Dick Knights shares, final chapter?

AmexRuislip · Sep 23, 2014

Not sure this has already been posted.
Recieved this final reply about fans owning shares.
Shame really :albion2:

ALBION SHARE SALE - FINAL UPDATE

Dear Albion Fan

I am writing with the final report on my proposed sale to yourself and other Albion fans interested in owning a few shares in the club they love and helped to save.

I'm afraid I have been defeated by the amount of red tape introduced by the club's auditors, Mazars, over what should have been a simple process for them of valuing my shares.
You will recall that this was triggered by the ludicrous offer of one penny per share from an unnamed shareholder, for the 100,000 of my £1 shares I made available for the 270 supporters willing to pay their face value. This person has never been revealed but was almost certainly a director - and he was clearly intent on stopping supporters getting the shares.
Because Mazars' complex valuation method was intended to take months and would have cost me many thousands ( I was expected to foot a large part of the auditors' huge bill for them to seriously consider reducing the value of my shares by 99 per cent! ), I have reluctantly been forced to withdraw from the proposed share sale.
This means I am now unable to offer you the chance to see your Albion share ownership dream fulfilled. Sadly, this seems to have been the club's intended outcome from the moment I announced in my book 'MadMan' my wish that genuine fans like yourself could acquire some of my shares. In total, these would never have been enough to influence the running of the club, but my hope was that individual fans like yourself, by owning a share certificate, would be able to show their special pride, devotion and family loyalty to the Albion.
That is not to be, which for a club with our supporter heritage, is very sad.
Quite what any of you made of the recent club announcement that four of the directors had each invested £5,000 in the club to buy new shares - at £1 each (so a grand total of 20,000 new shares valued at £1, whereas the shares that saved the club are valued at 1p by a member of the board) I'd be interested to know. It certainly baffled me - unless it was some sort of face-saving exercise, bearing in mind that none of those directors owned any shares in the club before 270 Albion fans showed their genuine wish to buy 100,000 £1 shares in the club....
Thank you for your interest and support in my efforts to give supporters a small part in the ownership of the Albion.
I am only sorry that it hasn't worked out the way we all hoped.
Yours sincerely

PILTDOWN MAN · Sep 23, 2014

Well it helped to sell a book I suppose.

father_and_son · Sep 23, 2014

Much as I do believe that Dick's background in marketing and desire to sell his book strongly influenced this "stunt" [though I did (and always would have) bought the book and had it signed by the great man], I feel that the club could have let this go through without any hassle. The costs of maintaining a share register with an extra 270 (!) names on it would be negligible and the sale of the shares between two private individuals could have been at any agreed price provided none of the existing share holders has exercised their right for first refusal.

Personally I believe this is a massive PR failure by the club and they really could have managed this so much better. Shame on the Board for not acting in the interests of the club as a whole rather than the club as a legal entity.

For example, 20,000 shares made available to, first, 1901, then STH, then Priority, then finally public (to generate the exclusivity) - a £1 share but a £100 cost for the certificate & frame - easy 1.5-2 million pound profit going begging.
Have the shares reflect some, ultimately, irrelevant legal entity under the holding company and it would have kept everyone happy.

Dick could have gained the publicity from selling his shares (converted by the club to this other entity), taking a notional cut of the ultimate sale price - a hollow victory but better than the current state. TB looks like he is respecting his predecessor and a man, without whom, he would have no club to own/run. The fans get to say they own part of the club and show of the certificate but without unduly disrupting the current operation. Demand would have been much higher if it wasn't made to seem like we were going against the current management in favour of the old guard.

Wozza · Sep 23, 2014

Good. #teambloom

Driver8 · Sep 23, 2014

Couldn't he just give away 270 shares?

seagullsovergrimsby · Sep 23, 2014

PILTDOWN MAN said:
Well it helped to sell a book I suppose.

Without the enticement of owning a share certificate the book sales would have been 270 less. Dick Knight , once a marketing guru always a marketing guru.

Goldstone1976 · Sep 23, 2014

The club have been piggy in the middle throughout all of this, with some fans (fanned by some of DK's comments) erroneously believing that the club have blocked the sale - there is precisely zero evidence of this, except some innuendo/ unsupported assertions by DK.

The club are required, by law, to ensure that the rules laid down in the Articles were followed. Those Articles say that all shareholders have to first offer other shareholders the ability to buy the shares that are to be sold. This was done and an existing shareholder exercised that right. DK asserts that this shareholder was "almost certainly a director", but there is absolutely no evidence for that. It could just have easily been, say, FBS. This shareholder offered DK 1p/share; DK wants £1. In the event of a dispute on price, the Articles lay down the procedure to be followed. That procedure is to get the auditors to independently value the shares, which was precisely what the club insisted happened. DK says that it should be "simple" to value the shares. It is never simple to value shares in a private company - there is a fair degree of subjectivity, and the fact that TB owns >90%, further complicates the issue - given he has total control, that will depress the value of other holdings.

