Parker dishonest then, I hope someone on here reports you to him and he sues the shitout of yourarse.

Quoted from cleefish

well put imho Iam with you 100% if I was him and got all the slagging off he gets I would with draw and say enough your on your own I will have whats owed me but no he is honest unlike a certain share holder who threw his rattle and ran give him a go.
He as not done a bad job this season as he so far with SD&H and the players.utmD

Listen, two rich boys played a game that none of us were party to and perhaps wouldn't understand if we were.  The only thing we have to go on are facts.  JF LOANED the club the vast majority of his input, he can call those loans in at any time.  Mike Parker BOUGHT shares which means he cannot get his money back unless he sells the remaining shares.  I have a very strong feeling that if it wasn't for John Fentys loans, then Mike Parker would still be on the scene trying to make sure that his INVESTMENT was being put to good use.  

Maybe it will take the Trust refusing to hand over their INHERITANCE, to see if John Fenty picks up his ball and goes home.  If he does and we end up as the next Darlo will Mike Parker then re-enter the fray?  I suspect so, but never while John Fenty has the clubs testicles gripped firmly in his fist.

Have a nice day.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Listen, two rich boys played a game that none of us were party to and perhaps wouldn't understand if we were.  The only thing we have to go on are facts.  JF LOANED the club the vast majority of his input, he can call those loans in at any time.  Mike Parker BOUGHT shares which means he cannot get his money back unless he sells the remaining shares.  I have a very strong feeling that if it wasn't for John Fentys loans, then Mike Parker would still be on the scene trying to make sure that his INVESTMENT was being put to good use.  

Maybe it will take the Trust refusing to hand over their INHERITANCE, to see if John Fenty picks up his ball and goes home.  If he does and we end up as the next Darlo will Mike Parker then re-enter the fray?  I suspect so, but never while John Fenty has the clubs testicles gripped firmly in his fist.

Have a nice day.

so you like to play russian roulett do you, as banded on previous posts if the club are in 3.5 million of debt, do you not think thats why MP scampered of, and where do you come from with investment, what lunatic would invest in a football club, JF does it because he first and formost is a fan and is passionate about GTFC and quite clearly a lunatic, we are enjoying the best spell of football we have seen in 10 years and all you can bang on about is shares ect ect, ffs wake up and smell the coffee, the only way forward is to back JF and the trust and see if we can get out of this sh t league.UTM

FFS.  Can we not draw a line under this poxy share issue and concentrate on the job in hand.  We have someone that is willing but still get this urine poor nit picking that could do more harm than good.  Believe me!

Quoted from Squarkus

so you like to play russian roulett do you, as banded on previous posts if the club are in 3.5 million of debt, do you not think thats why MP scampered of, and where do you come from with investment, what lunatic would invest in a football club, JF does it because he first and formost is a fan and is passionate about GTFC and quite clearly a lunatic, we are enjoying the best spell of football we have seen in 10 years and all you can bang on about is shares ect ect, ffs wake up and smell the coffee, the only way forward is to back JF and the trust and see if we can get out of this sh t league.UTM

Yes, the club are 3.5 million in debt, because of mis-management.  By the way, I don't drink coffee, I prefer tea, without sweeteners of course.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Yes, the club are 3.5 million in debt, because of mis-management.  By the way, I don't drink coffee, I prefer tea, without sweeteners of course.

Hang on just a cotton picking minute, where does the £3.5million debt come from Leighton i don't understand.

Last Years accounts show the operating shareholders funds at minus £1.068million at May 2011 which is an improvement over minus £1.128million at May 2010 the year before.

I have PMd Shareholder to verify that this is the position of the balance sheet as i read the accounts.

Some interesting info as i look through them. To start with player acquisitions were 30k which i guess is Liam Hearn (terrific Value and business i would say)

Fenty has guarantees to the Bank to support Bank Loans of £325k plus some heavy loans

Should we cut some slack when you think about problems inherited by Fenty
ITV Dgital £2.5mill times 2 years (£5million)
£700 k Tax debt inherited from previous administration

Don't know what i am talking about, as don't others i suspect.

Some are banging on about breaking even, do you do that solely on trading? do you include speculative income from player sales, cup runs etc.

Bet its no a science with gate variance etc.

Not so long ago i recall some having a right go at Fenty for forecasting 3000 gates. Since the turn of fortune have we not massively improved on this when some were saying it should be as low as 2000 and 2500.

Suspect a little speculation might pay off at some stage and lets hope its going to now because there isn't too many with Fenty's balls as i see it.

Maybe we should give his Balls some slack bet Mrs F would like that.

Quoted from Pongo

Hang on just a cotton picking minute, where does the £3.5million debt come from Leighton i don't understand.

Last Years accounts show the operating shareholders funds at minus £1.068million at May 2011 which is an improvement over minus £1.128million at May 2010 the year before.

I have PMd Shareholder to verify that this is the position of the balance sheet as i read the accounts.

Some interesting info as i look through them. To start with player acquisitions were 30k which i guess is Liam Hearn (terrific Value and business i would say)

Fenty has guarantees to the Bank to support Bank Loans of £325k plus some heavy loans

Should we cut some slack when you think about problems inherited by Fenty
ITV Dgital £2.5mill times 2 years (£5million)
£700 k Tax debt inherited from previous administration

Don't know what i am talking about, as don't others i suspect.

Some are banging on about breaking even, do you do that solely on trading? do you include speculative income from player sales, cup runs etc.

Bet its no a science with gate variance etc.

Not so long ago i recall some having a right go at Fenty for forecasting 3000 gates. Since the turn of fortune have we not massively improved on this when some were saying it should be as low as 2000 and 2500.

Suspect a little speculation might pay off at some stage and lets hope its going to now because there isn't too many with Fenty's balls as i see it.

Maybe we should give his Balls some slack bet Mrs F would like that.

Bet Mrs F would like to give him a kicking in his sack for all the sh*t he brings home.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

I posted this on the Grim Outlook and someone suggested it should get a wider audience. So here it is, slightly edited because I know you Fishy lot are sensitive/scared of Fenty objecting to a fans and shareholders opinion, for you to consider...

With an offensive, patronising opening to a post like that you're bound to get people onside. But nevermind, I will continue reading and I look forward to the part where you propose an alternative plan of action to negotiating/not insulting the one person on the planet who is able and willing to financially support the club.

Quoted from MeanwoodMariner

With an offensive, patronising opening to a post like that you're bound to get people onside. But nevermind, I will continue reading and I look forward to the part where you propose an alternative plan of action to negotiating/not insulting the one person on the planet who is able and willing to financially support the club.

I think your last point is a valid one.

I have already voted 'Yes' for the simple reason that i cannot see any alternative. There are some good points made as to why the trust members shouldn't support John Fenty BUT i have yet to read anyone put up a reasoned alternative.

It is easy to say don't do this or that but have an alternative.

I think the Trust influence will be best used if in trying to control the spending from the inside.

I'd just like to clarify that the Trust board have not been hoodwinked by anyone.

