- Print Topic - Archive

What is his end game? Is he staying in the deluded opinion that his management of the club will allow him to be paid back, in full, quicker than if he severed all ties? I think he would find that if he announced he was leaving completely, with a realistic figure he is owed agreed then the club would start to recover quickly and he would get his money back sooner than expected.

He is not putting investment in is he? We are told he is taking money out each year, so in order to be paid back his only solution seems to be bear down on costs so he is effectively strangling the life out of the club, still calling all the shots in order to get repaid, but seemingly taking nothing into account regarding his mistakes that have cost the club millions.

If we go on like this it will take several years to pay him off. Nice work for him, but a disaster for us.

The board should be looking at alternative ways for him to end his tenure so we can start the recovery process because as the original poster said he is killing the club from within.

Quoted from crusty ole pie

Ffs change the record

I’d rather not have to put the record on. Aren’t you fed up of the same excrement record after 17 years of pure, unadulterated mediocrity?

We lose 5 - 0 away where 16 of the 30 odd man squad play really badly, look paralysed by fear and don’t have the confidence to pass the ball forward.

The fans dredge up the same old same old about the major shareholder, maybe the anger should be aimed at those closer to yesterday’s starting 11.

Devils advocate here but.....has he not effectively gone officially?
Not sure on company law etc but does majority shareholder actually entitle him to make decisions ? Have a say as a board member yes...but actually dictate?
The only thing keeping his say as important as it is is the fact he will underwrite agreed losses as an individual ...something the rest of the board wont/ cant.
Yes he has outstanding loans....but If someone else would underwrite any ongoing/ future annual losses....(which we seem to pretty much avoid nowadays anyway) then his say is less important isnt it ?
If we dont have the money to pay his loans back then he cant cash them back in and if doing so made us insolvent then he would only get a percentage wouldn't he?

Quoted from moosey_club

Devils advocate here but.....has he not effectively gone officially?
Not sure on company law etc but does majority shareholder actually entitle him to make decisions ? Have a say as a board member yes...but actually dictate?
The only thing keeping his say as important as it is is the fact he will underwrite agreed losses as an individual ...something the rest of the board wont/ cant.
Yes he has outstanding loans....but If someone else would underwrite any ongoing/ future annual losses....(which we seem to pretty much avoid nowadays anyway) then his say is less important isnt it ?
If we dont have the money to pay his loans back then he cant cash them back in and if doing so made us insolvent then he would only get a percentage wouldn't he?

The current set up means that, even if he isn’t as involved as in the past, his financial interests will always be the elephant in the room. Ollies pre match interview even mentioned a meeting the day before with John andPhilip.

How can it not be holding us back? The strategy appears to be to generate enough of a surplus each and every year to pay him back in instalments over time. That's money that each and every year could be invested in the infrastructure of the club. Money to move us forwards, instead we are on life support and will be probably for another decade at this rate.

Pleased we have so many caring supporters who are going to buy the club. Whose first in line.

Quoted from moosey_club

Devils advocate here but.....has he not effectively gone officially?
Not sure on company law etc but does majority shareholder actually entitle him to make decisions ? Have a say as a board member yes...but actually dictate?
The only thing keeping his say as important as it is is the fact he will underwrite agreed losses as an individual ...something the rest of the board wont/ cant.
Yes he has outstanding loans....but If someone else would underwrite any ongoing/ future annual losses....(which we seem to pretty much avoid nowadays anyway) then his say is less important isnt it ?
If we dont have the money to pay his loans back then he cant cash them back in and if doing so made us insolvent then he would only get a percentage wouldn't he?

So though I’m not a lawyer or accountant I work for a business that deals with and supports company boards and directors.

IN terms of corporate law I’d assume JF holds B shares, in simple terms he owns the fixed assets, property and has his name on amongst other things any leases.

I’m not 100% sure as it can differ but I’d imagine the rest of the board could own a mix of A’s and B’s but to be a board Director you need either/both depending on the articles and heads of terms of any share sale/purchase and the corporate make up of your board, there are many variables.

Both share types can take distributable profit (dividends) from a business once profit buffers have been satisfied. The agreed buffer can be flexed usually with the agreement if the directors but not necessarily so, usually it’s stipulated by a finance director........... shut up!!!

The shares we can buy are usually “ordinary” traded to generate capital these shareholders can take a dividend and also get the opportunity to attend AGM’s and vote upon certain resolutions.

In most companies each board member has 1 vote regardless of equity levels.