Some have said that the club should make a statement. Regarding what? This is a private matter between two individual shareholders. The club gets zero £ from this and is simply applying the rules.

The 4 directors who have recently bought £5k each of new shares is somewhat more interesting. However, the £1/share paid by the Directors concerned does not mean that that is what the shares are "worth". It is illegal for any company to sell new shares at lower than the par (face) value. The par value of the shares in the club is £1. Now that the shares have been issued, they are worth whatever the auditors would have valued them at, which most people on here with financial knowledge have suggested would have been between zero and 20p/share. Why then did they buy them? Here, DK's suggestion may be close to the truth. Who knows?

Ernest · Sep 23, 2014

Still no answer from him on what happened to the 1983 FA Cup Final money or the CASH from the SAIL of Stephen Ward to Burnley

BensGrandad · Sep 23, 2014

Wasnt it Dick Knight who made this ruling himself to be then defeated by his own rule.

Monkey Man · Sep 23, 2014

I couldn't be more lukewarm about this. It was a token gesture by Dick Knight, and it would have been a token gesture by the club to get 270 extra shareholders with no influence on the business.

For what it's worth, I already feel like a shareholder. I pay for a season ticket, I buy food and drink, I buy merchandise, and I make (some) noise at home games. If I feel my experience as a supporter isn't quite what it should be - as has happened just once - I write to the club and get a prompt response. If I ever get seriously hacked off, I will stop attending games.

That's really as far as I'd ever want to go. I have no wish to claim a little bit of paper that says I'm a shareholder. There are millions of things I'd rather spend the money on.

beorhthelm · Sep 23, 2014

Goldstone1976 said:
... Here, DK's suggestion may be close to the truth. Who knows?

more like he is stirring up trouble. it was simply an administrative tidy up.

Goldstone1976 · Sep 23, 2014

beorhthelm said:
more like he is stirring up trouble. it was simply an administrative tidy up.

Maybe. I know that was the club's line, but it isn't a requirement in law that all Directors are shareholders. There is however some evidence that private companies are increasingly expecting their Directors to do so (to give some indication that all Directors' interests are aligned with the other non-Director shareholders). The timing is what makes me hesitate though. They could have done this in a year or two's time. :shrug:

It's not a biggy.

I do agree that throughout this whole episode, DK has stirred things up for the club, starting with publishing the book with the "register your interest for shares" bits without first informing the club. He didn't have to, but a reasonable person would have done so.

fleet · Sep 23, 2014

It is sad to see Dick in this bitter stage. I felt the same reading his book. Done great things for the club and we owe him everything, but still a bit sad to see.

wilko1 · Sep 23, 2014

Methinks DK is a bitter man with a very short memory.... After all he made the rule

Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo! · Sep 23, 2014

fleet said:
It is sad to see Dick in this bitter stage. I felt the same reading his book. Done great things for the club and we owe him everything, but still a bit sad to see.

Similar feelings too, I thought the book was spoilt by what I read as progressive bitterness towards the current chairman. I can't see what DK was trying to achieve, for BHA, by trying to sell his shares to people who had bought the book and concluded that it was just about recovering some of his investment. Nothing wrong with that but think he should have been straight on this.

c0lz · Sep 23, 2014

BensGrandad said:
Wasnt it Dick Knight who made this ruling himself to be then defeated by his own rule.

This

wilko1 said:
Methinks DK is a bitter man with a very short memory.... After all he made the rule

And This

Lincoln Imp · Sep 23, 2014

seagullsovergrimsby said:
Without the enticement of owning a share certificate the book sales would have been 270 less. Dick Knight , once a marketing guru always a marketing guru.

I'm not taking sides here because rows in the family make me sad but are you really suggesting that none of the 270 people who applied for shares would otherwise have bought the book? I would have thought that the people who applied for shares would have been among the book's likeliest buyers.

BensGrandad · Sep 23, 2014

I might buy it if it is available on Kindle to read while I am on holiday

Lincoln Imp · Sep 23, 2014

wilko1 said:
Methinks DK is a bitter man with a very short memory.... After all he made the rule

You're right, and I believe he himself drew attention to this in one of his letters on the subject. However, the rule - a common clause in company articles - was intended to keep predators at bay 17 years or so ago when the ownership of the club was far less settled than it is now. I'm not familiar with the details of the current row but I don't believe that DK has protested about the existence of the rule, simply about the way it is being applied by the auditors and others, which he claims is unreasonable.

BensGrandad · Sep 23, 2014

Didnt PB explain the required proceedure and the course of action the club was taking in accordance with this proceedure at the recent forum in Horsham

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Dick Knights shares, final chapter?

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️

Well-known member

Well-known member

Shite Supporter

On the road...

#cpfctinpotclub

We Got Calde in!!

Stupid IDIOT

New member

Your support is not that great

A. Virgo, Football Genius

We Got Calde in!!

Well-known member

Active member

Primary data is fact

North East Stand.

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Share this page