There is virtually nothing contained within any of the threads on any forum I have seen that was not mentioned, brought  up, debated, discussed or even argued about. The Trust board came to a MAJORITY verdict, not a unanimous one. One board member has publicly declared how he voted and why, another nearly resigned his position because he voted no. As much as this has been debated on the forums, it was debated by the Trust board, I can 100% assure anyone of that.

Quoted from sonik

Bet Mrs F would like to give him a kicking in his sack for all the sh*t he brings home.

Bet a lot of fans would like to kick the same sac for 10 years of crap.  HOWEVER, if he's finally got it right, and it looks that way, I forgive him.  

Quoted from headingly_mariner

The decision will have an impact on the that should concern all fans not just the 300 who have put money into the trust. I waited to see what the aims of the new trust would be before i joined and i am not satisfied that me joining a the trust will give me any more voice than i already have. The Trust have shown themselves to be naive and weak and their aims are not consistent with what a supporters trust should be in my opinion.

With regards to the thread Golly has made some excellent points and has raised the real issues as to why the club has not been taken on by anyone else.

Please seek to join the Trust board and I guarantee you will see things differently.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

There's nothing wrong with your opinion but, yesterday's investments are yesterday's news.  MP did invest heavily but it appears he isn't going to in the future.  JF for all his poor decisions is still here and prepared to put his money where his mouth is.  I don't see any option but to back him (and the Trust) unless a clear alternative shows.  Particularly in the present bright spot.

In other words, don't let the facts get in the way of opinions?

Quoted from forza ivano

copy of email sent to the Trust today. I await the answer with interest....(hope you don't mind the unattributed quotes golly!)


One further question: Re the £200,000 that Mr Fenty is spending on new shares. Earlier in the season it was stated by Mike Parker (and confirmed on the company accounts) that JF had so far put in £150,000 of his promised £500,000. He did this by way of a £75,000 loan and by purchasing a further £75,000 of shares.

From this it seems that the £150,000 he put in to see us through to January was actually money he had already pledged nearly a year previously, making his spend £300,000 of the £500,000 that each of them had agreed to spend.

Which leaves £200,000 left of his pledged £500,000 (to match Parker). So is the £200,000 share purchase simply the balance of his pledge from last year or is it brand new money? If the latter, when was the £200,000 balance paid and how?

Its a fantastic question Forza, I know you had a very prompt reply from Dave Roberts.

It's a question I have asked myself and never gotten a satisfactory answer to. What happened to the budget being agreed and funded for this year? Where has the shortfall come from, and why do minutes of the agreed deal not to exist/not been made public to clarify what was agreed and when.

Far too many questions unanswered for my comfort, and, like so many others, I am angry and frustrated that just as things might seem to be looking better on the pitch, this comes along and plays party pooper. I long for the day when GTFC is not dependant upon one person for its funding, and in fact long for a day where external funding being a requirement may well become a thing of the past.

Quoted from crusty ole pie

You can quote history as much as you like, but it is the future we Are concerned about Parker has gone fenty is still here propping up our club love him or loath him one thing  is clear without him we would very quickly become The next Darlington.

The points Golly was making, is firstly that Fenty is only spending money already pledged, and secondly that control has not been held by the board for years.

Quoted from RonMariner

The fact is that JF is currently the only person willing to put cash into the club. In order to do that he wants a bigger stake in the club, which is fair enough.  I wouldn't invest in the club under his current circumstance, and no one else will either. Without JF we would be another Kettering or Darlington.

We now have a good management team, a fine squad, and a generous and committed benefactor. Let's get behind them all.

Part of what Golly was saying is that the new cash he's pledging is money already committed to in his deal with Parker. It's a bit like saying the bloke who pays his bills after everyone else is the only one currently paying.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

The points Golly was making, is firstly that Fenty is only spending money already pledged, and secondly that control has not been held by the board for years.

Read his post that you quoted 'love him or loathe him'.  We all have opinions, Sadly that's fuelled by the internet mis-information era.  However, opinions aside in one form or another he's put a fortune into the club.  That's a fact, to see if I believe it's been done effectively just check my other posts.  He's still here and there still isn't an alternative so let's use the Trust as a vehicle to influence.

I also thing Rob's/The Fishy's coverage of the share issue is excrement by the way. He is so biased it is unbelievable and makes his opinions sound like they are factual. They are not facts, merely assumptions, that's all.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Read his post that you quoted 'love him or loathe him'.  We all have opinions, Sadly that's fuelled by the internet mis-information era.  However, opinions aside in one form or another he's put a fortune into the club.  That's a fact, to see if I believe it's been done effectively just check my other posts.  He's still here and there still isn't an alternative so let's use the Trust as a vehicle to influence.

There is an argument that the Trust will be less influential with less shares. Others believe by settling this situation, the Trust will ensure a much better working relationship with JF. What is certainly true is that the trust will only be as influential as JF allows them to be, he'll never give anything away he doesnt want to give away. The only way the Trust can TRULY influence is if as many people as possible join up. Barralad made this pooint previously, and the Trust promotional papers say it too, that together, we are stronger. A cliche I know but still true non the less.

There are some very able minds on this forum, and I'd love to see some of them actively involved with the trust.

Quoted from LeightonMariner

Read his post that you quoted 'love him or loathe him'.  We all have opinions, Sadly that's fuelled by the internet mis-information era.  However, opinions aside in one form or another he's put a fortune into the club.  That's a fact, to see if I believe it's been done effectively just check my other posts.  He's still here and there still isn't an alternative so let's use the Trust as a vehicle to influence.

Don't disagree with the highlighted bit Leighton. Two questions that arise from that:
(a) it depends on which way you want to influence him;
(b) is the proposed gifting of shares the best way to influence him.

Part of the relevance of Golly's history lesson is to highlight apparent weaknesses in the arguments about "putting control back in the boardroom" and  clarifying whether the extra £200k really is new money.  If he's right then it undermines the rationale for the deal and the credibility of the statement. Shaky ground is no basis for a good decision.

Quoted from Squarkus

What makes you think Wally Golly is right??

Good one. I'm sure Golly feels well and truly put in his place with that one.

Quoted from Squarkus

so you like to play russian roulett do you, as banded on previous posts if the club are in 3.5 million of debt, do you not think thats why MP scampered of, and where do you come from with investment, what lunatic would invest in a football club, JF does it because he first and formost is a fan and is passionate about GTFC and quite clearly a lunatic, we are enjoying the best spell of football we have seen in 10 years and all you can bang on about is shares ect ect, ffs wake up and smell the coffee, the only way forward is to back JF and the trust and see if we can get out of this sh t league.UTM

The game of Russian roulette was already started when this whole fiasco kicked off. The Trust Board blinked first.

As for the question of who would invest in a football club, you've partly answered this yourself. The other one was Mike Parker. Also in a small way, every other shareholder, inc the Trust from day one of its existence.

As for people banging on about shares, well that is kind of the whole point of the issue. The Trust Board has proposed a major transfer of shares from common ownership to a club director. How can people fail to "bang on" about it whether for or against. If they'd never proposed it, we wouldn't be bangng on about it.

To coin a popular phrase, if you don't fackin like it darnt fackin read a thread called "Reply to 'The  Share Issue....'"

