The confirmation statement was sent to Companies House a couple of weeks ago and it shows how much of the club 1878 Partners have acquired...

Total Shares Issued in Company - £2,379,900
1878 Partners - £1,501,834 (63.1%)
Mariners Trust - £321,050 (13.5%)
Michael Parker - £250,000 (10.5%)
Other Shareholders - £307,016 (12.9%)

The statement also shows who have offloaded their shares. Which tells us 1878 Partners acquired shares from the following...

John Shelton Fenty - £975,000
Michael Parker - £250,000
Lee Mullen - £130,000
John Elsom - £75,500
Andrew Newman - £25,000
Terence Clive Aspinall - £15,500
David Andrew Carr - £11,077
Terence Aspinall - £10,002
Stephen Marley - £3,000
Helen Marley - £2,000
Stanley Shreeve - £2,000
Steve Ewels - £1,400
Arthur Ernest Spalding - £700
Other Minor Shareholders - £650

Philip Day still owns £2,950 of shares. Given the statement is dated nearly 6 months after he departed from the board it would appear he's turned down the chance to sell to 1878.

Holloway still clinging onto his £500 worth too

Old shut up put less money in than most of the people he told to shut up for a place on a board that he did nothing with…flipping outrageous…

late filing of the confirmation statement applies and an automatic fine imposed. Tut tut.

Interesting to see the share movements and wonder if bringing the company private means less transparency going forward.

I ask this because the AGM was voted by shareholders to be held annually on the last Thursday of November of each year, but one was not held last November, and nor was that notified to shareholders. Tut tut.

The accounts were always publicised and circulated well in advance of the AGM for ratification. This always followed substantive scrutiny. Tut tut not happened, and to my knowledge they have still not been filed, but are overdue.

Accepting now 1878 have taken GTFC private, one thinks they still have a duty of care to its shareholders.

I’m delighted we have new ownership but do think the silence on these matters are of real concern and wiff ‘lack of transparency’.

Quoted from GibMariner

late filing of the confirmation statement applies and an automatic fine imposed. Tut tut.

This is untrue. No fine / penalty.

The accounts are not overdue either.

Quoted from GibMariner

late filing of the confirmation statement applies and an automatic fine imposed. Tut tut.

Interesting to see the share movements and wonder if bringing the company private means less transparency going forward.

I ask this because the AGM was voted by shareholders to be held annually on the last Thursday of November of each year, but one was not held last November, and nor was that notified to shareholders. Tut tut.

The accounts were always publicised and circulated well in advance of the AGM for ratification. This always followed substantive scrutiny. Tut tut not happened, and to my knowledge they have still not been filed, but are overdue.

Accepting now 1878 have taken GTFC private, one thinks they still have a duty of care to its shareholders.

I’m delighted we have new ownership but do think the silence on these matters are of real concern and wiff ‘lack of transparency’.

You really are f#cking fun soinge aren't you?...Fenty ain't coming back, get it over it!..and snap that stick you constantly try to hit the new owners with, the barbs are getting blunt!..🤡

Quoted from GibMariner

late filing of the confirmation statement applies and an automatic fine imposed. Tut tut.

Interesting to see the share movements and wonder if bringing the company private means less transparency going forward.

I ask this because the AGM was voted by shareholders to be held annually on the last Thursday of November of each year, but one was not held last November, and nor was that notified to shareholders. Tut tut.

The accounts were always publicised and circulated well in advance of the AGM for ratification. This always followed substantive scrutiny. Tut tut not happened, and to my knowledge they have still not been filed, but are overdue.

Accepting now 1878 have taken GTFC private, one thinks they still have a duty of care to its shareholders.

I’m delighted we have new ownership but do think the silence on these matters are of real concern and wiff ‘lack of transparency’.

If you’re going to try and have a dig you probably need to get your facts right…

Quoted from Northbank Mariner

You really are f#cking fun soinge aren't you?...Fenty ain't coming back, get it over it!..and snap that stick you constantly try to hit the new owners with, the barbs are getting blunt!..🤡

The tone is a tad to say the least unfair.