What is interesting is the period where we didn’t have a chairman as the rest of the board can agree by vote or proxy to appoint a chairman as long as everyone is in (majority) agreement. A chairman can have a casting vote if they’re a director they also get their own vote, so in essence 2 votes on any resolution.

JF may have more shares but it shouldn’t give him more votes unless the other directors allow it....... which I’d suggest as he appointed most of them wouldn’t provide him with much push back.

Well - at the time - you don’t think anything of it - but in the early 2000s the late Peter Furneaux told me that John was being trained up as the new chairman. - as no one else wanted it. John showed me around Blundell Park - one of the best experiences of my life - match day v Carlisle Utd - we lost - asked Russell afterwards about his flipchart why there was 2 ?? against Ararnalde against Bloomer - signed that morning.
We lost - Tom Newey smashed the bar with a penalty. Glen Murray came on and turned the game for Carlisle. Ciaran Toner scored for us early on.
Toasted the Loving Cup at the end - before disappearing into another 15 years of obscurity 😀

What do Newport and Exeter have in common, apart from being consistently better than us?

There is this pervading idea that a football club has to be bought and run by a wealthy businessman. The biggest financial contributor to clubs at our level is the paying fan, but many seem to forget that. How much do our board contribute financially each season? It's a number less than 1.

For those that keep banging on about getting rid of Fenty, since he is the major shareholder, who do you propose to take over his mantle, and where is the money to achieve it? Fenty himself has said that if there is an interested party, so long as they are genuine, he will step aside. When Shutes, (remember him?) was interested, the price was agreed between him and Fenty, but Shutes did his famous disappearing act. At least Fenty is a fan of the club, unlike for example, Swann at Scunny, who just wants to own and run a football club, but has no allegiance to them. Fenty does not have the sort of wealth to throw millions at GTFC, unlike Swann, and, to me, that is the real problem here, money, or lack of it.

Years ago I use to drink with Furneaux's son, Martin. He once said that Fenty was the business brains, Furneaux was the football brains. When Furneaux had to retire, Fenty had to be both. Maybe, when the covid thing has gone, Holloway can be the football brains, and make the club more professional.

Until Shutes, or whoever, turns up with the money to buy out Fenty and invest heavily in Town, we are in limbo, stuck with what we have. You can protest, demonstrate, jump up and down, spit your dummies out as much as you like, demanding Fenty leaves, but you can change diddly squat.

UP THE MARINERS!

Quoted from HertsGTFC

So though I’m not a lawyer or accountant I work for a business that deals with and supports company boards and directors.

IN terms of corporate law I’d assume JF holds B shares, in simple terms he owns the fixed assets, property and has his name on amongst other things any leases.

I’m not 100% sure as it can differ but I’d imagine the rest of the board could own a mix of A’s and B’s but to be a board Director you need either/both depending on the articles and heads of terms of any share sale/purchase and the corporate make up of your board, there are many variables.

Both share types can take distributable profit (dividends) from a business once profit buffers have been satisfied. The agreed buffer can be flexed usually with the agreement if the directors but not necessarily so, usually it’s stipulated by a finance director........... shut up!!!

The shares we can buy are usually “ordinary” traded to generate capital these shareholders can take a dividend and also get the opportunity to attend AGM’s and vote upon certain resolutions.

In most companies each board member has 1 vote regardless of equity levels.

What is interesting is the period where we didn’t have a chairman as the rest of the board can agree by vote or proxy to appoint a chairman as long as everyone is in (majority) agreement. A chairman can have a casting vote if they’re a director they also get their own vote, so in essence 2 votes on any resolution.

JF may have more shares but it shouldn’t give him more votes unless the other directors allow it....... which I’d suggest as he appointed most of them wouldn’t provide him with much push back.

I think you’re over complicating it. There are no different share types in GTFC. Just the one type, all nominally valued at £1. All with equal weight in decision making. All eligible for the same dividend % if ever there was one. But the end conclusion is the same as you arrived at.

John Fenty has the most, but under 50%, followed by Parker and the Trust (but collectively less than Fenty). The rest have naff all. But JF has control of the club by reason of his shareholding, outstanding loans and financial commitment to the club (I assume this is the undertaking to fund an overdraft up to a certain level). This is noted in the company accounts each year.

Security for the loans is provided by the assets of the club. I.e. if he doesn’t get paid back, he gets to own the property. Much the same position as if we owed a bank money, but he is personally committed to the club in a way a bank never would. It’s safer than owing a bank the money.