Quoted from Chris

I'd just like to clarify that the Trust board have not been hoodwinked by anyone.

There is virtually nothing contained within any of the threads on any forum I have seen that was not mentioned, brought  up, debated, discussed or even argued about. The Trust board came to a MAJORITY verdict, not a unanimous one. One board member has publicly declared how he voted and why, another resigned his position because he voted no. As much as this has been debated on the forums, it was debated by the Trust board, I can 100% assure anyone of that.

Must have missed something here Chris. Who was it?  Not mentioned on the Trust site as far as I can see.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Must have missed something here Chris. Who was it?  Not mentioned on the Trust site as far as I can see.

Argh. must proof read! Should read "nearly resigned because he voted no". Apologies.

The other member who declared how he voted was Barralad, on here on another thread a few days ago, and he explained his reasoning in full. Pretty persuasive arguments were made by him.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Don't disagree with the highlighted bit Leighton. Two questions that arise from that:
(a) it depends on which way you want to influence him;
(b) is the proposed gifting of shares the best way to influence him.

Part of the relevance of Golly's history lesson is to highlight apparent weaknesses in the arguments about "putting control back in the boardroom" and  clarifying whether the extra £200k really is new money.  If he's right then it undermines the rationale for the deal and the credibility of the statement. Shaky ground is no basis for a good decision.

The answer to b. In my opinion is no.

Quoted from Chris

Argh. must proof read! Should read "nearly resigned because he voted no". Apologies.

The other member who declared how he voted was Barralad, on here on another thread a few days ago, and he explained his reasoning in full. Pretty persuasive arguments were made by him.

Phew!

If Fenty was a town player, he may not be the most consistent or skilful in the team but he'd put a shift in every game and he'd stay at the club no matter what.

Quoted from STB

If Fenty was a town player, he may not be the most consistent or skilful in the team but he'd put a shift in every game and he'd stay at the club no matter what.

Like Makofo?  

Quoted from STB

If Fenty was a town player, he may not be the most consistent or skilful in the team but he'd put a shift in every game and he'd stay at the club no matter what.

No, if Fenty was a Town player he would have been the first to have his contract paid up in full.

Quoted from TWAreaTownSupporter

Part of what Golly was saying is that the new cash he's pledging is money already committed to in his deal with Parker. It's a bit like saying the bloke who pays his bills after everyone else is the only one currently paying.

Parker broke the deal by fu king of,sholder to sholder was the deal not just for this season but for the future of GTFC he was the owner when all said and done, so as i look at it fenty is still the lone ranger picking up the tab, by the way can i be the first to kick his balls.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

No, if Fenty was a Town player he would have been the first to have his contract paid up in full.

so you dont admire him then jolly dolly.

Quoted from Squarkus

Parker broke the deal by fu king of,sholder to sholder was the deal not just for this season but for the future of GTFC he was the owner when all said and done, so as i look at it fenty is still the lone ranger picking up the tab, by the way can i be the first to kick his balls.

Can you kick your own balls?  

Quoted from STB

If Fenty was a town player, he may not be the most consistent or skilful in the team but he'd put a shift in every game and he'd stay at the club no matter what.

bit like ronnie bull put a shift in most weeks but was utter crap

Quoted from Squarkus

Parker broke the deal by fu king of,sholder to sholder was the deal not just for this season but for the future of GTFC he was the owner when all said and done, so as i look at it fenty is still the lone ranger picking up the tab, by the way can i be the first to kick his balls.

Just a point. Parker and Fenty agreed a budget up to the end of this season. And both agreed to invest £500,000 to bridge the funding gap. Mike Parker, despite leaving the board a year ago and having no influence, kept to his word and invested £500,000 in shares. That money is funding this season (right until the end of May) just as much as John Fenty is. Infact John Fenty hasn't invested the full £500,000 yet has he? And now he is holding the Trust to ransom over the final £200,000 or so.

And there was no deal beyond this season. Parker has done everything he promised in terms of financing the club.

Without Mike Parker's money we would have had a hugely reduced playing budget this season. We wouldn't have been able to afford the fee to buy Liam Hearn. We wouldn't have been able to assemble the squad we have paying good money to key players like Disley, Elding and Miller. I very much doubt we would be sat 1 point off the play-offs with a game in hand and thinking we might reach Wembley twice.

Whatever we achieve this season Parker deserves equal credit with Fenty for financing it.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Just a point. Parker and Fenty agreed a budget up to the end of this season. And both agreed to invest £500,000 to bridge the funding gap. Yes in loans not equity (shares)


Mike Parker, despite leaving the board a year ago and having no influence. Agreed no influence

kept to his word and invested £500,000 in shares. His agreement with fenty was to provide loans and share in the funding going forward lets get it right.

In-fact John Fenty hasn't invested the full £500,000 yet has he? Evidence please

And now he is holding the Trust to ransom over the final £200,000 or so. The trust have said they made proposals to fenty so dont see the ransom position you refer to. They didn't have to do anything then what would you have said if fenty in December as funding dried up Fcd/OFFFF

And there was no deal beyond this season. Parker has done everything he promised in terms of financing the club. Has he really. Someone posted an agreement on here a few months ago which implicitly said they were jointly funding the future of the club.

Without Mike Parker's money we would have had a hugely reduced playing budget this season. Wood we really!!! has fenty not provide competitive budgets every season then.

We wouldn't have been able to afford the fee to buy Liam Hearn. Really so fenty has always short changed the club than

We wouldn't have been able to assemble the squad we have paying good money to key players like Disley, Elding and Miller. You mean provide addition money for players like fenty has just recently which include Miller, Soars, Hughes-Mason

Whatever we achieve this season Parker deserves equal credit with Fenty for financing it. Really and what about turning the club on its head for a none issue and pulling the rip cord!!! Go on!!.

balderdash with bells on Golly. I dont like fenty but your blowing smoke up the wrong one here, if things do go well fenty deserves the credit, not your knight.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Just a point. Parker and Fenty agreed a budget up to the end of this season. And both agreed to invest £500,000 to bridge the funding gap. Mike Parker, despite leaving the board a year ago and having no influence, kept to his word and invested £500,000 in shares. That money is funding this season (right until the end of May) just as much as John Fenty is. Infact John Fenty hasn't invested the full £500,000 yet has he? And now he is holding the Trust to ransom over the final £200,000 or so.

And there was no deal beyond this season. Parker has done everything he promised in terms of financing the club.

This is the question that most needs answering IMO.

As I can recall, Mr Fenty said that the agremeent was for he and Parker to put £500,000 in in loans, whilst Mr Parker said they had agreed to do this in shares. So when Parker bought shares and Fenty didnt, this is when this merry go round began spinning out of control. At this point, Parker owns over 50% of the shares, Fenty refused to put money into "someone elses" club, and GTFC was due to run out of money in December.

My question is, who is telling the truth about how this seasons budget was to be funded?

Why were no minutes of the agreement taken? And if minutes do exisit, in the interests of honesty and openness, would it not be a good idea to have them published?