These are facts found on co house and picked up as a shareholder.

All I want is my club to conform to regulation and be no less transparent than it was.

Have another go by all means, but to repeat I hold no candle for the past regime. OK

Quoted from GibMariner

The tone is a tad to say the least unfair.

These are facts found on co house and picked up as a shareholder.

All I want is my club to conform to regulation and be no less transparent than it was.

Have another go by all means, but to repeat I hold no candle for the past regime. OK

But at least (at the very, very least) two of your ‘facts’ are not true.

Quoted from GibMariner

The tone is a tad to say the least unfair.

These are facts found on co house and picked up as a shareholder.

All I want is my club to conform to regulation and be no less transparent than it was.

Have another go by all means, but to repeat I hold no candle for the past regime. OK

GlibMariner (which I assume was your intended username), you've posted on this forum 57 times at the current count, and an overwhelming majority of those posts have been written with a blatant undertone of anti-new regime.

Don't get me wrong, people in public roles should be open to criticism as and when they make mistakes, and I don't think the new owners have been faultless thus far - they've made a few errors already, albeit trivial ones. But when all you do is criticise and poke holes in something, and when it's virtually the only time you chime in, people are going to assume you have an agenda and take you less seriously as a result.

You might want to consider that while you count your red crosses.

Quoted from Poojah

GlibMariner (which I assume was your intended username), you've posted on this forum 57 times at the current count, and an overwhelming majority of those posts have been written with a blatant undertone of anti-new regime.

Don't get me wrong, people in public roles should be open to criticism as and when they make mistakes, and I don't think the new owners have been faultless thus far - they've made a few errors already, albeit trivial ones. But when all you do is criticise and poke holes in something, and when it's virtually the only time you chime in, people are going to assume you have an agenda and take you less seriously as a result.

You might want to consider that while you count your red crosses.

Instantly gold starred by the other account they probably have open in another browser to mask the IP address. Likely suspects are Filipe Noche and GetYourFactsRight.

For those who know about these things interesting that they bought just enough to get Mike Parker and the trusts combined holding below 25% which with remaining shares spread across hundreds of small shareholders effectively  gives them total control without making a general offer to all shareholders just picking off the larger ones.
Other shareholders still waiting for the accounts and the engagement with shareholders JS promised would be ready within 2 weeks back in November.
Pile on the red crosses I prefer facts to words

Quoted from HerveJosse

For those who know about these things interesting that they bought just enough to get Mike Parker and the trusts combined holding below 25% which with remaining shares spread across hundreds of small shareholders effectively  gives them total control without making a general offer to all shareholders just picking off the larger ones.
Other shareholders still waiting for the accounts and the engagement with shareholders JS promised would be ready within 2 weeks back in November.
Pile on the red crosses I prefer facts to words

I'm going to say it was used as a figure of speech; we've all said we will see someone in a couple of weeks and not see them for months. It's not the most prudent thing to release the accounts just before a major transfer window either and they aren't due until February.

Now we aren't a PLC, we don't have to publish such detailed accounts so I'm interested to see how or if we go over and above the minimum standard.

Quoted from ska face

Holloway still clinging onto his £500 worth too

Probably unable to sell them because he blocked Stockwoods number when he tried to speak to him behind his back.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

I'm going to say it was used as a figure of speech; we've all said we will see someone in a couple of weeks and not see them for months. It's not the most prudent thing to release the accounts just before a major transfer window either and they aren't due until February.

Now we aren't a PLC, we don't have to publish such detailed accounts so I'm interested to see how or if we go over and above the minimum standard.

You mean as in BoJo figure of speech.

Quoted from HerveJosse

You mean as in BoJo figure of speech.

They were on DN35 Podcast after the Halifax game. Did you fill the form in beforehand and ask your pressing accounts question?

Quoted from Knut Anders Fosters Voles

This is untrue. No fine / penalty.

The accounts are not overdue either.

It's not an automatic fine, but it can be fined if it's significantly late and looks like it was about 11 weeks late, so possibly a fine. Is there a good reason for it being late?