He is still a board director so has the right to attend meetings, but as I understand it he doesn’t exercise this right often now. Board decisions are taken on a one man one vote basis (and they are all men). But if there is a decision that JF doesn’t approve of, ultimately he can say no.

Quoted from moosey_club

Devils advocate here but.....has he not effectively gone officially?
Not sure on company law etc but does majority shareholder actually entitle him to make decisions ? Have a say as a board member yes...but actually dictate?
The only thing keeping his say as important as it is is the fact he will underwrite agreed losses as an individual ...something the rest of the board wont/ cant.
Yes he has outstanding loans....but If someone else would underwrite any ongoing/ future annual losses....(which we seem to pretty much avoid nowadays anyway) then his say is less important isnt it ?
If we dont have the money to pay his loans back then he cant cash them back in and if doing so made us insolvent then he would only get a percentage wouldn't he?

I'm not an accountant but if the club was to fold would the debts (I assume JF is the biggest creditor) be greater than the cost of the land that BP is on?

Quoted from arryarryarry

I'm not an accountant but if the club was to fold would the debts (I assume JF is the biggest creditor) be greater than the cost of the land that BP is on?

Correct. See my post above. It’s in black and white in the accounts. Or was in last year’s. Haven’t got around to this year’s yet. I doubt that position has changed though.

Shutes didn’t disappear, he agreed a price, he was willing to move forward and purchase the club but didn’t want to play the games the board were so he walked away.

I only know that as I worked alongside a couple of his business partners, purely by accident not so long ago.

This obsession lower league fans have with either players/managers living locally and owners being fans of the club isn’t always healthy either. Being a fan often means you lack the ability to be objective or think clearly, especially when times are hard. Surely, like any role, the right person for the job is the best approach and it’s clear now that Fenty is not that.

I’d imagine that he has exercised his power of disagreeing with a vote of suggestions several times. He’s assembled a board that is practically his chums, none of which seem to contribute in any way.

The simple fact is, when people say Fenty has to go, what they really mean is the board needs a reshuffle. They’re all as complicit in the allowing the club to stagnate, they’re all part of the problem.

Quoted from mimma

mFenty himself has said that if there is an interested party, so long as they are genuine, he will step aside.

For what it’s worth, we have now been approached by (at least) two separate parties with a view to buying the club, and Fenty is still here. Not quite the actions of a man keen to gracefully step aside.

The first was a group of American investors, and Fenty wouldn’t step aside as they didn’t want fan representation on the board - apparently. This was according to Marley at a fans’ forum or an AGM. I’m led to believe that this is the group who have taken over at Wycombe.

Then we had Grimsby-born Shutes fronting a group of wealthy, well-connected town fans who had a vision for the club as part of the whole community regeneration. After showing they had the cash to buy the club outright, suddenly they were expected to arbitrarily show how they’d fund the club for 3-years “in the event of a downturn”. Meanwhile, we are currently going through the worst downturn in the history of the club and the current board’s response has been “get the begging bowl out & let the fans fill it up again”. If only Shutes had thought of that!

And these are just the stories that the board have told us! Christ knows what the other parties’ version of events would be. These are not the actions of a man serious about leaving the club in any way, shape or form.

Call Fenty a fan all you like, it counts for nothing. I honestly don’t think our worst enemy could’ve done a better job in killing the club. We are stuck in a terminal decline, spent more than half a decade in non-league, are 20-odd years into a relocation project that is no further forward than it was on day one, have been left in the dust by all our neighbours and are becoming cut adrift from even League 1 which seems a million miles away now.

A fish rots from the head down.

Quoted from ska face

For what it’s worth, we have now been approached by (at least) two separate parties with a view to buying the club, and Fenty is still here. Not quite the actions of a man keen to gracefully step aside.

The first was a group of American investors, and Fenty wouldn’t step aside as they didn’t want fan representation on the board - apparently. This was according to Marley at a fans’ forum or an AGM. I’m led to believe that this is the group who have taken over at Wycombe.

Then we had Grimsby-born Shutes fronting a group of wealthy, well-connected town fans who had a vision for the club as part of the whole community regeneration. After showing they had the cash to buy the club outright, suddenly they were expected to arbitrarily show how they’d fund the club for 3-years “in the event of a downturn”. Meanwhile, we are currently going through the worst downturn in the history of the club and the current board’s response has been “get the begging bowl out & let the fans fill it up again”. If only Shutes had thought of that!

And these are just the stories that the board have told us! Christ knows what the other parties’ version of events would be. These are not the actions of a man serious about leaving the club in any way, shape or form.