For me, this situation was created by either Mike Parker, John Fenty or a combination of them both. The supporters of GTFC deserve to know the truth about this agreement, and while I am sure Squarkus will come and tell me to take my head out my bottom again, this question needs answering honestly by both parties.

Quoted from Informer the real one

balderdash with bells on Golly. I dont like fenty but your blowing smoke up the wrong one here, if things do go well fenty deserves the credit, not your knight.

How many log ins do you have, John???

Quoted from Chris

This is the question that most needs answering IMO.

As I can recall, Mr Fenty said that the agremeent was for he and Parker to put £500,000 in in loans, whilst Mr Parker said they had agreed to do this in shares. So when Parker bought shares and Fenty didnt, this is when this merry go round began spinning out of control. At this point, Parker owns over 50% of the shares, Fenty refused to put money into "someone elses" club, and GTFC was due to run out of money in December.

My question is, who is telling the truth about how this seasons budget was to be funded?

Why were no minutes of the agreement taken? And if minutes do exisit, in the interests of honesty and openness, would it not be a good idea to have them published?

For me, this situation was created by either Mike Parker, John Fenty or a combination of them both. The supporters of GTFC deserve to know the truth about this agreement, and while I am sure Squarkus will come and tell me to take my head out my bottom again, this question needs answering honestly by both parties.

the trust should ask the relevant questions and get it out in the open,something i suspect mr fenty wont be over keen to do

Quoted from Informer the real one

balderdash with bells on Golly. I dont like fenty but your blowing smoke up the wrong one here, if things do go well fenty deserves the credit, not your knight.

fenty? fentys brother? his doris?

Quoted from Chris

For me, this situation was created by either Mike Parker, John Fenty or a combination of them both. The supporters of GTFC deserve to know the truth about this agreement, and while I am sure Squarkus will come and take my head out my bottom again, this question needs answering honestly by both parties.

Chris this might answer you question i got it from a link posted a few months ago. A letter to the shareholders.

It clearly sets out the intentions regarding funding the future from Mr Fenty and Mr Parker. I don't get why these questions rumble on. When Mr Parke left the Board for what ever reason he clearly stated that he wanted shares which gave him control and soon after stated he was not coming back or pledging further funding.

A bit long sorry i haven't got time to edit it down.  

THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.
If you are in any doubt as to the action you should take you are recommended to seek your
own personal financial advice from your Stockbroker, Bank Manager, Solicitor, Accountant
or other independent financial adviser authorised pursuant to the Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000.
If you have sold or otherwise transferred all of your shares in the Grimsby Town Football Club plc
please forward this document and the accompanying documents at once to the purchaser or
transferee or to the agent through whom the sale or transfer was effected for transmission to the
purchaser transferee.
______________________________________________________________________________
THE GRIMSBY TOWN FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Approval for Waiver of obligation under Rule 9
Of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers
______________________________________________________________________________
Notice of the Annual General Meeting of the Grimsby Town Football Club plc to be held in the
Executive Lounge, Blundell Park, Cleethorpes on 30th September 2010 at 10 a.m. is included with
the Annual Report and Accounts which accompany this document. The proxy form accompanying
the Annual Report and Accounts for use in connection with the Annual General Meeting should be
completed and returned in accordance with the instructions thereon. Proxy forms are also
available from the company’s website http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/accounts2. Completed proxy forms
must be received no later than 10 a.m. on 28th September 2010.
The recommendations of the Independent Directors on the resolution referred to in this document
are set out on Page 3 of this document.
Weaver Wroot, Chartered Certified Accountants are acting for The Grimsby Town Football Club plc
through its Independent Directors and no one else in relation to the Rule 9 Waiver and will not be
responsible to any person other than The Grimsby Town Football Club plc through its Independent
Directors for providing advice in relation to the Rule 9 Waiver or in relation to the contents of this
document or any transactions or arrangement referred to in this document.
______________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Page
PART I Letter from the Chairman 1
PART II Additional information 4
1
PART I
LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN
THE GRIMSBY TOWN FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
(Registered in England and Wales No. 34760)
Directors Registered Office
J. S. Fenty (Chairman) Blundell Park
M. Chapman (Director) Cleethorpes
J. Elsom (Director) North East Lincolnshire
P. W. Furneaux (Director) DN35 7PY
M. Parker (Director)
6th September 2010
Dear Shareholder
Approval for Waiver of Obligation under Rule 9 of the City Code
On Takeovers and Mergers
Introduction
The Company’s Annual Report together with this document is being posted and is available on the
company’s website, http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/accounts2 to Shareholders today. Included with the
Annual Report is a Notice convening the Annual General Meeting which is to be held in the
Executive Lounge, Blundell Park, Cleethorpes at 10 a.m. on 30th September 2010. The purpose of
this document is to inform Shareholders that for the reasons outlined below a resolution seeking
the approval of the Independent Shareholders for a waiver of the obligation on the Concert Party
(as defined in Part II, Page 4 of this document) to make a general offer to the Shareholders under
Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers will be proposed at the aforementioned Annual
General Meeting.
You will observe from the Annual Report and Accounts that at 31st May 2010 there continues to be
a deficiency of Shareholders funds.
I have stated previously on many occasions that I have no desire to increase my percentage
shareholding in the Company and effectively become the owner of the Football Club, but whilst I
am so heavily committed to providing financial support to the Company that it is appropriate that I
have effective voting control until such time as other interested parties express a desire to assist
with the financial burden of securing the long term future of Grimsby Town Football Club.
We are fortunate that Mike Parker has joined the Board and has committed himself to provide
substantial financial support. He has already invested £500,000. As a consequence Mike and I
have reached an agreement to equalise our shareholdings so that we share the financial
commitment for the future funding of Grimsby Town Football Club equally between us.
We have agreed between us that:-
· Mike will convert £499,000 of the monies he has already invested into Shares
· I will convert £242,816 of my existing loans into Shares
2
· Helen Laight’s shareholding will be transferred to me
Following this Mike and I will both have Shares to the value of £500,000 which will represent
approximately 39.9% each of the Issued Share Capital of the Company which will then be just over
£1.25M.
This is a major investment, providing medium to long term financial support to assist the Club with
survival, growth and development in order to provide the best opportunity to regain Football
League status. This will also strengthen the Balance Sheet by removing debt and increasing the
Company’s Capital base.
We are also aware that although the Bank is fully secured, given the current environment all Banks
are looking to reduce their exposure to debt and improve their liquidity.
Both Mike and I remain fully committed to widening share ownership for anyone who wishes to
own part of the Club they support, or anyone who wishes to join us to assist with securing the long
term future of Grimsby Town Football Club. However it is only reasonable for those who are taking
on the burden of financing the Club are those that have effective voting control.
The Concert Party (as defined in Part II, Page 4 of this document) being myself, Mike Parker and
Helen Laight are excluded from voting on the resolution.
Accordingly I hope that all the Independent Shareholders will support these proposals to ensure
that the substantial investment already made by Mike can form the basis of an agreement between
us to secure the future of Grimsby Town Football Club.
The Takeover Code and the Waiver Resolution (Resolution 4) to grant approval for the Rule
9 Waiver
The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers is issued on behalf of the Panel on Takeovers and
Mergers. The Code is designed principally to ensure fair and equal treatment of all Shareholders
in relation to takeovers. The Code also provides an orderly framework within which takeovers are
conducted. The Code applies to offers for all listed and unlisted public companies considered by
the Panel to be resident in the United Kingdom, therefore the Code applies to The Grimsby Town
Football Club plc.
Under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code (the “Code”), any person who acquires an interest (as defined
in the Code) in shares which, taken together with shares in which he is already interested in with
persons acting in concert with him are interested, which carry 30 per cent or more of the voting
rights of a company which is subject to the Code, is normally required to make a general offer to all
the remaining shareholders to acquire their shares.
An offer under Rule 9 must be made in cash and at the highest price paid by the person required
to make the offer, or any person acting in concert with him, for any interest in shares of the
company during the 12 months prior to the announcement of the offer.
The members of the Concert Part (as defined in Part II, Page 4 of this document) are deemed to
be acting in concert for the purpose of the Code. On completion of the proposed issue of new
shares, the members of the Concert Party will between them be interested in 1,000,000 shares,
representing approximately 79.8% of the company’s enlarged issued share capital.
The Panel has agreed, however, to waive the obligation to make a general offer that would
otherwise arise as a result of the agreement between myself and Michael Parker, subject to the
approval of the Independent Shareholders. Accordingly Resolution 4 is being proposed at the
annual general meeting and will be taken on a poll. As noted above, the Concert Party will be
excluded from voting on the resolution.
3
Following the issue of the new shares, the members of the Concert Party will hold between
them more than 50% of the Company’s issued share capital and for so long as they
continue to be treated as acting in concert may accordingly increase their aggregate
shareholding without incurring any further obligation under Rule 9, to make a general offer,
although individual members of the Concert Party will not be able to increase their
percentage shareholding through or between a Rule 9 threshold without Panel consent.
Further information
Your attention is drawn to the additional information set out in Part II of this document and the
documents that will be available for inspection at the annual general meeting and are available on
the company’s website at http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/accounts2
Recommendations
The Independent Directors, who have been so advised by Weaver Wroot, believe that obtaining
the Rule 9 Waiver is fair and reasonable, in the best interests of the Independent Shareholders
and the company as a whole. In providing advice to the Independent Directors Weaver Wroot
have taken into account the Independent Directors’ commercial assessments. The Independent
Directors, therefore, recommend that the Independent Shareholders vote in favour of the Waiver
Resolution and approve the Rule 9 Waiver. The Independent Directors, who hold 1,500 shares
representing 0.30% of the Company’s issued share capital, will be voting in favour of the Waiver
Resolution.
Yours faithfully
John Fenty
Chairman
4
PART II
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. OFFEROR
In accordance with Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, the offeror in
respect of the proposals outlined in these documents is deemed to be Michael Parker. He
is aged 56, was born in Grimsby and has spent his working life in the seafood industry;
specialising in processing and marketing, culminating in serving as the Deputy Chief
Executive of the Findus Group, the largest food company in Europe.
Assuming the proposals outlined in these documents are approved by the independent
shareholders, the offeror will be sharing with John Fenty, Director and Chairman of the
company, the financial commitment for the future funding of Grimsby Town Football Club to
provide the best opportunity to regain the club’s football league status. Therefore, there are
no plans for any material changes in the nature of company’s business activities or
corporate structure, other than as a consequence of the proposals outlined in these
documents or the company’s staffing requirements that are inconsistent with the objectives
of the agreement reached between John Fenty and Michael Parker for the survival, growth
and development of the company and to provide the best opportunity for Grimsby Town
Football Club to regain football league status.
2. Information on the Concert Party
The deemed Concert Party in respect of this matter are John Fenty, Michael Parker and
Helen Laight. Helen Laight is John Fenty’s fiancée. Their individual beneficial
shareholdings in the issued share capital of the company are as follows:-
Current shareholding Percentage of current
in units of £1 issued share capital
John Fenty 212,889 41.68%
Helen Laight 44,295 8.67%
Michael Parker 1,000 0.20%
_______ _____
258,184 50.55%
====== =====
The Independent Shareholders, excluding the Independent Directors as disclosed in Note 5
below hold 251,046 representing 49.15% of the current issued share capital.
John Fenty proposes to subscribe for 242,816 shares in the Company at a price of £1 per
share; Michael Parker proposes to subscribe for 499,000 shares in the Company at a price
of £1 per share; Helen Laight’s entire shareholding will be transferred to John Fenty.
Therefore, the individual beneficial shareholdings of the Concert Party after any allotment
of shares in pursuance of the waiver proposal will be as follows:-
5
Shareholding Percentage of the enlarged
in units of £1 issued share capital
John Fenty 500,000 39.92%
Michael Parker 500,000 39.92%
________ _____
1,000,000 79.84%
======== =====
The Independent Shareholders, excluding the Independent Directors as disclosed in Note 5
below will hold 251,046 representing 20.05% of the enlarged issued share capital
3. Responsibility
The Directors’ whose names are set out in paragraph 4 below accept responsibility for the
