Fenty Out

Quoted from pizzzza

Indeed, that is a fair chunk of shares. I wonder how the %s of ownership between Trust, JF, etc. would look if the Trust hadn't made the ridiculous decision to gift those shares to Fenty?

The membership of the Trust made the decision in a ballot. I personally didn't vote for it but a substantial percentage did.

Quoted from barralad

The membership of the Trust made the decision in a ballot. I personally didn't vote for it but a substantial percentage did.

This always seems to get forgotten barralad and also the main reason the Trust came to the regretful decision being the veiled threat to sell our best player at the time Liam Hearn.

Was there ever a discussion under what conditions Fenry would return the shares to the trust (I assume if his loans were returned he would no longer have a need for then and would be prepared to gift them back?)

Quoted from 1mickylyons

This always seems to get forgotten barralad and also the main reason the Trust came to the regretful decision being the veiled threat to sell our best player at the time Liam Hearn.

Interesting this post got 2 red crosses does the truth hurt?

I think the key to ousting Fenty would be getting Mike Parker, the Trust & maybe even that ticket tout bloke and the Mullens on side...

John Fenty shares: £975,000 (42.85%)

Mike Parker shares: £500,000 (21.98%)
Mariners Trust shares: £321,050 (14.11%)
Mr & Mrs Mullen shares: £130,000 (5.72%)
Andrew Newman shares: £25,000 (1.10%)
TOTAL: £976,050 (42.90%)

Between the 4 blocks they have more shares than Fenty in the club. Certainly those 4 working together would make things uncomfortable for Fenty especially if they forced a non-Fenty Chairman or new CEO on the club.

Fenty is a nice guy and has the best interests of GTFC at heart, but everything points to him not wanting to invest a further penny in the club. As has been discussed the club's systems (tickets and general way of doing things) are all hopelessly out of date.

The club is happy to carry on doing the same thing in the same way year after year without investigating or investing in more modern or alternative ways of doing things. I think the fact that we have the longest continual shirt sponsor in the 92 & only Southend have used the same kit manufacturer longer than us (and they just have Nike teamwear and not bespoke kits like us) shows the attitude of the club.

Fenty's control lies in his "benign" loan which of course is not benign at all, But the question that hasn't been asked yet is what he would do with them if his role at the club was challenged? Would he transfer some into shares to strengthen his position (unlikely), demand immediate repayment (unlikely), demand a structured repayment plan over a number of years (possible) or would he do something else? Theoretical question but worth considering.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

I think the key to ousting Fenty would be getting Mike Parker, the Trust & maybe even that ticket tout bloke and the Mullens on side...

John Fenty shares: £975,000 (42.85%)

Mike Parker shares: £500,000 (21.98%)
Mariners Trust shares: £321,050 (14.11%)
Mr & Mrs Mullen shares: £130,000 (5.72%)
Andrew Newman shares: £25,000 (1.10%)
TOTAL: £976,050 (42.90%)

Between the 4 blocks they have more shares than Fenty in the club. Certainly those 4 working together would make things uncomfortable for Fenty especially if they forced a non-Fenty Chairman or new CEO on the club.

Fenty is a nice guy and has the best interests of GTFC at heart, but everything points to him not wanting to invest a further penny in the club. As has been discussed the club's systems (tickets and general way of doing things) are all hopelessly out of date.

The club is happy to carry on doing the same thing in the same way year after year without investigating or investing in more modern or alternative ways of doing things. I think the fact that we have the longest continual shirt sponsor in the 92 & only Southend have used the same kit manufacturer longer than us (and they just have Nike teamwear and not bespoke kits like us) shows the attitude of the club.

Fenty's control lies in his "benign" loan which of course is not benign at all, But the question that hasn't been asked yet is what he would do with them if his role at the club was challenged? Would he transfer some into shares to strengthen his position (unlikely), demand immediate repayment (unlikely), demand a structured repayment plan over a number of years (possible) or would he do something else? Theoretical question but worth considering.

Think these questions have been asked directly and indirectly more than a few times and the answers coming back have always been vague in the extreme? The lack of investment brought in to the board in his tenure suggests he doesn`t want anyone else to challenge him or his authority. I can`t remember the exact words but when Mike Parker was announced it all sounded right and I really thought we would see progress because I know what a supporter of the Club and particularly the youth set up he was . Not quite sure what went on to spoil that partnership but it was yet another great chance missed to progress for all concerned. Not everything is about money there are some very obvious decisions that need making and have needed making for a very long time to progress things off the field in relation to how GTFC operate but nobody wants to make them.

Fenty not wanting to invest any more of his money into the club does not bother me as he says he wants out,
What does bother me is him taking £200,000 OUT every year because that money could go towards us strengthening the team.

If these figures are correct, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, why haven't the board managed to find new investment like they claimed to have been trying to do at "that" fans forum? This, is the big scheme of things, isn't a lot of money for such a club as ours. I smell many rats.

What proportion of shares were gifted to JF? I realise I should know this, but in the mists of time I've lost track. Just looking at the figures above, I'm surprised at how many MP still has - he must have had a sizable shareholding at the start of it all - which I'm guessing was a problem for some...  

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Total shares issued in GTFC: £2,275,300

John Fenty shares: £975,000 (42.85%)
Mike Parker shares: £500,000 (21.98%)
Mariners Trust shares: £321,050 (14.11%)

If somebody bought £975,000 of shares they would hold an equal shareholding with Fenty, The extra share issue would also water down Fenty's shareholding to just under 30%. The money raised from the sale of shares could be 100% used to reduce Fenty's benign loans to £825,000.The new shareholder could loan the club £412,500 and again the money could be repaid to Fenty so the new shareholder has equal shareholding & equal loans to the club as Fenty, So someone could gain complete parity with Fenty for £1,387,500. The new shareholder could then convert his loan into shares and become the biggest shareholder in the club. Fenty would then have to either do the same to maintain parity or be sidelined. And I don't think Fenty wants to put another penny of his own money into the club.

In theory, that might be true, but in reality it's not at all. You can't just buy new shares in a company, the company will have a share issue as a method of fundraising. As the major shareholder, surely he would  be able to stop somebody forcibly taking control by buying only new shares by limiting the number of shares made available. In that case, you'd have to buy shares from other shareholders and not reduce his loans as much, so require more money to match the loans and gain parity. Again, converting any loans into shares isn't necessarily possible.

The problem then becomes that Fenty isn't going to cover the losses for bad decisions made by somebody else, so you end up in the same position as before where assets would have to be sold unless somebody else is going to fund the gap. So you need even more money.

Fan ownership is a nice idea, and it might be worth setting up a fundraising site to actually try and raise enough capital to buy the club and have enough reserves to demonstrate an ability to cover losses if they were to happen. But it isn't going to be the trust and the people who bang this drum the hardest seem more interested in moaning about the current situation than actually trying to impart a change.