BCram Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 19 minutes ago, SM1893 said: Referring to what i’ve put in bold, is this not why FPS are looking to increase their shareholding to 75% and above, giving them the ability to offset losses made by DFC against DBH? (Group tax relief) I’m likely way off as I have zero experience and would welcome an explanation from anyone who does know. Preferably in dafty terms. you've got the basics right. If the DFC shareholding is the only "activity" carried out by Dark Blue Property Holdings Ltd then the DFC losses will also appear as belonging to DBPH Ltd and they will be able to be offset against the presumably profitable companies that are owned by FPS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islaydarkblue Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 33 minutes ago, EuanG said: You could be right but we will never know for just as it appears to be the case there were too many ego's involved with little joined up thinking. It seemed to go from bad to worse though as I was not involved I recognise as just now it's easy from the outside to criticise those trying to work hard for what they perceive as the good of the club. Maybe the money was not the only problem as when the club reduce ticket prices for final home games some people complain that their season ticket has now lost its value. Maybe with football your dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Still that gives us things to talk about on here. Hi Euan, Regarding season ticket holders complaining about reduced ticket prices for the last two home games there is a simple solution to solve that scenario. Scot Gardiner for all his faults had the foresight to add free extras worth hundreds of pounds if fully utilised to the price of a season ticket which were not available to PATG customers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonDarkBlue Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 1 hour ago, islaydarkblue said: Hi Euan, In my opinion Fans ownership after we came out of Admin 2 might have been a success if a similar scheme to the Hearts Foundation and the Well Trust had been set up at the outset. A lot of Dundee supporters had no interest in DEETV which was the main fundraising source for DFCSS. I am sure that a lot of Dundee supporters including myself would have been happy to pay a monthly payment of say £20 per month if they knew that it as going towards working capital which would have resulted in the club operating at an annual profit instead of the usual annual loss. Hearts and Motherwell were helped by having a wealthy fan buy the club and see it back to the fans over time whilst they raised the money. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 33 minutes ago, GordonDarkBlue said: Hearts and Motherwell were helped by having a wealthy fan buy the club and see it back to the fans over time whilst they raised the money. This is a huge part of it. It's not really helpful that all revenue in the fans organisation is treated as 'fan raised' as it doesn't really give a realistic description of where the money is coming from. Hearts are a bit mysterious with the whole thing (although you can see about £6.5 million of pledged spending from FoH) but Motherwell are a bit more open with it and you can read about it online. The 'Well Society were basically given a relief with a local businessman providing £650k to take the bulk of the debt and refinance it in and then put in another £380k into getting the mechanics of the society off the ground when in charge. In return for all of this, the supporters have to get at least 2,000 fans contributing £240k per annum by 2020. I find it pretty impressive how they have tried to set everything up transparently and I do think they should be applauded for that but I'm a wee bit skeptical that it's sustainable - relegation, or spending to avoid the threat of it, would likely easily hit a deficit that removes all of their cash reserves pretty quickly (and that's even in a worst case scenario). It might well go well for them but they have inherited the club in relatively stable conditions so the real test will be when they have a bad period (even St Johnstone hit £300k in losses recently) and the cash situation becomes a problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islaydarkblue Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 32 minutes ago, GordonDarkBlue said: Hearts and Motherwell were helped by having a wealthy fan buy the club and see it back to the fans over time whilst they raised the money. In my opinion when we came out of Admin 2 plans should have been put in place to have fundraising for working capital. Dundee FC has a large number of supporters a number of whom live world wide and they might have been willing to have signed up to a scheme like this to do ‘their bit’ for their club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islaydarkblue Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 9 minutes ago, harry94 said: This is a huge part of it. It's not really helpful that all revenue in the fans organisation is treated as 'fan raised' as it doesn't really give a realistic description of where the money is coming from. Hearts are a bit mysterious with the whole thing (although you can see about £6.5 million of pledged spending from FoH) but Motherwell are a bit more open with it and you can read about it online. The 'Well Society were basically given a relief with a local businessman providing £650k to take the bulk of the debt and refinance it in and then put in another £380k into getting the mechanics of the society off the ground when in charge. In return for all of this, the supporters have to get at least 2,000 fans contributing £240k per annum by 2020. I find it pretty impressive how they have tried to set everything up transparently and I do think they should be applauded for that but I'm a wee bit skeptical that it's sustainable - relegation, or spending to avoid the threat of it, would likely easily hit a deficit that removes all of their cash reserves pretty quickly (and that's even in a worst case scenario). It might well go well for them but they have inherited the club in relatively stable conditions so the real test will be when they have a bad period (even St Johnstone hit £300k in losses recently) and the cash situation becomes a problem. Hi Harry, In St Johnstone’s financial year for the year ending 31st May 2018 they made an annual loss of over £258k and no doubt some of this loss was caused by the nearby Perth Crematorium being closed during part of that period to members of the public for funeral services. However St Johnstone do not have the monopoly on funeral teas in the Perth area. My wife and I attended a funeral in Perth last December and the funeral tea (wake) was held in Huntingtower Hotel. My wife asked at the reception desk directions to the funeral tea and she had to give the name of the deceased as there were four funeral teas being held in the hotel that day 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCram Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 I'm hoping to go to the meeting. I would like to know how supporters think I should vote, but it might be helpful if there was some explanation of what the meeting is about. My small shareholding is as a result of long standing family friendships with previous owners of the club and whilst they are not worth anything and so there is no personal gain involved for me no matter what the outcome of the vote is. However, I think they they do create a responsibility for me to act in the way that is in the best interests of DFC. I have copied and pasted Woodstein's explanation of some of his wording as shown below "it appears the text "issue any new shares on a non pre-emptive basis" means issuing shares only to specific existing shareholders, as agreed by the company board. To do this, it seems they need 'shareholder approval' from those who turn up at this meeting (& it may be based on a percentage of the number of shares issued, not on head-count), and for the time period (ie, 5 years) that they wish to be able to do this." If I read this correctly the section that I have highlighted in bold means that NOT ALL existing shareholders will be given the opportunity to buy the new shares if they wanted to. That seems to me to be unfair and I don't understand why FPS would want to deliberately restrict who could take up their rights to buy additional shares. The second section that I have placed in italics and underlined seems to imply that FPS will need approval from all the shareholders, and if that was not forthcoming they would need 75% of the total number of shares that are currently in issue at the date of the meeting to pass the resolution to issue shares on a non pre-emptive basis. I don't know what the arithmetic is but perhaps it might be better for DFC if this resolution was not passed. Surely fans who want to support DFC should be able to buy shares in proportion to their existing shareholding. If they don't take up their rights then the shares can stay as unissued and available for use in the future. For those who want to support DFC by buying shares, their money goes into the club, there's no tax involved and it's money that does not have to be found by FPS or whoever is acting on behalf of Tim Keyes and John Nelms. I hope my concerns are clear. I don't think it's necessary to allocated the new shares to FPS friends. I do think all existing DFC shareholders should be given the opportunity to buy as many shares as their current holding would entitle them to. I do wonder if the exisitng minority shareholders might be able to vote against and defeat the proposal to "issue any new shares on a non pre-emptive basis" I think Woodstein's explanation is correct, "non pre-emptive basis" means that there is no prior right to buy the new shares, conferred to shareholders who already hold shares in the company. I'd like to know what other minority shareholders think, and of course I'd like to know what the supporters think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islaydarkblue Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, BCram said: I'm hoping to go to the meeting. I would like to know how supporters think I should vote, but it might be helpful if there was some explanation of what the meeting is about. My small shareholding is as a result of long standing family friendships with previous owners of the club and whilst they are not worth anything and so there is no personal gain involved for me no matter what the outcome of the vote is. However, I think they they do create a responsibility for me to act in the way that is in the best interests of DFC. I have copied and pasted Woodstein's explanation of some of his wording as shown below "it appears the text "issue any new shares on a non pre-emptive basis" means issuing shares only to specific existing shareholders, as agreed by the company board. To do this, it seems they need 'shareholder approval' from those who turn up at this meeting (& it may be based on a percentage of the number of shares issued, not on head-count), and for the time period (ie, 5 years) that they wish to be able to do this." If I read this correctly the section that I have highlighted in bold means that NOT ALL existing shareholders will be given the opportunity to buy the new shares if they wanted to. That seems to me to be unfair and I don't understand why FPS would want to deliberately restrict who could take up their rights to buy additional shares. The second section that I have placed in italics and underlined seems to imply that FPS will need approval from all the shareholders, and if that was not forthcoming they would need 75% of the total number of shares that are currently in issue at the date of the meeting to pass the resolution to issue shares on