information contained in this document. To the best of the knowledge and belief of the
Directors (who have taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case) the
information contained in this document is in accordance with the facts and does not omit
anything likely to affect the import of such information. Michael Parker also accepts
responsibility for the information contained in this document, and to the best of his
knowledge and belief (having taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case)
that the information contained in this document is in accordance with the facts and does not
omit anything likely to affect the import of such information.
4. The Directors of the Company
4.1 The names of the Directors are as follows:-
John Fenty (Chairman) Michael Chapman (Director)
John Elsom (Director) Peter Furneaux (Director)
Michael Parker (Director)
4.2 The Company’s Registered Office is Blundell Park, Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire,
DN35 7PY
5. Share capital, disclosable interests and dealings in shares
5.1 For the purposes of this paragraph 5:
“acting in concert” has the meaning attributed to it in the Takeover Code.
“arrangement” includes any indemnity or option arrangements, and any agreement or
understanding, formal or informal, of whatever nature, relating to relevant securities which
may be an inducement to deal or refrain from dealing.
“connected adviser” has the meaning attributed to it in the Takeover Code.
“connected person” has the meaning attributed to it in Section 252 of the Companies Act
2006.
“control” means an interest, or interests in shares carrying in aggregate 30 per cent or more
of the voting rights attributable to the share capital of a company which are currently
exercisable at a General Meeting , irrespective of whether such interest or interests give de
facto control.
“dealing” or “dealt” includes the following:
6
a) the acquisition or disposal of relevant securities, of the right (whether conditional or
absolute) to exercise or direct the exercise of voting rights attached to relevant
securities, or of general control of relevant securities;
b) the taking, granting, acquisition, disposal, entering into, closing out, termination,
exercise (by either party) or variation of an option (including a traded option contract) in
respect of any relevant securities;
c) subscribing or agreeing to subscribe for relevant securities;
d) the exercise of conversion of any relevant securities carrying conversion or
subscription rights;
e) the acquisition of, disposal of, entering into, closing out, exercise (by either party) of
any rights under, or variation of, a derivative referenced, directly or indirectly to relevant
securities;
f) entering into, terminating or varying the terms of any agreement to purchase or sell
relevant securities; and
g) any other action resulting, or which may result, in an increase or decrease in the
number of relevant securities in which a person is interested or in respect of which he
has a short position.
“derivative” includes any financial product whose value in whole or in part is determined
directly or indirectly by reference to the price of an underlying security but which does not
include the possibility of delivery of such underlying security.
“disclosure date” means 5th September 2010, being the latest practicable date prior to the
posting of this document.
“disclosure period” means the period commencing on 6th September 2009, being the date
12 months prior to the date of the posting and availability of this document and ending on
the disclosure date.
“exempt principal trader” or “exempt fund manager” has the meaning attributed to it in the
Takeover Code.
being “interested” in relevant securities includes where a person:
a) owns relevant securites;
b) has the right (whether conditional or absolute) to exercise or direct the exercise of the
voting rights attaching to relevant securities or has general control of them;
c) by virtue of any agreement to purchase, option or derivative, has the right or option to
acquire relevant securities or call for their delivery or is under an obligation or take
delivery of them, whether the right, option or obligation is conditional or absolute and
whether it is in money or otherwise; or
d) is party to any derivative whose value is determined by reference to its price and which
results, or may result, in this having a long position in it.
“relevant securities” means shares in the Company (or derivatives referenced thereto) and
securities convertible into, rights to subscribe for and options (including trading options) in
respect thereof.
“short position” means any short position (whether conditional or absolute and whether in
money or otherwise) including any short position under a derivative, any agreement to sell
or any delivery obligation or right to require another person to purchase or take delivery.
5.2 At the Annual General Meeting of the Company held on 27th November 2009, the Directors
were unconditionally authorised generally to allot at any time during the period of five years
from that date any relevant securities of the Company free of any pre-emption rights.
7
At the aforementioned Annual General Meeting, the shareholders unanimously approved a
resolution amending the Company’s Articles of Association revoking any provision in the
Articles setting out the maximum amount of Shares that may be allotted by the Company
so that there shall be no such maximum amount.
Therefore, an unlimited amount of unissued shares are at the disposal of the Directors who
may allot, grant options over, offer or otherwise deal with or dispose of to such persons at
such times and generally on such terms and conditions as they may determine, provided
always that the Shares of the Company shall not be allotted at a discount.
Details of Shares allotted under the Directors’ authority granted on 27th November 2009
have been included in the Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31st May 2010.
No shares have been allotted between 31st May 2010 and the date of this document.
Details of the individual beneficial shareholdings of the deemed Concert Party have been
disclosed in note 2 above.
5.3 As at the close of business on the disclosure date, the interests of the directors and their
immediate families and the interests of persons connected with them in the issued share
capital of the company were as follows:-
Shareholding Percentage of current
in units of £1 issued share capital
Michael Chapman 500 0.10%
John Elsom 500 0.10%
John Fenty 257,184 50.35%
Peter Furneaux 500 0.10%
Michael Parker 1,000 0.20%
5.4 As at the close of business on the disclosure date:-
(i) none of the members of the Concert Party or their associates had a right to
subscribe for, or had any short position in relation to, any shares of the company;
(ii) none of the members of the Concert Party or their associates had any interest in or
a right to subscribe for, or had any short position in relation to, any shares of the
company, nor had they dealt in any shares of the company;
(iii) no other person acting in concert with the Concert Party had any interest in or a
right to subscribe for, or had any short position in relation to, any shares of the
company, nor had they dealt in any shares of the company during the disclosure
period;
(iv) neither the Concert Party nor any person acting in concert with the Concert Party
had borrowed or lent any shares of the company, save for any borrowed shares
which have been on-lent or sold;
(v) neither the Company nor any Directors (including any members of such Directors’
respective immediate families, related trusts or connected persons) had any
interests in or right to subscribe for, or had any short position in relation to, any
shares in any member of the Concert Party being a corporate body (or derivatives
referenced thereto) and securities convertible into, rights to subscribe for and
options (including trading options) in respect thereof;
(vi) none of the Directors (including any members of such Directors’ respective
immediate families, related trusts or connected persons) had any interests in or
right to subscribe for, or had any short position in relation to, any shares of the
8
Company and securities convertible into, rights to subscribe for and options
(including traded options) in respect thereof;
(vii) no other persons (including any members of such persons’ respective immediate
families, related trusts or connected persons) acting in concert with the Company
had any interests in or right to subscribe for, or had any short position in relation to
any shares of the Company and securities convertible into, rights to subscribe for
and options (including traded options) in respect thereof; and
(viii) no person acting in concert with the Company has borrowed or lent any shares of
the company, save for any borrowed shares with have been on-lent or sold.
(ix) There have been very few share transfers registered within the disclosure period.
Any such transfers are generally those arising from the winding up of a deceased
shareholders’ financial affairs.
6. Directors’ service contract and other interests
6.1 The Company’s Directors receive no remuneration in their capacity as Directors and
accordingly have no formal service agreement with the Company. They are entitled to be
reimbursed for expenses incurred on the Company’s behalf.
6.2 The Annual Report and Accounts provides information on an aggregate basis in respect of all
transactions between the Company and its Directors and any party associated with the
Directors, together with details of the pension contributions relating to the contingent liability
in respect of John Fenty.
6.3 The Annual Report and Accounts give details of a Debenture created in favour of John Fenty
to secure financial support provided by him to the Company up to an amount of £333,000.
6.4 There are no other contractual obligations or arrangements that have been entered into
between the Company and its Directors or any party associated thereto nor are there any
such matters pending that have not been disclosed within this document.
7. Material contracts
There have been no contracts entered into by The Grimsby Town Football Club plc otherwise
than in the ordinary course of business during the two years immediately preceding the date
of this document which are or may be material at any time which contain an obligation or
entitlement which is material to The Grimsby Town Football Club plc as at the date of this
document.
8. Material changes
There has been no material change in the financial or trading position of the Company since
31st May 2010 being the last day of the financial period for which the Company’s most recent
audited financial statements have been prepared.
9. General
9.1 There are no agreements, arrangements or understandings existing between the offeror or
any person acting in concert with him, and any of the Directors, recent Directors,
Shareholders or recent Shareholders of the Company having any connection with or
dependence upon the Whitewash Resolution.
9.2 No agreement, arrangement or understanding exists whereby any shares allotted in
pursuance of the Whitewash proposal will be transferred to any other persons.
9
9.3 Shares allotted in pursuance of the Whitewash proposal will be financed from personal funds;
in the case of Michael Parker, from the conversion of monies already invested; in the case of
John Fenty, by the conversion of his existing loans. As a consequence, there will be no
requirement for the payment of any interest, the provision of any security or any other liability
imposed on the company as a result of the proposed transaction.
9.4 Weaver Wroot have given and not withdrawn their written consent to the issue of this
document with the reference to Weaver Wroot in the form and context in which they appear.
9.5 The current financial and trading position of the Company is as detailed in the Annual Report
and Accounts for the year ended 31st May 2010 which should be read in conjunction with this
document.
10. Documents available for inspection
Copies of the following documents will be available for inspection at the Registered Office of
the Company, Blundell Park, Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire DN35 7PY up to and
including the 30th September 2010 and at the Annual General Meeting to be held on that day
and are available on the company’s website http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/accounts2:-
(i) The Memorandum and Articles of Association of The Grimsby Town Football Club plc.
(ii) The audited account of the Company for the financial years ended 31st May 2008, 31st
May 2009 and 31st May 2010.
(iii) The letter of Consent referred to in Paragraph 9.4 above
DATED: 6th September 2010

