Master Fox Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 And another one: Milan looks like he's seen a ghost
Ric Flair Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 Milan looks like he's seen a ghost Or it was the one time Josh Low won a header this season.
Louise Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 I just assumed it was taken just after the match..
Master Fox Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 Or it was the one time Josh Low won a header this season. More likely the case !
brookfox Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 I believe there's a point at which MM can make an involuntary purchase of the remaining shareholders shares (is it something like 90%). Does anyone know does the offer document have to go to all shareholders, or can it just go to the ones whose shares he wants to buy? Reason I ask, with the FT owning ~1% (I recall) could MM buy the club without involving them, thus his bid could have already been submitted without them knowing? (sorry I'm bored at work and my mind is wandering off to random conspiracy theories!)
Phube Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 And another one: Jose Mourinio (with his back turned, to the right of Milan!!) Start the rumours!!!!
Babylon Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 I believe there's a point at which MM can make an involuntary purchase of the remaining shareholders shares (is it something like 90%). Does anyone know does the offer document have to go to all shareholders, or can it just go to the ones whose shares he wants to buy? Reason I ask, with the FT owning ~1% (I recall) could MM buy the club without involving them, thus his bid could have already been submitted without them knowing? (sorry I'm bored at work and my mind is wandering off to random conspiracy theories!) Exactly what i've been thinking.
Louise Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 Even if they're not to get the document I imagine they'd still have heard. And MM won't have sent it around yet if he's still waiting on AG.
brookfox Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 Exactly what i've been thinking. Great, not just me then! Maybe there's something contentious in there (e.g. a groundshare) that he doesn't want them knowing about and rocking the boat with fans. He's a bugger for his PR!
leeleic Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 Be nice to think it's true... but we simply wont know until the club issue a statment saying so... if MM still wants to buy after yesterdays horror show then he'll probably want it sorted fast so he can clean up the club over X-mass and head into january with a strong managment team ready to strengthen the squad. Couldn't agree more!
Nationwider Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 If Mandaric can acquire 90% of the shares (with voting rights, I think) he can apply to make a compulsory acquisition of the remainder of the shares. I doubt he could go behind the FT's back - they have been at all these meetings after all. I think Companies House keeps a fairly up-to-date record of shareholdings as well. In any case, if the vast majority are in favour of selling, its a fait accompli anyway. They can hardly stand in his way when he appears to have the weight of popular opinion behind his bid, courtesy of our friends in the media.
lookwhaticando Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 If Mandaric can acquire 90% of the shares (with voting rights, I think) he can apply to make a compulsory acquisition of the remainder of the shares. I doubt he could go behind the FT's back - they have been at all these meetings after all. I think Companies House keeps a fairly up-to-date record of shareholdings as well. In any case, if the vast majority are in favour of selling, its a fait accompli anyway. They can hardly stand in his way when he appears to have the weight of popular opinion behind his bid, courtesy of our friends in the media. They could try. They'd look mighty foolish, though, if most fans back the takeover and they oppose. After all, they're supposed to represent the fans.
Louise Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 If the takeover is the the best interests of the club I'm sure the Foxes Trust will support it (and there will be a member consultation process). I think the original question was more to do with the timing of the takeover, in relation to whether the document could have been sent out without the FT knowing and MM be in by Friday, or something.
Nationwider Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 From a (very) layman's reading of the relevant sections of The Companies Act, MM would simply have to acquire any 90% of the shares. I'm not sure he's obliged at that stage to maintain any contact with those whose shares he doesn't need to purchase before a compulsory acquisition order begins. However, I would imagine out of courtesy to all shareholders, there won't have been a cloak-and-dagger approach. FT seem to have been represented as usual at recent meetings. Regardless of anyone's feelings for the FT, it would seem a bit peculiar if they were elbowed out. Not good PR for Milan, and something that might make us question his motives.
Ajax Treesdown Posted 4 December 2006 Posted 4 December 2006 My uncle works at the City, security in the club and players lounges. He says he shook Milan's hand on Sat. Also said that Milan stayed for the whole match and seemed happy. This is not cr ap by the way.
Foxes_Trust Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 I believe there's a point at which MM can make an involuntary purchase of the remaining shareholders shares (is it something like 90%). Does anyone know does the offer document have to go to all shareholders, or can it just go to the ones whose shares he wants to buy? Reason I ask, with the FT owning ~1% (I recall) could MM buy the club without involving them, thus his bid could have already been submitted without them knowing? (sorry I'm bored at work and my mind is wandering off to random conspiracy theories!) No, still no legal bid arrived. Hence at the clubs AGM tonight, the LCFC board couldn't explain their current discussions with MM, due to takeover panel rules. We all await the document
Foxes_Trust Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 They could try. They'd look mighty foolish, though, if most fans back the takeover and they oppose. After all, they're supposed to represent the fans. Once again we will post - we don't oppose the bid, but we can't back it either until we know exactly what the bid is via a legal document. It is still being negotiated & we expect the content of the bid not to be the same as originally proposed in an outline document which was sent to shareholders prior to the EGM, when we all backed taking the interest to the next stage.
Ric Flair Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Once again we will post - we don't oppose the bid, but we can't back it either until we know exactly what the bid is via a legal document. It is still being negotiated & we expect the content of the bid not to be the same as originally proposed in an outline document which was sent to shareholders prior to the EGM, when we all backed taking the interest to the next stage. Is that good news or bad news?
Daggers Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Is that good news or bad news? ~It is news devoid of substance...which is as good as no news...and no news is good news. Quod. Erat. Bloody demonstratum.
brookfox Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Quod. Erat. Bloody demonstratum. Completely off topic... I did a maths degree and it was a couple of years before I realsied QED stood for this and not Quite Easily Done which my lecturer always told us it did!
surrifox Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Is that good news or bad news? I would think the due diligence process would in all likelihood throw up questions about some of the accounting policies and assumptions made by the incumbents- this is likely to lead to a reduced bid rather than an increase! There would be nothing in law to require this sort of information to be kept confidential but good business practice would suggest it should be.
gatesheadfox Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Completely off topic... I did a maths degree and it was a couple of years before I realsied QED stood for this and not Quite Easily Done which my lecturer always told us it did! oh dear, it wasn't one of those lecturers with ear piercings and jeans was it?
surrifox Posted 5 December 2006 Posted 5 December 2006 Completely off topic... I did a maths degree and it was a couple of years before I realsied QED stood for this and not Quite Easily Done which my lecturer always told us it did! It doesn't - the phrase is Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.