Trust shares?

According to Kristine on RH Saturday no, and the trust is not going to ask for them either.

Quoted from DB

According to Kristine on RH Saturday no, and the trust is not going to ask for them either.

Thanks, didn’t hear the interview.

Quoted from DB

According to Kristine on RH Saturday no, and the trust is not going to ask for them either.

If we are talking about the 200,000 shares given to Fenty why would they not ask for them back? Would seem as very reasonable thing to do.

Quoted from RonMariner

If we are talking about the 200,000 shares given to Fenty why would they not ask for them back? Would seem as very reasonable thing to do.

i wonder whether this had been covered in the negotiations at Xmas/New Year and JF made it a condition of sale that he wouldn't return them
Also Trust may not want to rock the boat and possibly jeopardise the deal by asking for them back and pisssing Fenty off
No knowledge, just guesswork

Quoted from forza ivano

No knowledge, just guesswork

The GTFC 21st century motto.

Quoted from RonMariner

If we are talking about the 200,000 shares given to Fenty why would they not ask for them back? Would seem as very reasonable thing to do.

As I recall it was something to do with the manner that they were given to Fenty, in the wording of the paperwork. Because of this they decided not to ask for them back. That is what I understood by it, however I may be wrong.

The best thing for all interested would be to listen to a recording or ask Kristine.

I still think he should give them back. It just seems wrong for him to pocket £200k in this manner.

I've said this before that if Fenty called himself a true fan he would give the shares back to the trust as a parting gift, he might even  gain a little bit of credibility back, but then again we all know that isn't going to happen.

I'm surprised to see this subject come up again.

As long as there is a hole in Fenty's a*se he won't be giving the shares back. They're gone.

We (supporters) need to learn from this and make sure we're not taken for a ride in the future by owners in terms of shares and similar.

Not sure why the Trust would have wanted to give them to Fenty in the first place...

Quoted from DB

According to Kristine on RH Saturday no, and the trust is not going to ask for them either.

If this is the case then the Trust aren't fit for purpose. They should never have given Fenty the shares and capitulated under his demands because he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and threatened to sell our star striker at the time if he didn't get full control.

I think the shares will be included in the takeover deal - if not he'll still be the majority shareholder - or am I NUTS.

Wheres that Frozen character when you need her...

Let it go
Let it go
Let it goooooo

Quoted from pizzzza

Not sure why the Trust would have wanted to give them to Fenty in the first place...

I maybe wrong, but I think it had to do with Mr Fenty wanting control, otherwise he wouldn't under write any debt?

Given he is getting what I believe is his money back, not sure how you can justify holding on to shares that were "gifted".?

I think you could draw interesting comparisons between the parting actions of Mr Parker and Mr Fenty.

It's Mr Parker who should feel drunk off, not the fans
The trust did the dirty on him. Pretty sure they weren't meant for fenty.
Worst than parker putting the money down the drain

Quoted from golfer

I think the shares will be included in the takeover deal - if not he'll still be the majority shareholder - or am I NUTS.

He could gift them back to the trust as part of the deal. The Trust could keep them and have a substantial shareholding in the club, and the new owners would save £200k in acquisition costs. He would get a least some credibility for doing so. Sounds like a win win win to me..  

The Trust members vote to give Fenty the shares for x reasons.  One very public statement (threat/promise) made by Fenty at the time was that he said that he would sell star prolific striker Liam Hearn if he did NOT get the Trust shares.

On one else would threaten this.  No one else but Fenty would probably carry out this threat if he had not got his own way.

A realistic threat given the introduction of May to the Board and Fenty’s action in snapping a fan’s flag. His judgement is spiteful and unpredictable.  

Quoted from RonMariner

He could gift them back to the trust as part of the deal. The Trust could keep them and have a substantial shareholding in the club, and the new owners would save £200k in acquisition costs. He would get a least some credibility for doing so. Sounds like a win win win to me..  

He could. He won't.

Quoted from RonMariner

I still think he should give them back. It just seems wrong for him to pocket £200k in this manner.

I don't think what is right and wrong really bothers him......

Quoted from FishOutOfWater

I don't think what is right and wrong really bothers him......

Well, he doesn't really need the money, and the way he is going he may well end up the most despised man in Grimsby This would be one way of salvaging a little respect.

At the time handing over the shares to Fenty seemed like a poor decision, with the benefit of hindsight it seems even worse. What on earth were they thinking?

Perhaps you could have a look at the 9 years worth of threads on that exact subject and find out, rather than boring everyone again?

Trust should of called his bluff. Simple

The 200k's worth of shares form part of the majority shareholding of the club. The consortium have to buy them off JF to assume control of the club. JF then, if he felt obliged, could donate 200k to the Trust in cash. Couldn't care less at this point about greed, honour or moral obligation. Just want the deal finalised as soon as possible to draw a line under the most embarrassing and unsuccessful chapter in the club's history, and then find out what plans the consortium have for the future. Much more interested in that than anything else..

