Jump to content
The Dark Blues
Harry94

DFCSS Email - Purchase of Shares

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Boba Fett said:

I don’t read the mail that way.. my guess is DFCSS favor the second option - don’t sell but amend wording to allow stadium development to be explored.

Whats the share rights issue all about? Seems to be pitched like a threat??

To be fair I haven't read it right through yet so you might be right.

Even the suggestion to buy the shares though is a very aggressive move by FPS. They agreed to the conditions at the point of takeover and should abide by that agreement - but then when have they ever done that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these shares are sold Dundee fans will have twice put their hands in their own pockets to save the club before just handing it back to random businesssmen.

  • Star Post 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boba Fett said:

I don’t read the mail that way.. my guess is DFCSS favor the second option - don’t sell but amend wording to allow stadium development to be explored.

Whats the share rights issue all about? Seems to be pitched like a threat??

I believe FPS (or just Keyes/Nelms, as DBH, I think FPS will cease to exist soon) want to issue further shares in DFC....and that they would likely buy all (or almost all) of them, which would let them reach the 75.1% or higher shareholding.

This would, I think, leave DFCSS without an adequate % to maintain the "entrenched rights" described above, and obviously put those at risk.

It seems to me that the 'option 1' to sell the Category A shares to Keyes/Nelms includes the opportunity to agree with them a reword/update the "entrenched rights", to remove any barriers to the stadium development, probably the borrowing (as DBH may need this facility for the stadium project), but (crucially) to retain the merger/colours/badge elements. [and I thought Club Name was also included in these?] 

I'm not sure that 'option 2' results in anything different from option 1, though it may well be DFCSS's preferred one - as DBH would still end up with 75.1+%, the Society & all other shareholders would have the same number of shares as today but a smaller % overall....and the updated "entrenched rights" would still need to be agreed/revised. 

The bit I think I'm most concerned about is if 'option 3' (ie, do nothing) would result in DBH reaching the 75.1+% anyway, possibly with a fair bit of animosity, and with those "entrenched rights" becoming totally invalid.  

....a fair bit to be clarified at the AGM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Boba Fett said:

There’s absolutely no way the society should be selling those shares. 

Relax wording to facilitate a move to a new stadium - yes.

Everything else - no.

The offer of fannyig about with the community trust if the shares are sold is laughable. “Giz yer shares and we’ll start speaking to ye”. Awful stuff from the club tbh.

Much more info required on why the shares are so desirable to FPS and even if that’s provided I doubt it would be compelling enough to change my view on it. 

Personally, I’m growing more and more disillusioned with our clubs leadership as each week passes. Handing over the authority to merge us with United is the last thing we should be doing.

I have no problem with the Society giving the club 'the nod' to move stadiums, personally I think its for the long term good of the club. Depending on the rental agreement etc,  The Society could be quite savvy tying this is with the 50K maximum debt to arrange a low rent agreement. I'm far from an expert so this maybe isn't achievable but there must be a reason that FPS are trying to wrap this all neatly up in a bow (colour me cynical). I can see no advantage to the long term health of DFC with the Soc having these 'pesky' vetoes. I can equally see why the majority owners would see it as a 'tail wagging the dog' scenario from their point of view but that's what they bought into so its them trying to change the goal posts. I'm not saying they would but if FPS (at any time) tried to 'force' the issue with a 'do it or we leave' then I'd say having the Soc would prove why we need the Soc. 

The nebulous offer to be FPS's fund raising bitches is what they saw for the Society from the start (got from a VERY good source at the time) so its not much of an offer and while I want good relationships between the Society and the club, its funny that its a 'unique' opportunity to make it happen. The more I think about it (and reread the email) the more 'pushy' it comes across from FPS. If the Society give up their cast iron rights they get some fluffy arrangement.....  hmmmm.

Early days yet and I've resisted the urge to use the comment box on the Society email. I'd arranged to be away hill walking this weekend and I'm gutted I'll miss it so I'll be desperate for the feedback from the meeting from whoever is going...... Pleeeeeeese.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Cobra said:

This shouldn't be up for debate.

Agreed... unfortunately it looks like it’s very much up for discussion though! 

That should be a huge concern to all of us.

John Nelms or Tim Keyes need to go on the record and clarify what this is all about. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WoodStein said:

I believe FPS (or just Keyes/Nelms, as DBH, I think FPS will cease to exist soon) want to issue further shares in DFC....and that they would likely buy all (or almost all) of them, which would let them reach the 75.1% or higher shareholding.

This would, I think, leave DFCSS without an adequate % to maintain the "entrenched rights" described above, and obviously put those at risk.