Quoted from aldi_01

Old shut up put less money in than most of the people he told to shut up for a place on a board that he did nothing with…flipping outrageous…

He did do the company accounts for free, I think that probably adds up to quite a lot over the years.

Quoted from pen penfras

It's not an automatic fine, but it can be fined if it's significantly late and looks like it was about 11 weeks late, so possibly a fine. Is there a good reason for it being late?

Presumably someone will have written to Companies House every month saying:

‘Dear Mr House,

Yes, we still want the company. Please don’t strike-off it off. We recently acquired the company. There are a lot of shareholders with non-controlling interests and we need to complete the relevant due diligence to ensure the information provided by the previous owners was correct. We will ensure the Statement is filed as soon as possible but, like most companies, we are being impacted by Covid and would appreciate time to allow us to bring the company’s affairs up to date.

Lots of love,

Jase’


There will not have been a fine or penalty.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

They were on DN35 Podcast after the Halifax game. Did you fill the form in beforehand and ask your pressing accounts question?

How can. I ask A a pressing accounts question when they haven’t been issued?

Matt Dean aske they question when will they be available etc back in November after our earlier exchanges on this and the answer was they are finished subject to a couple of queries so two weeks .

Quoted from Knut Anders Fosters Voles

Presumably someone will have written to Companies House every month saying:

‘Dear Mr House,

Yes, we still want the company. Please don’t strike-off it off. We recently acquired the company. There are a lot of shareholders with non-controlling interests and we need to complete the relevant due diligence to ensure the information provided by the previous owners was correct. We will ensure the Statement is filed as soon as possible but, like most companies, we are being impacted by Covid and would appreciate time to allow us to bring the company’s affairs up to date.

Lots of love,

Jase’


There will not have been a fine or penalty.

Similar letter presumambly sent explaining why they were also three months late completing one sheet of paper to notify Debbiies appointment as a director. That covid really makes writing 12 words difficult.

Quoted from HerveJosse

How can. I ask A a pressing accounts question when they haven’t been issued?

Matt Dean aske they question when will they be available etc back in November after our earlier exchanges on this and the answer was they are finished subject to a couple of queries so two weeks .

Legally accounts have to be submitted to Companies House 9 months after the end date for the accounts.

So based on the last accounts being up to May 31st 2020 the accounts for the following financial year are not due to be with Companies House until 28th February 2022.

And that’s if the new owners keep the same accounting year. Quite a few football clubs in recent years have extended their accounting period to the end of June by having a one off 13 month accounting period for a year.

This makes sense as player contracts run until June 30th so it means the accounts are more in line with the true football calendar.

So, GTFC’s accounts aren’t overdue. If they haven’t been submitted to Companies House in the next 5 weeks (or 9 weeks if they extend the financial year) then you have a valid question.

Quoted from HerveJosse

For those who know about these things interesting that they bought just enough to get Mike Parker and the trusts combined holding below 25% which with remaining shares spread across hundreds of small shareholders effectively  gives them total control without making a general offer to all shareholders just picking off the larger ones.
Other shareholders still waiting for the accounts and the engagement with shareholders JS promised would be ready within 2 weeks back in November.
Pile on the red crosses I prefer facts to words

GTFC is now a limited company so the rule with regards anybody acquiring over 30% of the company being required to make an offer for the entire issued shares doesn’t apply. And even if we were still a PLC an EGM can be called and a vote held to agree a shareholder passing the 30% threshold but not having to make an offer for the remaining shares.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Legally accounts have to be submitted to Companies House 9 months after the end date for the accounts.

So based on the last accounts being up to May 31st 2020 the accounts for the following financial year are not due to be with Companies House until 28th February 2022.

And that’s if the new owners keep the same accounting year. Quite a few football clubs in recent years have extended their accounting period to the end of June by having a one off 13 month accounting period for a year.

This makes sense as player contracts run until June 30th so it means the accounts are more in line with the true football calendar.

