I am like most Town fans keen for the takeover to happen but i have a few reservations about GTFC being a Private Limited Company.  

After our fans have hounded the owners to death, can they walk away and sell BP to developers for instance? Can they basically do whatever they want without being answerable to anyone or facing scrutiny? Can they do what Steve Dale did to Bury?

Just a thought

Owners doing what they like with no accountability, no interest in fans or the club long term, dealings with dodgy developers potentially with criminal backgrounds.

Sounds awful. Glad we don’t get any of that as a PLC.

Quoted from ska face

Owners doing what they like with no accountability, no interest in fans or the club long term, dealings with dodgy developers potentially with criminal backgrounds.

Sounds awful. Glad we don’t get any of that as a PLC.

This...

This is an excellent short video by Tifo football explaining what both private and public limited companies are and the pros and cons of each. Worth a watch

https://youtu.be/tMCSKud8Ngs

Jason and Andrew are both honest men and big fans of our great club.

So I believe every decision they make will be for the benefit of the club.

Excellent. Thanks Jim

Quoted from grimsby pete

Jason and Andrew are both honest men and big fans of our great club.

So I believe every decision they make will be for the benefit of the club.

I somewhat agree Pete, but jason and Andrew won't be around forever. Need an eye on the mid to long term as well.

Quoted from wigworld

I somewhat agree Pete, but jason and Andrew won't be around forever. Need an eye on the mid to long term as well.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Let them takeover first though at least

You can’t rely on the good intentions and sound judgement of two men for ever. Even if they are better than what we’ve got at the moment. It’s a big step forward, but like Wigworld says, we’ve got to think longer term.

It makes absolutely no sense at all for a company the size of Grimsby Town to be a Plc. Regardless of Plc or Ltd status the people with a controlling stake in the company have exactly that, control. If Fenty had wanted to sell off BP the only person who could have stopped him from doing so is Mike Parker, it works exactly the same now we're going private. A big plus to going private is how much it cuts down on beaurocracy which is unnecessary, time consuming and inherently expensive.

I understand by a reliable board member that by changing it to a private company Mr Parker doesn’t get a brass farthing back.The Take over panel will not allow this to happen.

Quoted from Iknowyoursecret

I understand by a reliable board member that by changing it to a private company Mr Parker doesn’t get a brass farthing back.The Take over panel will not allow this to happen.

Is he a Monopoly board member, because what you were told makes no sense. Or you’ve misunderstood what you were told.

Quoted from Iknowyoursecret

I understand by a reliable board member that by changing it to a private company Mr Parker doesn’t get a brass farthing back.The Take over panel will not allow this to happen.

You mean he doesn't get a mandatory offer at the same rate as which they purchased Fenty's shares, nor does anybody else. But since Parker is needed to get that decision over the line, then you would assume that both he and the new owners have been in contact and working, at least to some degree, together.

Parker would still own shares, and they would still be worth something, but probably not what he paid for them. New shares look to be taken off the market, so market value will be able to be determined by the value of the company rather than what people have been paying for them in the last few months.

It's the sensible thing to do from an owner's perspective, they have more freedom to do what they want with less information in the public eye, which has the potential to cause problems from misunderstanding.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Is he a Monopoly board member, because what you were told makes no sense. Or you’ve misunderstood what you were told.

He said "reliable board member" .......that should have identified it to everyone as b0ll0cks.

I disagree with the point on not being so open. It is only open to misunderstanding if you communicate poorly. It’s worse when there is less information on display because people are more likely to read between the lines. Plenty of successful plc out there who don’t suffer from misunderstanding.

Besides 1878 have said they want transparency.

It’s probably the extra bureaucracy of a plc that is inappropriate for a company the size of GTFC.

Quoted from moosey_club

He said "reliable board member" .......that should have identified it to everyone as b0ll0cks.

The mariners trust board must be aware who it is by now.It’s no secret who’s it is.Ask the reporter who first brought the may story in december.

Quoted from Iknowyoursecret

The mariners trust board must be aware who it is by now.It’s no secret who’s it is.Ask the reporter who first brought the may story in december.

Does it matter who it is when it's wrong?

If the trust members were against May being involved, then they probably should have voted against his investment. The statement said it was unanimously in favour.

Quoted from pen penfras

You mean he doesn't get a mandatory offer at the same rate as which they purchased Fenty's shares, nor does anybody else. But since Parker is needed to get that decision over the line, then you would assume that both he and the new owners have been in contact and working, at least to some degree, together.

Parker would still own shares, and they would still be worth something, but probably not what he paid for them. New shares look to be taken off the market, so market value will be able to be determined by the value of the company rather than what people have been paying for them in the last few months.

It's the sensible thing to do from an owner's perspective, they have more freedom to do what they want with less information in the public eye, which has the potential to cause problems from misunderstanding.

Disinformation methinks. There is no 'market' in GTFC shares - you buy them for a pound a share and you would sell them for a pound a share (unless 2 parties came to a private agreement) and have done for years. Incidentally there is no evidence, as far as i can see, that shares will be taken off the market; in fact given the partnership's professed ethos, that one could see a scenario where they would actively promote shares being available for supporters to purchase.
Your last sentence is probably correct, but given Stockwood's history and the fact that he wants GTFC to have Bcorp staus it's an extremely unlikely scenario.careful Pen Penfras, others less charitable than myself could accuse you of spreading false truths and disinformation.........