He could win back a bit of favour by giving back the cost of the shares toward a fighting fund for squad strengthening should we fall out of the league. You could buy some decent players with £200,000 to spend. A couple of hotshot strikers would be a nice parting gift.

Quoted from pizzzza

Not sure why the Trust would have wanted to give them to Fenty in the first place...

It wasn't "the Trust" that made that decision.

"The Trust" gave the shares to Fenty because that is what the poll at that time of Trust members voted to happen.

Quoted from Tommy

It wasn't "the Trust" that made that decision.

"The Trust" gave the shares to Fenty because that is what the poll at that time of Trust members voted to happen.

Eh?

Of course the Trust made that decision, the members voted for it. The members make up the Trust.

Quoted from pizzzza

Eh?

Of course the Trust made that decision, the members voted for it. The members make up the Trust.

Ok. Yes you're right. I just misread and thought you were referring to the trust as the people on the trust board. Apologies.

if he had a ounce of good will he would give them back surely ?

Quoted from Eastendmariner

if he had a ounce of good will he would give them back surely ?

You would think so.

With the Alex May shinanigans his reputation is in the toilet. This would be a good way to help restore some semblance of credibility, and to help the club.  

Quoted from ginnywings

He could win back a bit of favour by giving back the cost of the shares toward a fighting fund for squad strengthening should we fall out of the league. You could buy some decent players with £200,000 to spend. A couple of hotshot strikers would be a nice parting gift.

I've just seen a flying pig over BP.

Quoted from DB

I've just seen a flying pig over BP.

Maybe Pink Floyd are rehearsing there?

Quoted from RonMariner

Maybe Pink Floyd are rehearsing there?

For readers below the age of 60, Pink Floyd were a rock band who made an album with a flying pig on it....

Quoted from pizzzza

Not sure why the Trust would have wanted to give them to Fenty in the first place...

It's been said many times on here and confirmed by the trust.

Fenty said to the Trust after they had been gifted 500.000 shares that if they gave him 250,000 of them he would put 200,000 pounds of new money into the budget.

Fenty in other words got 250,000 shares for 200,000 pounds so he made 50.000 pound on the deal

Fenty could have just bought the shares from the club but he did not want the trust and Parker to have too much power over him.

He has always wanted to be the main man so he could do what he wants.

Power mad imo.

On the basis that Fenty should give them back, and he would be getting money he didn't put in, don't you think that the trust should give Mike Parker back all of his shares?

Quoted from pen penfras

On the basis that Fenty should give them back, and he would be getting money he didn't put in, don't you think that the trust should give Mike Parker back all of his shares?

The deal is done so it does not matter what we want but that would only be right if they were gifted to the Trust there is no difference.

Let's move on and look forward to the new regime.

Quoted from Dogger Bank

If this is the case then the Trust aren't fit for purpose. They should never have given Fenty the shares and capitulated under his demands because he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and threatened to sell our star striker at the time if he didn't get full control.

Did you vote against it Dogger?

Quoted from grimsby pete

It's been said many times on here and confirmed by the trust.

Fenty said to the Trust after they had been gifted 500.000 shares that if they gave him 250,000 of them he would put 200,000 pounds of new money into the budget.

Fenty in other words got 250,000 shares for 200,000 pounds so he made 50.000 pound on the deal

Fenty could have just bought the shares from the club but he did not want the trust and Parker to have too much power over him.

He has always wanted to be the main man so he could do what he wants.

Power mad imo.

I don't think that is the case Pete.

From my recollection he purchased 200k worth of shares himself, but because "control remained outside of the boardroom" he then strong-armed the Trust into handing over 250k's worth to him - in effect paying 200k for 450k's worth.

It would be interesting to see if the vote was legal because it is perfectly feasible that Fenty himself (and all his family) could have effectively voted in favour of being given 250k worth of shares for free, if he and his family were Trust members at the time they should have been precluded from voting,

At the end of the day he should hand those shares back to the Trust as he no longer needs them for the reason he outlined when asking for them,

The Trust should be putting pressure on him to do this.

Fenty made his proposal/threat regards the Trust shares and the consequences if he didn't get them.

The Trust board quite rightly put it to their membership to vote on.

The membership, of which anyone is able to be a part of and participate, then voted to give Fenty the shares.

There are absolutely no grounds for anyone to moan about 'the Trust' did with those shares.  

It was a democratic process, influenced by Fenty's project fear approach.  If you were a Trust member voting against the giving of shares, like myself, it's excrement but you have to accept it.  If you weren't a Trust member and then decide to moan, it's like moaning about your neighbour selling his car to a bloke down the road.