So, GTFC’s accounts aren’t overdue. If they haven’t been submitted to Companies House in the next 5 weeks (or 9 weeks if they extend the financial year) then you have a valid question.

I didn’t say the accounts were overdue at Companies House my complaint is that they haven’t been sent to shareholders which was promised would take place back in November and also no indication the shareholder engagement thereon (AGM ) which was similarly promised is happening.
Most companies issue their accounts to shareholders when complete but wait until the last minute to file at Companies House . They are two different issues

Quoted from GollyGTFC

GTFC is now a limited company so the rule with regards anybody acquiring over 30% of the company being required to make an offer for the entire issued shares doesn’t apply. And even if we were still a PLC an EGM can be called and a vote held to agree a shareholder passing the 30% threshold but not having to make an offer for the remaining shares.

And the relevance of that is what?

Quoted from HerveJosse

How can. I ask A a pressing accounts question when they haven’t been issued?

Matt Dean aske they question when will they be available etc back in November after our earlier exchanges on this and the answer was they are finished subject to a couple of queries so two weeks .

Your pressing question is "when are they being released?"

Watch this space, you might get your wish in the coming days...

Quoted from HerveJosse

And the relevance of that is what?

Amongst the jibberish you posted you mentioned a threshold for 1878 having to make a general offer to shareholders. I was merely pointing out you are wrong.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Amongst the jibberish you posted you mentioned a threshold for 1878 having to make a general offer to shareholders. I was merely pointing out you are wrong.

Try reading what I said instead of assuming iI said something else

Quoted from jamesgtfc

Your pressing question is "when are they being released?"

Watch this space, you might get your wish in the coming days...

So you are a mind reader now.

Quoted from HerveJosse

So you are a mind reader now.

You keep moaning about our accounts not being available. I have asked you a simple question which you won't answer: did you take the opportunity to ask the board for an update when they were on the DN35 Podcast at the start of January?

It's easy to sit here and moan about it but we all had an opportunity to ask the board some questions. The lack of published accounts has really troubled you since November so I'm assuming you completed the form DN35 produced to ask for an update?

Quoted from jamesgtfc

You keep moaning about our accounts not being available. I have asked you a simple question which you won't answer: did you take the opportunity to ask the board for an update when they were on the DN35 Podcast at the start of January?

It's easy to sit here and moan about it but we all had an opportunity to ask the board some questions. The lack of published accounts has really troubled you since November so I'm assuming you completed the form DN35 produced to ask for an update?

I thought I had answered that but if I haven’t I had already asked the question via Matt Dean and received the answe it would be in two weeks from the question being asked in mid November . Do I need to ask it twice even if. I was aware of a podcast that invited questions which I wasn’t .

Quoted from HerveJosse

I thought I had answered that but if I haven’t I had already asked the question via Matt Dean and received the answe it would be in two weeks from the question being asked in mid November . Do I need to ask it twice even if. I was aware of a podcast that invited questions which I wasn’t .

If something isn't being delivered to your expectations then you are well within your rights to chase it up. Alex came on here inviting questions I'm sure and was also on Twitter regularly speaking about it. Had you known, you could have had an explanation for the delay and another date to hold them accountable to I'm sure.

Based on what I've been told today, you will have access to the accounts very, very soon.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

If something isn't being delivered to your expectations then you are well within your rights to chase it up. Alex came on here inviting questions I'm sure and was also on Twitter regularly speaking about it. Had you known, you could have had an explanation for the delay and another date to hold them accountable to I'm sure.

Based on what I've been told today, you will have access to the accounts very, very soon.

That’s good

Quoted from GollyGTFC

The confirmation statement was sent to Companies House a couple of weeks ago and it shows how much of the club 1878 Partners have acquired...

Total Shares Issued in Company - £2,379,900
1878 Partners - £1,501,834 (63.1%)
Mariners Trust - £321,050 (13.5%)
Michael Parker - £250,000 (10.5%)
Other Shareholders - £307,016 (12.9%)

The statement also shows who have offloaded their shares. Which tells us 1878 Partners acquired shares from the following...