Call Fenty a fan all you like, it counts for nothing. I honestly don’t think our worst enemy could’ve done a better job in killing the club. We are stuck in a terminal decline, spent more than half a decade in non-league, are 20-odd years into a relocation project that is no further forward than it was on day one, have been left in the dust by all our neighbours and are becoming cut adrift from even League 1 which seems a million miles away now.

A fish rots from the head down.

Echo all of that. And for those who say be careful what you wish for, a. it couldn’t be much worse and b. we won’t know unless we try.

At least we're slowly coming away from the train of thought that we need Fenty's money to keep us going.

That's progress.

Maybe in another 20 years we'll feel confident enough that we could be fan run. Here's hoping...

Just to add, I completely agree on any moves to get new owners/board in place. That's with no malice towards John Fenty or anyone else involved in the running of the club, simply put we need to be run better.

But no-one in the board room can be held responsible for some of the shoddy performances that were dished out on Saturday or those that have come before. That was just unacceptable all round. As with Holloway, he's taking a lot of stick at the minute for various things. In truth I think a lot of that criticism is fair, he's messed up on a few key things in the last 6 months, things you would expect better from an experienced manager. But once those players cross that white line it's all down to them.

Quoted from ska face

For what it’s worth, we have now been approached by (at least) two separate parties with a view to buying the club, and Fenty is still here. Not quite the actions of a man keen to gracefully step aside.

The first was a group of American investors, and Fenty wouldn’t step aside as they didn’t want fan representation on the board - apparently. This was according to Marley at a fans’ forum or an AGM. I’m led to believe that this is the group who have taken over at Wycombe.

Then we had Grimsby-born Shutes fronting a group of wealthy, well-connected town fans who had a vision for the club as part of the whole community regeneration. After showing they had the cash to buy the club outright, suddenly they were expected to arbitrarily show how they’d fund the club for 3-years “in the event of a downturn”. Meanwhile, we are currently going through the worst downturn in the history of the club and the current board’s response has been “get the begging bowl out & let the fans fill it up again”. If only Shutes had thought of that!

And these are just the stories that the board have told us! Christ knows what the other parties’ version of events would be. These are not the actions of a man serious about leaving the club in any way, shape or form.

Call Fenty a fan all you like, it counts for nothing. I honestly don’t think our worst enemy could’ve done a better job in killing the club. We are stuck in a terminal decline, spent more than half a decade in non-league, are 20-odd years into a relocation project that is no further forward than it was on day one, have been left in the dust by all our neighbours and are becoming cut adrift from even League 1 which seems a million miles away now.

A fish rots from the head down.

The American buyers wanted us to be a feeder team to a Scottish team that they were also buying, which didn't happen. The trust also vetoed that move because they didn't want fans involved.

Shutes agreed to provide proof of funds and didn't. Like it or not, the board want the incoming party to be able to provide the cash if the club is unable to pay its debts, in the same way Fenty has previously done. The trust agree with this, and Shutes didn't do it.

Trouble is too many people who post on here are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Just to add, I completely agree on any moves to get new owners/board in place. That's with no malice towards John Fenty or anyone else involved in the running of the club, simply put we need to be run better.

But no-one in the board room can be held responsible for some of the shoddy performances that were dished out on Saturday or those that have come before. That was just unacceptable all round. As with Holloway, he's taking a lot of stick at the minute for various things. In truth I think a lot of that criticism is fair, he's messed up on a few key things in the last 6 months, things you would expect better from an experienced manager. But once those players cross that white line it's all down to them.

The board are not responsible for the players performing on a Saturday, you're right. But they are accountable, for consistently failing in their job of not giving the manager the required funding to get in the tools required to do his job properly.
This will never cha.ge whilst the current incumbents are in place, who is going to take over and move is forward? copulated if you or i know...

I agree. It's becoming more and more evident that our prudent approach to this year was and is a major risk. I hope it doesn't be one that comes back to bite us come the end of the season. In no way am I defending any running of the club.

But regardless of how cheap we've gone, half-arsed performances from professionals is unacceptable at any level.

Quoted from pen penfras

The American buyers wanted us to be a feeder team to a Scottish team that they were also buying, which didn't happen. The trust also vetoed that move because they didn't want fans involved.

Shutes agreed to provide proof of funds and didn't. Like it or not, the board want the incoming party to be able to provide the cash if the club is unable to pay its debts, in the same way Fenty has previously done. The trust agree with this, and Shutes didn't do it.

Like I said, one side of the story.

Quoted from pen penfras

The American buyers wanted us to be a feeder team to a Scottish team that they were also buying, which didn't happen. The trust also vetoed that move because they didn't want fans involved.