The only 'fault' in this is Fenty's actions and no doubt his future refusal to do the honourable thing moving forward.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Fenty made his proposal/threat regards the Trust shares and the consequences if he didn't get them.

The Trust board quite rightly put it to their membership to vote on.

The membership, of which anyone is able to be a part of and participate, then voted to give Fenty the shares.

There are absolutely no grounds for anyone to moan about 'the Trust' did with those shares.  

It was a democratic process, influenced by Fenty's project fear approach.  If you were a Trust member voting against the giving of shares, like myself, it's excrement but you have to accept it.  If you weren't a Trust member and then decide to moan, it's like moaning about your neighbour selling his car to a bloke down the road.

The only 'fault' in this is Fenty's actions and no doubt his future refusal to do the honourable thing moving forward.

Joke

For all those like pizzza harbouring a pathological issue about the Trust shares, you will be keen to know that a similar vote will need to take place as part of the takeover. The consortium will be bound to make an offer to all shareholders for the purchase of their shares, and according to the Trust’s recent board minutes, the decision to sell all, some or none of the current shareholding will be put to the members.

Memberships can be purchased from the usual outlets, enjoy having a say!

I'm surprised that this thread is still going...

There's lots of 'Fenty should do the right/honourable/decent thing'

Have you learned nothing about Fenty in the last few months? He will only do what is right for John Fenty. He wouldn't know what the right/honourable/decent thing was if it smacked him in the mouth.

Those shares will be sold as part of the takeover and the money will go into John Fenty's pocket.

It was not a democratic process when there was cohesion as to the outcome of the vote.  (The threat to sell Hearn - which no one knew was serious or not).

Agree this ship has long since sailed. We have far more pressing issues to worry about).

Quoted from TownSNAFU5

It was not a democratic process when there was cohesion as to the outcome of the vote.  (The threat to sell Hearn - which no one knew was serious or not).

Agree this ship has long since sailed. We have far more pressing issues to worry about).

The safest response to a threat like that is to call the bluff of the person concerned. Don't worry about short-term issues. Think of the longer game. Promotion or relegation is a short-term matter when it comes to questions of ownership. That decision was driven by short-termism, it several more years to get promotion anyway, and we probably wouldn't be in this mess now if the people taking the decision had faced down the threat.

Same now. If you are worried about not rocking the boat when we're facing relegation, then I'd suggest the focus is too short-term and too late in any case.

Quoted from TownSNAFU5

It was not a democratic process when there was cohesion as to the outcome of the vote.  (The threat to sell Hearn - which no one knew was serious or not).

Agree this ship has long since sailed. We have far more pressing issues to worry about).

See also, every single democratic vote in modern history.  

If all democratic votes were done purely on facts alone, with no scare-mongering or smear tactics or even lies, it would be a wonderful world.  Alas, this isn't the case.

Fenty, as dirty as it was, played a blinder.  He held a gun to the head of the voters, some of whom were scared enough by the threat.   It sums him up when he claims he's a fan yet happily played this game.

I agree too, it's done and dusted.  It's absolutely shite that's he's going to walk away with something for nothing.  But in all honesty, I would much rather accept this fate begrudgingly than see it hold up his removal from the club.

What is the benefit to the club, or the trust of John Fenty giving those shares back to the Trust?

Does the Trust have the additional wealth to then support the club in a way financially that owning such a large % of the issued share capital warrants?

Does the Trust have the financial wealth to even meet the tax liability it would incur from a gift of shares of that size and value?

But here is the big question you should all be asking yourself ....

If John Fenty gifted those shares back to the Mariners Trust, would the new consortium even want to complete the sale of his other shares? Don’t the consortium want all of John Fenty’s shares? Why would the consortium want to buy his shares minus the element that was once the Trusts? Why would the consortium want any other very big shareholder in their new business? Especially as they intend to move forward with multi million £ investments in stadiums and regeneration that the Trust couldn’t possibly ever consider investing in, pro-rata to the extent of its shareholding

People really have to think about these things carefully. There’s far more to it at stake than what you believe is the moral obligations of either the Trust or John Fenty here. You have to see the bigger picture

There will come a time, soon after the Consortium takeover, depending on whether the share purchase is made by a company they set up, or as individuals; that the Consortium will be duty bound to offer to take on everybody else’s shares. That’s yours and mine, and the Trusts. But, if JF’s shares are purchased by three individually, then that rule won’t apply, since neither of them will hold a majority stake in the business.

It looks like the Trust will putting to vote on selling a small portion of their shares to the consortium which personally I don't agree with.

It would be great if Fenty acknowledged these were a gift and paid back the £200k in cash so the new board got the shares and the Trust got £200k less tax to spend on things that improve the experience for us fans.

Whichever way you look at it, £200k is going to do the club more good in the playing budget than in Fenty's pocket.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

It looks like the Trust will putting to vote on selling a small portion of their shares to the consortium which personally I don't agree with.

