Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

plug

any info

104 posts in this topic

He can have the land if a majority of the A shareholders say he can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can have the land if a majority of the A shareholders say he can!

True robin but I heard ( don't know how true it is) that there was a clause in the contracts that the shareholders signed that the land could only be sold for the benefit of featherstone rovers and not for personal gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can have the land if a majority of the A shareholders say he can!

Exactly. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True robin but I heard ( don't know how true it is) that there was a clause in the contracts that the shareholders signed that the land could only be sold for the benefit of featherstone rovers and not for personal gain.

So, can they sell the land for Featherstone Rovers and build some houses for themselves ? :mellow:

Just asking, like. I'm an idiot, apparently, so I don't know ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can they sell the land for Featherstone Rovers and build some houses for themselves ? :mellow:

Just asking, like. I'm an idiot, apparently, so I don't know ......

I guess they could richie but as far as I know that's not the plan from what I've been told ( from a source) The land will be an income stream to featherstone rovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True robin but I heard ( don't know how true it is) that there was a clause in the contracts that the shareholders signed that the land could only be sold for the benefit of featherstone rovers and not for personal gain.

Again, any clause in the constitution can be changed with a majority consent of the A shareholders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's becoming a share holder 'B' he can only hold 1 'A' share so any money put in to buy shares is only for 'B' shares. If the land is a target as some think then a business man is gambling in excess of £1,000,000 on ther chance that majority of 'A' share holders vote for any change in his favour.

Doesn't make sense to me....maybe he has our best intrests at heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope that the (A) shareholders would get a say before any land was 'sold'

Good point. But does it also include partnerships? It is not necessary to go foward with a sale a partnership investment would achieve the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True robin but I heard ( don't know how true it is) that there was a clause in the contracts that the shareholders signed that the land could only be sold for the benefit of featherstone rovers and not for personal gain.

I'm a shareholder of both A & B shares and this is news to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a shareholder of both A & B shares and this is news to me

Well I believe you mo. It's just what someone told me( I guess you can't believe everything you get told) But does it really matter if FN wants the land? I mean let him have it the sale of the land by the sounds of it doesn't really belong to the rovers so what have we got to lose really if Fev don't own the land? Maybe FN really does have the best interests for Fev. He could just of approached the land shareholders and not bothered with the money he's putting into Fev by the sound of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I believe you mo. It's just what someone told me( I guess you can't believe everything you get told) But does it really matter if FN wants the land? I mean let him have it the sale of the land by the sounds of it doesn't really belong to the rovers so what have we got to lose really if Fev don't own the land? Maybe FN really does have the best interests for Fev. He could just of approached the land shareholders and not bothered with the money he's putting into Fev by the sound of it.

A lot to lose. Land values will appreciate. Once your Capital item has gone then your assets are reduced considerably. Ok the 'A'shareholders have to have a vote, but remember if FN is a major 'B' Shareholder he can elect any board he likes. If I was looking at the best scenario from Rovers point of view I would take him into partnership. The land remains our asset but we grant him a long lease. He gets the builders to construct and we put part of the million in to the building on the basis that we share the rentals. He gets 50% of the rentals and has a long lease. We continue to hold the land and obtain an income. From his point of view he could be looking at land purchase at a discount, building and offering us some return if we contrbute to the building costs. As a major 'B' shareholder HIS board would be taking decisions. Needs careful looking at. But I wouldn't sell the land. If it came to it and we did sell I would be looking at around 10 million if planning was obtained on the 17 acres. All very complex. I would love to know the details of the agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I believe you mo. It's just what someone told me( I guess you can't believe everything you get told) But does it really matter if FN wants the land? I mean let him have it the sale of the land by the sounds of it doesn't really belong to the rovers so what have we got to lose really if Fev don't own the land?

Gosh - I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher stealing the TSB off the depositors thirty years ago. "It doesn't belong to anyone, I just found it lying here." :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... But does it really matter if FN wants the land?...

Of course it does.

.....what have we got to lose really ...

A lot. If 'the land doesn't really belong to the Rovers' they can't legally sell it can they? Fraud has some quite hefty penalties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......the land could only be sold for the benefit of featherstone rovers and not for personal gain.

Don't think that's true. As far as I remember any 'change of use' of the land has to be approved by the A shareholders. Of course putting it up as 'security' against a loan would make the clause pretty meaningless if the club defaulted. Although if the BOD did such a thing without approval of the A shareholders I'm not sure how they would stand as individuals from a legal prospective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse case scenario we don't get SL and FN buys the land and maybe the ground and it gets bulldozed for housing etc. ( that's the worst that could happen) Unless mark plans to walk if we don't get SL then mark isn't daft he will have took all this into account I'm sure. ( just rests on mark really if he sees us as ###### or bust or if he sees us in his plans if SL doesn't happen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse case scenario we don't get SL and FN buys the land and maybe the ground and it gets bulldozed for housing etc. ( that's the worst that could happen) Unless mark plans to walk if we don't get SL then mark isn't daft he will have took all this into account I'm sure. ( just rests on mark really if he sees us as ###### or bust or if he sees us in his plans if SL doesn't happen)

Wow. :blink: :blink: :blink:

That's a helluva plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best just leave it till you know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. :blink: :blink: :blink:

That's a helluva plan.