a non pre-emptive basis. I don't know what the arithmetic is but perhaps it might be better for DFC if this resolution was not passed. Surely fans who want to support DFC should be able to buy shares in proportion to their existing shareholding. If they don't take up their rights then the shares can stay as unissued and available for use in the future. For those who want to support DFC by buying shares, their money goes into the club, there's no tax involved and it's money that does not have to be found by FPS or whoever is acting on behalf of Tim Keyes and John Nelms. I hope my concerns are clear. I don't think it's necessary to allocated the new shares to FPS friends. I do think all existing DFC shareholders should be given the opportunity to buy as many shares as their current holding would entitle them to. I do wonder if the exisitng minority shareholders might be able to vote against and defeat the proposal to "issue any new shares on a non pre-emptive basis" I think Woodstein's explanation is correct, "non pre-emptive basis" means that there is no prior right to buy the new shares, conferred to shareholders who already hold shares in the company. I'd like to know what other minority shareholders think, and of course I'd like to know what the supporters think. Hi BCram, I have previously stated that I am not a Dundee Football Club Limited shareholder but reading between the lines I suspect that FPS are making sure that they will reach their ‘holy grail’ of the 75% shareholding. FPS are perhaps concerned that all the existing shareholders will purchase their rights in full and FPS will still be sitting with 68.2% of the issued share capital resulting in them being back to square one. When FPS purchased their majority shareholding back in August 2013 they obviously did not bother to calculate that there were too many shares held by DFCSS and minority shareholders to allow FPS to purchase or do a ‘Debt for Equity’ to acquire all the unissued shares to reach their 75% shareholding. In my opinion this would account for WoodStein being unable to purchase £10,000 worth of shares in Dundee Football Club Limited. Since August 2013 DFCSS have acquired just over 1.1 Million shares in exchange for funds handed over to the club but according to the Companies House website no other shares have been issued since August 2013 apart from those issued to FPS. Edited 3 May 2019 by islaydarkblue Typo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCram Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 32 minutes ago, islaydarkblue said: Hi BCram, I have previously stated that I am not a Dundee Football Club Limited shareholder but reading between the lines I suspect that FPS are making sure that they will reach their ‘holy grail’ of the 75% shareholding. FPS are perhaps concerned that all the existing shareholders will purchase their rights in full and FPS will still be sitting with 68.2% of the issued share capital resulting in them being back to square one. When FPS purchased their majority shareholding back in August 2013 they obviously did not bother to calculate that there were too many shares held by DFCSS and minority shareholders to allow FPS to purchase or do a ‘Debt for Equity’ to acquire all the unissued shares to reach their 75% shareholding. In my opinion this would account for WoodStein being unable to purchase £10,000 worth of shares in Dundee Football Club Limited. Since August 2013 DFCSS have acquired just over 1.1 Million shares in exchange for funds handed over to the club but according to the Companies House website no other shares have been issued since August 2013 apart from those issued to FPS. hi Islay As I understand it there are £2m of shares in the increase of share capital taking it from £2m to £4m. If as you say FPS has 68.2%, that means that the minority shareholders hold 31.8% which equates to £636k. I would be absolutely amazed, and delighted,if all the minority shareholders bought and paid for their full allocation. It would mean £636K of actual cash going in to DFC and it would mean that FPS were not shouldering all the financial costs of running DFC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Campbell's Ghost Posted 3 May 2019 Author Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 Full letter now on club website 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islaydarkblue Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 14 minutes ago, BCram said: hi Islay As I understand it there are £2m of shares in the increase of share capital taking it from £2m to £4m. If as you say FPS has 68.2%, that means that the minority shareholders hold 31.8% which equates to £636k. I would be absolutely amazed, and delighted,if all the minority shareholders bought and paid for their full allocation. It would mean £636K of actual cash going in to DFC and it would mean that FPS were not shouldering all the financial costs of running DFC. Hi BCram, You might be delighted but FPS would not be as they would be unable to reach their desired 75% shareholding which they will be able to do if they only sell sell new shares to selected shareholders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCram Posted 3 May 2019 Report Share Posted 3 May 2019 21 minutes ago, islaydarkblue said: Hi BCram, You might be delighted but FPS would not be as they would be unable to reach their desired 75% shareholding which they will be able to do if they only sell sell new shares to selected shareholders. I think it unlikely that all the minority shareholders will take up all of their entitlement so it is perfectly feasible for FPS to achieve their goal by taking up the shares that have not be bought by the minority shareholders. win -Win, they get their shareholding percentage and they get some additional cash in the DFC bank account. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Adblock Detected
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.