John Shelton Fenty - £975,000
Michael Parker - £250,000
Lee Mullen - £130,000
John Elsom - £75,500
Andrew Newman - £25,000
Terence Clive Aspinall - £15,500
David Andrew Carr - £11,077
Terence Aspinall - £10,002
Stephen Marley - £3,000
Helen Marley - £2,000
Stanley Shreeve - £2,000
Steve Ewels - £1,400
Arthur Ernest Spalding - £700
Other Minor Shareholders - £650

The new owners spend £1.5 million acquiring the club and some think they should be doing more?  

Quoted from HertsGTFC

The new owners spend £1.5 million acquiring the club and some think they should be doing more?  

Less than a year and people moan, the other fornicators had 17 years and some still think they did a good job…beggars belief…

Quoted from HertsGTFC

The new owners spend £1.5 million acquiring the club and some think they should be doing more?  

And committed to pay another £1.5m...

Be interesting when the accounts are published and we have less than £800k in the bank. The vultures will circle demanding to know what that money was spent on during the first 3 weeks they owned the club.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

And committed to pay another £1.5m...

Be interesting when the accounts are published and we have less than £800k in the bank. The vultures will circle demanding to know what that money was spent on during the first 3 weeks they owned the club.

Equally it might end up costing them a lot less if Dembele actually end up getting sold. The old risk reward clock is counting.........tick tock tick tock

Quoted from jamesgtfc

And committed to pay another £1.5m...

Be interesting when the accounts are published and we have less than £800k in the bank. The vultures will circle demanding to know what that money was spent on during the first 3 weeks they owned the club.

Is that the £800k that Fenty refereed to? That was just the cash at the bank in the balance sheet I’d assume.

Quoted from HertsGTFC

Is that the £800k that Fenty refereed to? That was just the cash at the bank in the balance sheet I’d assume.

Fenty and his friends are regularly reminding us all that 1878 inherited an £800k bank balance. I suppose leaving us with £800k in the bank is the least John could do when he's got first dibs on any transfer income with those benign loans of his that would never, ever be used against the club.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

Fenty and his friends are regularly reminding us all that 1878 inherited an £800k bank balance. I suppose leaving us with £800k in the bank is the least John could do when he's got first dibs on any transfer income with those benign loans of his that would never, ever be used against the club.

Yeah he bigged that up but it wasn’t a war chest legacy he made it out to be. it was the cash balance for the business and part of cash flow which would fluctuate anyway. He needed a decent level of cash cover to substantiate the value of his equity.

I'd rather him of taken it all and we start fresh on the £0 line. Yes it's a bit of a risk and could put us in the minus for a while but it's even closer to him disappearing.

Quoted from lukeo

I'd rather him of taken it all and we start fresh on the £0 line. Yes it's a bit of a risk and could put us in the minus for a while but it's even closer to him disappearing.

As the GTFC under Fenty wasn’t solely owned by him the cash in the bank belongs to the business and not one individual so he couldn’t have taken it with him anyway.

Quoted from GibMariner

late filing of the confirmation statement applies and an automatic fine imposed. Tut tut.

Interesting to see the share movements and wonder if bringing the company private means less transparency going forward.

I ask this because the AGM was voted by shareholders to be held annually on the last Thursday of November of each year, but one was not held last November, and nor was that notified to shareholders. Tut tut.

The accounts were always publicised and circulated well in advance of the AGM for ratification. This always followed substantive scrutiny. Tut tut not happened, and to my knowledge they have still not been filed, but are overdue.

Accepting now 1878 have taken GTFC private, one thinks they still have a duty of care to its shareholders.

I’m delighted we have new ownership but do think the silence on these matters are of real concern and wiff ‘lack of transparency’.

Fenty’s got a new name!

I lay awake at night fretting about when the accounts will be released.

Quoted from HertsGTFC

As the GTFC under Fenty wasn’t solely owned by him the cash in the bank belongs to the business and not one individual so he couldn’t have taken it with him anyway.

Theoretically he could have emptied the bank account to repay a chunk of his “benign” loan.