Good post Pongo but as you can see that was dated September 2010, were is the 2011 issue and minutes from the meeting that agreed the extra funding / shares and how they would be done.

I was keeping out of this but its blatantly obvious that things changed Golly.

Don't doubt they both agreed to put 500k in but that was in part support last season and to support the current budget. We understand Gate receipts were well down in the first half of the season, did fenty say by 120k.

Also when they agreed to do this Parker was on the board and they were loans not for equity in the club. Surely you don't just plod on things changed. When parker made this move i think fenty did the right thing in standing down to make way. It was only then that parker confirmed publicly that he would not be coming back or pledging anymore funding in the club.

If i was a director and parker left the board and acquired a controlling block of shares staying outside the board room i wouldn't put a single bean in the club let alone what fenty put-in for last season and what looks like 300k already this season according to his statement on the OS.

You say parker deserves credit but then say he has had no influence. I am not a fenty arsewipe but the decisions to appoint these mangers and provide a competitive budget as he has always done is not in dispute. Who's to say he wouldn't have provided all of the funding to that again if parker hadn't acquired shares. Do you not provide what is necessary for a competitive budget which he has always done. I doubt elstrom and chapman even have a clue whats going on day to day but one thing for sure when we made all the losses fenty and parker were joined at the hips and there has been nothing to suggest that they got on well.

Parkers gone!!!! get over it and stop peddling sh1t. We have what we have like it or not.

Quoted from Marinerz93

Good post Pongo but as you can see that was dated September 2010, were is the 2011 issue and minutes from the meeting that agreed the extra funding / shares and how they would be done.

93 The point is , that it was an agreement and ratified by the shareholders at the May 2010  AGM. There is no break clause and and i think Mr Parker left in March 2011 when it looks like he broke the agreement as he publicly confirmed he would not be funding the club going forward.

If you were Mr Fenty would you then keep funding the club on your own. I suspect not!!! but to his credit he has done. Wouldn't you agree!!!!

Prod, the question being asked (and not being answered as far as I can tell) is that between them, Parker and Fenty agreed to fund this years budget (which they themselves set) to the tune of £500,000. The single most important aspect of this, is how that funding would be made. Parker said it was agreed to be via share purchases which in turn loooked better on the balance sheet, whereas Fenty says it was agreed to be via loans (shown as benign loans but a debt non the less).

This is important because this whole share issue is being driven by "control being outside the boardroom" (which I perfectly understand BTW). How did this come about? Who changed their mind about how the funding would be made?

By the way, a declaration that funding would be shared doesnt put a time limit on how long this agreement stood for, so in other words, it is current until one of them says otherwise.  

Quoted from Prod

I I am not a fenty arsewipe but the decisions to appoint these mangers and provide a competitive budget as he has always done is not in dispute.

They were third choice, if JF had got his original choice whose to say where we would be right now.

Quoted from Pongo

93 The point is , that it was an agreement and ratified by the shareholders at the May 2010  AGM. There is no break clause and and i think Mr Parker left in March 2011 when it looks like he broke the agreement as he publicly confirmed he would not be funding the club going forward.

If you were Mr Fenty would you then keep funding the club on your own. I suspect not!!! but to his credit he has done. Wouldn't you agree!!!!

MP broke with the club because boardroom and changes at the club were not honoured.  We are going over old ground because JF and the board allowed MP to get more shares then JF so the shares issue rule 9 kicked off the current wrangling.

Years ago I gave JF a lot of credit but his benign loans, itchy trigger finger and how far we have fallen especially in the last five years makes me distrust him.  As a self made millionare why is he such a failure at GTFC.  When he gets us back in the league, he'll get credit for that, when he agrees return payment in installments to clear that benign debt he'll get credit for that, when he gets the clubs operating costs down to what league 2 clubs are operating on instead of championship he'll get credit for that and he'll get buckets of kudos for wiping his benign debt once the club becomes his again.

Quoted from Chris

Prod, the question being asked (and not being answered as far as I can tell) is that between them, Parker and Fenty agreed to fund this years budget (which they themselves set) to the tune of £500,000. The single most important aspect of this, is how that funding would be made. Parker said it was agreed to be via share purchases which in turn loooked better on the balance sheet, whereas Fenty says it was agreed to be via loans (shown as benign loans but a debt non the less).

This is important because this whole share issue is being driven by "control being outside the boardroom" (which I perfectly understand BTW). How did this come about? Who changed their mind about how the funding would be made?

By the way, a declaration that funding would be shared doesnt put a time limit on how long this agreement stood for, so in other words, it is current until one of them says otherwise.  

Spot on.

Quoted from arryarryarry

They were third choice, if JF had got his original choice whose to say where we would be right now.

Thats right Alex Ferguson and Martin Oneil turned us down you plank.

I recall when parker left the board he said on Look North that the decision to agree the new mangers was in place and would be announced soon.

For some reason they put off coming to a club that was in the same mess as Darlington. Ring any bells!!!!!!!!
Oh how i hate sounding like a fenty supporter. Just stop peddling tripe.

Quoted from Chris

Prod, the question being asked (and not being answered as far as I can tell) is that between them, Parker and Fenty agreed to fund this years budget (which they themselves set) to the tune of £500,000. The single most important aspect of this, is how that funding would be made. Parker said it was agreed to be via share purchases which in turn loooked better on the balance sheet, whereas Fenty says it was agreed to be via loans (shown as benign loans but a debt non the less).

This is important because this whole share issue is being driven by "control being outside the boardroom" (which I perfectly understand BTW). How did this come about? Who changed their mind about how the funding would be made?

By the way, a declaration that funding would be shared doesnt put a time limit on how long this agreement stood for, so in other words, it is current until one of them says otherwise.  

Chris, I am not equipped to answer your questions, but the agreement is clear. Joint funding the club parse. Any question of increasing shares i assume would have had to go back to the shareholders. It also describes them being a concert party (assume this means treated as one). I assume when Mr Parker left the board this was broken which led him to think he could acquire shares without complication. So i imagine there was never agreement to jointly acquire more shares. The problem came when he acquires a controlling block in excess of 50% and not rejoining the board or sharing in the funding which he clarified publicly.

Maybe you should contact Mr Fenty to clear this up.