Not necessarily. If the consortium are buying JF’s shares individually, then none of the three will hold a majority and so nobody then had to commit to offering to purchase the remaining shares elsewhere in the business

But yes they do have to make that offer, if it’s not the three individuals purchasing JF’s shares but a company they own as a collective. In which case that company would then have to offer to buy everyone else’s shares

Here is another thing.

If the consortium buy the shares through a business they jointly own, let’s call it Newco. Then the shares in GTFC are owned by Newco, and not directly by Stockwood, Schutes and Pettit.

Those three may not even decide to have places on the board. But if they did, then they would be directors without any personal direct shareholding in the business. Their shares are in Newco which owns shares in GTFC.

You may find that that neither of them decide to become board members, and that they decide to appoint a director to represent them such as this Palmer bloke they appear to be bringing in

Yeah, good.

Sooner have one person on the board who knows what he’s doing than a clueless dictator like Honest John who has put us into non league TWICE whilst pursuing his own vanity projects.

Quoted from Fillipe Noche

What is the benefit to the club, or the trust of John Fenty giving those shares back to the Trust?

Does the Trust have the additional wealth to then support the club in a way financially that owning such a large % of the issued share capital warrants?

Does the Trust have the financial wealth to even meet the tax liability it would incur from a gift of shares of that size and value?

But here is the big question you should all be asking yourself ....

If John Fenty gifted those shares back to the Mariners Trust, would the new consortium even want to complete the sale of his other shares? Don’t the consortium want all of John Fenty’s shares? Why would the consortium want to buy his shares minus the element that was once the Trusts? Why would the consortium want any other very big shareholder in their new business? Especially as they intend to move forward with multi million £ investments in stadiums and regeneration that the Trust couldn’t possibly ever consider investing in, pro-rata to the extent of its shareholding

People really have to think about these things carefully. There’s far more to it at stake than what you believe is the moral obligations of either the Trust or John Fenty here. You have to see the bigger picture

There will come a time, soon after the Consortium takeover, depending on whether the share purchase is made by a company they set up, or as individuals; that the Consortium will be duty bound to offer to take on everybody else’s shares. That’s yours and mine, and the Trusts. But, if JF’s shares are purchased by three individually, then that rule won’t apply, since neither of them will hold a majority stake in the business.

Y'see Phil, these are the types of questions that make it absolutely obvious as to who you are.  You just can't help but try and deflect something good that is happening by trying to put a negative spin on things.  You keep referring to the size of power in the business, which is one of the many attitudes that has led to the shower of excrement approach that has run this club for 20 years.

Maybe, just maybe, the approach of the new owners isn't all about waving their willies at others and highlighting how much control they have.  Maybe they recognise the benefit of fan representation....crazy concept I know!

It might just be that the ambitions of the new owners goes beyond feeling that they're the most important person in a room filled with sycophants.

No doubt about it, the consortium will have big plans and I don't think anyone is under any illusion they're coming here without an eye on using the club as some sort of vehicle for wealth generation via the local regeneration plan.  I'm comfortable with that, as I suspect are most.  But why on earth would anyone ask a Supporters Trust, regardless of their shareholding, to invest in the club itself?  That's absolutely the type of thing to expect from someone who expected financial input from the fan base, who demanded and used threats to gain shares he didn't really have a claim to, the type of attitude from someone who never really had the best interest of the club at heart and thought it was a cash cow.  

Quoted from diehardmariner

Y'see Phil, these are the types of questions that make it absolutely obvious as to who you are.  You just can't help but try and deflect something good that is happening by trying to put a negative spin on things.  You keep referring to the size of power in the business, which is one of the many attitudes that has led to the shower of excrement approach that has run this club for 20 years.

Maybe, just maybe, the approach of the new owners isn't all about waving their willies at others and highlighting how much control they have.  Maybe they recognise the benefit of fan representation....crazy concept I know!

It might just be that the ambitions of the new owners goes beyond feeling that they're the most important person in a room filled with sycophants.

No doubt about it, the consortium will have big plans and I don't think anyone is under any illusion they're coming here without an eye on using the club as some sort of vehicle for wealth generation via the local regeneration plan.  I'm comfortable with that, as I suspect are most.  But why on earth would anyone ask a Supporters Trust, regardless of their shareholding, to invest in the club itself?  That's absolutely the type of thing to expect from someone who expected financial input from the fan base, who demanded and used threats to gain shares he didn't really have a claim to, the type of attitude from someone who never really had the best interest of the club at heart and thought it was a cash cow.  

I think you’ve lost the plot mate. I see the takeover by the Consortium to have the potential to be wonderful and I look forward to seeing it progress positively.

I was merely commenting on the matter of the Trust shares and shareholding in general, without negativity, and you must be a dimwit not to be able to see that