Shutes agreed to provide proof of funds and didn't. Like it or not, the board want the incoming party to be able to provide the cash if the club is unable to pay its debts, in the same way Fenty has previously done. The trust agree with this, and Shutes didn't do it.

The problem is I don't trust what the board tell us. We were told we could operate for a year without income but have put together a squad that would struggle in the league below us. And that's despite 60% of season tickets being renewed and the fans donating over £100K in shares etc. We're being told that Shutes and co. couldn't provide evidence that they could help the club if it needed it financially. Well we're in a crisis right now and the board haven't put a penny in, most of them never have. The one who has put money in uses that money to keep a stranglehold over the club. What's the betting there will be enough left over to keep paying off that debt at the end of the season?

Quoted from coddy60

The board are not responsible for the players performing on a Saturday, you're right. But they are accountable, for consistently failing in their job of not giving the manager the required funding to get in the tools required to do his job properly.

Would you trust Holloway with funds for transfers based on his signings so far?

The thing is, what the board have to realise is that they are in the entertainment business,I will leave it to judge for yourselves as to whether they are delivering or not.

Quoted from Ipswin

Would you trust Holloway with funds for transfers based on his signings so far?

I agree, some of them are questionable, at best, but is that a result of the Covid clause and a urine poor budget again?

Over 18 years we have struggled, managers have come and gone, with varying levels of mediocre success or failure, there has only been one constant, which is the area I would look to be changing next, for who, like I say, I dont know.

Quoted from coddy60

I agree, some of them are questionable, at best, but is that a result of the Covid clause and a urine poor budget again?

Over 18 years we have struggled, managers have come and gone, with varying levels of mediocre success or failure, there has only been one constant, which is the area I would look to be changing next, for who, like I say, I dont know.

It's Holloway's choice to expand the squad 35 players. He could have chosen to get half the players he did on twice the money, it would have cost the same. I am sure the board would have been equally happy how the money was spent.

Quoted from Ipswin

Would you trust Holloway with funds for transfers based on his signings so far?

How many of them are Holloway targets? Some may have come from our own scouts which given the revelation that they didn't know what formation Tranmere played is very concerning given Paul Bolland knew exactly what formation they would be playing.

I seem to recall the interview with Matt Dean and Ira Jackson. Jackson said that his dad was involved in football as an agent or scout and knew Fenty. I'm sure he said that Fenty asked how his son was getting on and that is how the move came about.

It just baffles me that anyone thinks Fenty has done a good job at the head of GTFC and want him to carry on whatever.

I'm here to be corrected but I doubt he's put any money into the club in years.

Whatever reasons he's given about turning down the take over IMO are bullshit.
His ego won't let him take his cancerous grip off the club.

Quoted from TAGG

It just baffles me that anyone thinks Fenty has done a good job at the head of GTFC and want him to carry on whatever.

I'm here to be corrected but I doubt he's put any money into the club in years.

Whatever reasons he's given about turning down the take over IMO are bullshit.
His ego won't let him take his cancerous grip off the club.

I agree with your sentiments TAGG but I wish you wouldn't keep using the c word in your posts. I've lost two people close to me through cancer in the past twelve months and I'm sure others have lost people too or are going through awful battles presently..

Quoted from Bigdog

I agree with your sentiments TAGG but I wish you wouldn't keep using the c word in your posts. I've lost two people close to me through cancer in the past twelve months and I'm sure others have lost people too or are going through awful battles presently..

Sorry mate
As we all have.
Sorry for any upset caused to anyone on the fishy
Will not happen again x

Quoted from TAGG

Sorry mate
As we all have.
Sorry for any upset caused to anyone on the fishy
Will not happen again x

I'm sure any offence was unintended mate..

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it about Trump.

Quoted from RonMariner

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it about Trump.

Maybe he’s hanging on until his daughter can take over the club*

* I have no idea whether he had a daughter

A solution is to stop putting money into GTFC not a single penny, and any money you would have spent put into a separate fund. Give it a couple of years and if enough fans do it GTFC will go into administration, where the biggest loser will be Fenty as he will only be able to reclaim the price of Blundell Park. If collectively all the money the fans had put aside by not spending at GTFC, they can buy BP and buy out Fenty for a fraction of the price.

We might drop a division but it's going to happen sooner or later at this current rate.

Quick Maths, but if 2000 fans put £500 aside for 2 years, we'd have £2 million to play with, which would be easy enough to rescue GTFC from administration and carry on fan led.