Quoted from Pongo

6th September 2010
Dear Shareholder
Approval for Waiver of Obligation under Rule 9 of the City Code
On Takeovers and Mergers
Introduction
The Company’s Annual Report together with this document is being posted and is available on the
company’s website, http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/accounts2 to Shareholders today. Included with the
Annual Report is a Notice convening the Annual General Meeting which is to be held in the
Executive Lounge, Blundell Park, Cleethorpes at 10 a.m. on 30th September 2010. The purpose of
this document is to inform Shareholders that for the reasons outlined below a resolution seeking
the approval of the Independent Shareholders for a waiver of the obligation on the Concert Party
(as defined in Part II, Page 4 of this document) to make a general offer to the Shareholders under
Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers will be proposed at the aforementioned Annual
General Meeting.
You will observe from the Annual Report and Accounts that at 31st May 2010 there continues to be
a deficiency of Shareholders funds.
I have stated previously on many occasions that I have no desire to increase my percentage
shareholding in the Company and effectively become the owner of the Football Club, but whilst I
am so heavily committed to providing financial support to the Company that it is appropriate that I
have effective voting control until such time as other interested parties express a desire to assist
with the financial burden of securing the long term future of Grimsby Town Football Club.
We are fortunate that Mike Parker has joined the Board and has committed himself to provide
substantial financial support. He has already invested £500,000. As a consequence Mike and I
have reached an agreement to equalise our shareholdings so that we share the financial
commitment for the future funding of Grimsby Town Football Club equally between us.
We have agreed between us that:-
· Mike will convert £499,000 of the monies he has already invested into Shares
· I will convert £242,816 of my existing loans into Shares
2
· Helen Laight’s shareholding will be transferred to me
Following this Mike and I will both have Shares to the value of £500,000 which will represent
approximately 39.9% each of the Issued Share Capital of the Company which will then be just over
£1.25M.
This is a major investment, providing medium to long term financial support to assist the Club with
survival, growth and development in order to provide the best opportunity to regain Football
League status. This will also strengthen the Balance Sheet by removing debt and increasing the
Company’s Capital base.
We are also aware that although the Bank is fully secured, given the current environment all Banks
are looking to reduce their exposure to debt and improve their liquidity.
Both Mike and I remain fully committed to widening share ownership for anyone who wishes to
own part of the Club they support, or anyone who wishes to join us to assist with securing the long
term future of Grimsby Town Football Club. However it is only reasonable for those who are taking
on the burden of financing the Club are those that have effective voting control.
The Concert Party (as defined in Part II, Page 4 of this document) being myself, Mike Parker and
Helen Laight are excluded from voting on the resolution.
Accordingly I hope that all the Independent Shareholders will support these proposals to ensure
that the substantial investment already made by Mike can form the basis of an agreement between
us to secure the future of Grimsby Town Football Club.
The Takeover Code and the Waiver Resolution (Resolution 4) to grant approval for the Rule
9 Waiver
The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers is issued on behalf of the Panel on Takeovers and
Mergers. The Code is designed principally to ensure fair and equal treatment of all Shareholders
in relation to takeovers. The Code also provides an orderly framework within which takeovers are
conducted. The Code applies to offers for all listed and unlisted public companies considered by
the Panel to be resident in the United Kingdom, therefore the Code applies to The Grimsby Town
Football Club plc.
Under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code (the “Code”), any person who acquires an interest (as defined
in the Code) in shares which, taken together with shares in which he is already interested in with
persons acting in concert with him are interested, which carry 30 per cent or more of the voting
rights of a company which is subject to the Code, is normally required to make a general offer to all
the remaining shareholders to acquire their shares.
An offer under Rule 9 must be made in cash and at the highest price paid by the person required
to make the offer, or any person acting in concert with him, for any interest in shares of the
company during the 12 months prior to the announcement of the offer.
The members of the Concert Part (as defined in Part II, Page 4 of this document) are deemed to
be acting in concert for the purpose of the Code. On completion of the proposed issue of new
shares, the members of the Concert Party will between them be interested in 1,000,000 shares,
representing approximately 79.8% of the company’s enlarged issued share capital.
The Panel has agreed, however, to waive the obligation to make a general offer that would
otherwise arise as a result of the agreement between myself and Michael Parker, subject to the
approval of the Independent Shareholders. Accordingly Resolution 4 is being proposed at the
annual general meeting and will be taken on a poll. As noted above, the Concert Party will be
excluded from voting on the resolution.
3
Following the issue of the new shares, the members of the Concert Party will hold between
them more than 50% of the Company’s issued share capital and for so long as they
continue to be treated as acting in concert may accordingly increase their aggregate
shareholding without incurring any further obligation under Rule 9, to make a general offer,
although individual members of the Concert Party will not be able to increase their
percentage shareholding through or between a Rule 9 threshold without Panel consent.
Further information
Your attention is drawn to the additional information set out in Part II of this document and the
documents that will be available for inspection at the annual general meeting and are available on
the company’s website at http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/accounts2
Recommendations
The Independent Directors, who have been so advised by Weaver Wroot, believe that obtaining
the Rule 9 Waiver is fair and reasonable, in the best interests of the Independent Shareholders
and the company as a whole. In providing advice to the Independent Directors Weaver Wroot
have taken into account the Independent Directors’ commercial assessments. The Independent
Directors, therefore, recommend that the Independent Shareholders vote in favour of the Waiver
Resolution and approve the Rule 9 Waiver. The Independent Directors, who hold 1,500 shares
representing 0.30% of the Company’s issued share capital, will be voting in favour of the Waiver
Resolution.

Yours faithfully
John Fenty
Chairman

So, according to JSF's letter the original deal was great because it will improve the balance sheet and decrease debt. But then within a year they were going to add another £1,000,000 in debt to the club between them?

Rubbish. If this doesn't suggest that further investment (donations) would be in the form of shares and not piling even more debt on the club I don't know what does.

[quote=613] One board member nearly resigned his position because he voted no. quote]

There's (nearly) one decent member on the board of the Trust then

Quoted from Pongo

93 The point is , that it was an agreement and ratified by the shareholders at the May 2010  AGM. There is no break clause and and i think Mr Parker left in March 2011 when it looks like he broke the agreement as he publicly confirmed he would not be funding the club going forward.

If you were Mr Fenty would you then keep funding the club on your own. I suspect not!!! but to his credit he has done. Wouldn't you agree!!!!

Funding the club on his own my ****.

Did Mike Parker buy another £500,000 of shares after leaving the board? Yes

Where did that money go? Directly to GTFC without adding debt to the company

Does that mean Mike Parker has funded this season as he promised? Yes

Quoted from Chris

There is an argument that the Trust will be less influential with less shares. Others believe by settling this situation, the Trust will ensure a much better working relationship with JF. What is certainly true is that the trust will only be as influential as JF allows them to be, he'll never give anything away he doesnt want to give away. The only way the Trust can TRULY influence is if as many people as possible join up. Barralad made this pooint previously, and the Trust promotional papers say it too, that together, we are stronger. A cliche I know but still true non the less.

There are some very able minds on this forum, and I'd love to see some of them actively involved with the trust.

Chris, Any thoughs I may have harboured about joining the Trust have now been erased by the Trust board's endorsement (and the likelihood of a 'yes' vote from the members)
of the gifting of Mr Parker's shares to Fenty in order for him to put in the money he had already pledged anyway. All at the expense I might add of a man who not only pledged money but put that money in as he promised then gifted a large share of it to the (unsafe) hands of the Trust