Richie I've come to the conclusion that all this money been thrown at us isn't been thrown for no reason. Mark and FN will not throw hard earned money at a lost cause. My comment above was the very worst that could happen I don't think for one minute that will come to pass but you have to weigh up all the possibilitys.The comment above was to keep you happy Richie with all your negativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best just leave it till you know what you're talking about.

yup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all seems complicated to me, I would have thought it would have gone like this:-

If I had a piece of land that would be worth £100k if I got planning permission, but had no funds to build with, I would be quite enthusiastic if a property developer knocked on my door and said "Your land is worth £100K, so if I put the same value of work and cash into building on it, the finished product would be worth £300K. So if we were equal partners we would share a profit of £100K, giving us £150K each, or we could keep the property and share the rent we got for it!" I would think it a very attractive propositiong.

I may be naieve in this, but I would have thought it to be the ideal partnership. If the land was built on for the benefit of the Rovers, the investor/developer would be expected to make a profit. Why shouldn't that be Faisal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all seems complicated to me, I would have thought it would have gone like this:-

If I had a piece of land that would be worth £100k if I got planning permission, but had no funds to build with, I would be quite enthusiastic if a property developer knocked on my door and said "Your land is worth £100K, so if I put the same value of work and cash into building on it, the finished product would be worth £300K. So if we were equal partners we would share a profit of £100K, giving us £150K each, or we could keep the property and share the rent we got for it!" I would think it a very attractive propositiong.

I may be naieve in this, but I would have thought it to be the ideal partnership. If the land was built on for the benefit of the Rovers, the investor/developer would be expected to make a profit. Why shouldn't that be Faisal?

I was thinking along those lines too. But I was more swayed to building on the land and renting or leasing the buildings. I.e build business buildings etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all seems complicated to me, I would have thought it would have gone like this:-

If I had a piece of land that would be worth £100k if I got planning permission, but had no funds to build with, I would be quite enthusiastic if a property developer knocked on my door and said "Your land is worth £100K, so if I put the same value of work and cash into building on it, the finished product would be worth £300K. So if we were equal partners we would share a profit of £100K, giving us £150K each, or we could keep the property and share the rent we got for it!" I would think it a very attractive propositiong.

I may be naieve in this, but I would have thought it to be the ideal partnership. If the land was built on for the benefit of the Rovers, the investor/developer would be expected to make a profit. Why shouldn't that be Faisal?

If you look back at my various scenarios you will see something similar. I would however be inclined to long lease the land. One thing nobody has remarked on is the board issue. I remember reading that the overall majority shareholder of 'B' shares can elect who he likes. Because of the voting system. Things could, if Feisal is the overall majority 'B' holder, get a little complicated when it comes to elections and board policy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing could reap a whole load of positives or a whole load of negatives. And after thought I see it like this, they are the people investing/throwing big money in and mark is the chairman they at this moment are the custodians of our club and we have no choice but to trust there good intentions. Look at it like this, you would not buy a £1million piece of art and then vandalise it? Just as you do not invest money into something to see it fail. It may fail true but your intentions and I am sure theirs are to make the club bigger and better thus seeing them a return. And lets not forget the investment will be over a number of years! so in financial terms on the books year on year his investment will only be his current undertakings.

Like I say I have given it thought and we all want to progress to the next level, well these types of deal will have to be done sooner or later. Good luck to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give the guy this, he is obviously a Great Networker and one day he will hit the right button and introduce another big invester or more, he mixes in the right cirlces!!! His job is wealth creation, which indeed may have its "unsavoury" practises, but its not all Tax avoidance, he matches introduces products and services with sell on potential for those bothered to market them to their clients, So he do add vallue. I have also given thought to the "other clubs" well if you look at them both they are run by very cautious old school types, who were probably scared of the changes that Probiz could bring. Another interesting thing is despite all the so called bad press from other clubs, which has never been substantiated, The RFL have hardly warned us off or banned any involvement so that would suggest all he has done is above board or at least within the realms of any contracts he had singed. He may as some owed clubs money, but I would also bet a pound to a penny there will have been something in the small print allowing him to with draw funds. I cant recall seeing any clubs take him to court either.

So as much as I am cautious for now Im going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am all so fully aware he is a Very Hard Nosed business man with no doubt a ruthless streak, but one who also if you can align yourself to his revenue making streams, will make YOU and HIM money and there is nothing immoral about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017