It seems to me that the 'option 1' to sell the Category A shares to Keyes/Nelms includes the opportunity to agree with them a reword/update the "entrenched rights", to remove any barriers to the stadium development, probably the borrowing (as DBH may need this facility for the stadium project), but (crucially) to retain the merger/colours/badge elements. [and I thought Club Name was also included in these?] 

I'm not sure that 'option 2' results in anything different from option 1, though it may well be DFCSS's preferred one - as DBH would still end up with 75.1+%, the Society & all other shareholders would have the same number of shares as today but a smaller % overall....and the updated "entrenched rights" would still need to be agreed/revised. 

The bit I think I'm most concerned about is if 'option 3' (ie, do nothing) would result in DBH reaching the 75.1+% anyway, possibly with a fair bit of animosity, and with those "entrenched rights" becoming totally invalid.  

....a fair bit to be clarified at the AGM.

The question is, what would both the club and the fans expect the Soc to do with any money gained from selling the shares to the club, its not like they're going to spunk it on a massive coke and hookers fest for the members, it will be expected to get handed over to the club that the organisation is there to support. 

While I'm pretty ignorant of how this all works, it does seem like an aggressive takeover by FPS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J_Kitamirike said:

Was thinking the same! 😂

 

I’m with you lads!!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reverend Lovejoy said:

My take is that JM & FPS are pissed off that the January Transfer thread is now up to 55 pages and they've asked the society to create a bit of a smoke screen to buy them a bit of time.😂

Sheer quality- love that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chomp my root said:

The question is, what would both the club and the fans expect the Soc to do with any money gained from selling the shares to the club, its not like they're going to spunk it on a massive coke and hookers fest for the members, it will be expected to get handed over to the club that the organisation is there to support. 

While I'm pretty ignorant of how this all works, it does seem like an aggressive takeover by FPS.

100%

They want to 'buy' the shares then will demand the money back claiming it's been raised using their IP; that's their favoured tac, comical but their favoured tac.

I'm not a member of the society but really hope they stand firm on this one.

  • Funny 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islay I propose to be TDB representative at the AGM- always an advocate of DFCSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chomp my root said:

The question is, what would both the club and the fans expect the Soc to do with any money gained from selling the shares to the club, its not like they're going to spunk it on a massive coke and hookers fest for the members, it will be expected to get handed over to the club that the organisation is there to support. 

While I'm pretty ignorant of how this all works, it does seem like an aggressive takeover by FPS.

I'm guessing that the 'sell the existing A shares' (not the Ordinary shares) option is the least administrative route to what seems inevitable, compared to issuing new shares.

I'm also guessing that whatever DFCSS received for those Cat A shares, along with their current funds, would be targeted at some "DFC in the Community" projects, but that's a total guess....and a question for the AGM.

I suspect option 3 would result in that "aggressive takeover by FPS".....but yes, options 1 & 2 could be described as 'fairly pushy' behaviour...but are we surprised? ;)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Boba Fett said:

Agreed... unfortunately it looks like it’s very much up for discussion though! 

That should be a huge concern to all of us.

John Nelms or Tim Keyes need to go on the record and clarify what this is all about. 

Couldn’t agree more, considering we all have........or are supposed to have the Club as our first concern it really worries me at the complete lack of any kind of communication between the fans and FPS, are we all in this together? If so speak to us and tell us what you want and why you want it, it all sounds a bit dodgy to me, especially the timing of it with another American taking over the Dabs!!! It’s only bound to start rumours, so speak up and tell us what’s on your minds FFS.💙

  • Like 2
  • Star Post 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Abernethy Dee said:

Couldn’t agree more, considering we all have........or are supposed to have the Club as our first concern it really worries me at the complete lack of any kind of communication between the fans and FPS, are we all in this together? If so speak to us and tell us what you want and why you want it, it all sounds a bit dodgy to me, especially the timing of it with another American taking over the Dabs!!! It’s only bound to start rumours, so speak up and tell us what’s on your minds FFS.💙

I think this stuff has been on the go for months, long before the arabs takeover....DFCSS AGM is this saturday & they've issued the current info to members for discussion/feedback at, or following, the AGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Nelms needs to come out and communicate more. He hides unless its good news. Classic PR. Been there, seen it, done it. But just remember....people are not stupid.

Even the Courier could demand an interview. Show some balls and probe, ask questions and demand answers on our behalf.

Stadium amendment seems best option out of three. No 3 comes over as, if we do nowt it will happen anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WoodStein said:

I'm guessing that the 'sell the existing A shares' (not the Ordinary shares) option is the least administrative route to what seems inevitable, compared to issuing new shares.

I'm also guessing that whatever DFCSS received for those Cat A shares, along with their current funds, would be targeted at some "DFC in the Community" projects, but that's a total guess....and a question for the AGM.

I suspect option 3 would result in that "aggressive takeover by FPS".....but yes, options 1 & 2 could be described as 'fairly pushy' behaviour...but are we surprised? ;)  

I'll keep my powder dry for now but....... an aggressive takeover wouldn't sit well with me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DarkBlueKnight said:

Islay I propose to be TDB representative at the AGM- always an advocate of DFCSS

tom-delonge-wtf1.gif

1FoS.gif

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DarkBlueKnight said:

Islay I propose to be TDB representative at the AGM- always an advocate of DFCSS

We’re merging with United... but I’ve managed to negotiate the removal of the hoses behind the Derry.

  • Funny 4
  • Star Post 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those who hold shares in their own right? What value will be placed on the shares? Will the value paid be the same for individual shareholders and the DFCSS shareholding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boba Fett said:

We’re merging with United... but I’ve managed to negotiate the removal of the hoses behind the Derry.

What about towels in the Coxy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Prince Buster said:

They want to 'buy' the shares then will demand the money back claiming it's been raised using their IP; that's their favoured tac, comical but their favoured tac.

This is what bothers me. So FPS will PAY for the shares and then allow the society back in the circle of trust, to what? Donate the aforementioned money back?! Is it that simple? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dblair said:

This is what bothers me. So FPS will PAY for the shares and then allow the society back in the circle of trust, to what? Donate the aforementioned money back?! Is it that simple? 

Oh, you're such a cynic. :o

 

 

:welcome2:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Boba Fett said:

We’re merging with United... but I’ve managed to negotiate the removal of the hoses behind the Derry.

While I was firmly opposed to amalgamation at first, once it emerged that significant savings could be made by merging the stationery cupboards at Dens and Tannadice I had to back down and support the plans.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cobra said:

While I was firmly opposed to amalgamation at first, once it emerged that significant savings could be made by merging the stationery cupboards at Dens and Tannadice I had to back down and support the plans.

Strict control of the stapler is critical.

Commeth the moment, commeth the man.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some chilling suggestions in this thread as to what this means.

I and IMO, the majority of Dundee fans would be for a groundshare at Campy at the very most if it was the only viable option to get a new stadium which if you look at it logically, it obviously is.

Any sort of merger proposal and we riot (seriously).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boba Fett said:

There’s absolutely no way the society should be selling those shares. 

Relax wording to facilitate a move to a new stadium - yes.

Everything else - no.

The offer of fannying about with the community trust if the shares are sold is laughable. “Giz yer shares and we’ll start speaking to ye”. Awful stuff from the club tbh.

Much more info required on why the shares are so desirable to FPS and even if that’s provided I doubt it would be compelling enough to change my view on it. 

Personally, I’m growing more and more disillusioned with our clubs leadership as each week passes. Handing over the authority to merge us with United is the last thing we should be doing.

I'm an intentionally lapsed Society member. However, I'm concerned by the motivation here.

In essence FPS/BOD have done everything within their power to compromise and marginalise DFCSS. They have basically made the Society's boardroom position a nonsense, killed their revenue stream and refused funding unless it's the way they want it and they can do whatever they choose with the money. That in itself is anything but a working relationship. 

Suddenly they are looking to build bridges and collaborate. DFCSS would be encouraged to play a major part in the club through fund raising. Funnily enough all things DFCSS wanted to do but were basically told not to bother. 

You'd imagine that both FPS and DFCSS want the best for the club and nearly everyone believes that would come from us playing at a new facility which has already been announced by the BOD. What DFCSS have is a veto, not an automatic blocking facility, so surely the board only need to ask DFCSS, 'would you be willing to waive that veto for the good of the club so we can build and play at the new facility?' DFCSS say yes and we move forward as is.

So what do we need to completely remove the veto for?

If it's to ground share at the new stadium with us as landlords and our lovely neighbours as tenets then, why don't they ask DFCSS to put that proposal to a vote? I'd reckon that if for nothing other than shits and giggles and bragging rights of "enjoy playing at the New Dens Park", and of course, income stream, you'd reckon that would pass a vote too if it allowed us to build and play at the new facility.

So, if that's the case, why is everything else up for grabs here too? 

Maybe i'm being ultra cautious here, but I'm not sure why this step needs to be taken. It nullifies the very reason the DFCSS was set up in the first place and if it doesn't pass it creates an obvious issue between FPS and the other major shareholder (the fans). That in itself surely cannot be a good thing?

I appreciate that this is DFCSS communicating with their membership, but as usual, the silence coming out of Dens is deafening and you'd hope that if both parties felt this was genuinely the best thing for the club, then they would have made a joint statement to make that more obvious to the members and support in general.

I am willing to be completely proved wrong, but I'd say that I'm concerned by this and the manner in which it has been communicated. 

  • Like 5
  • Star Post 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing

    0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.