lookwhaticando Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 How many lcfc shares are there in total and what percentage does he hold???? Are there about 6.4m shares (the amount of cash put into the new company)... That's about 3% is it not. Not a clue. I thought there was a post somewhere around here with all shareholders. Can't seem to find it though.
lookwhaticando Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Johnson resigned because he opposed MM's deal,pure and simple,for his own reasons,no hidden agenda. My god this is getting bad...when are Moulder and Scully going to start posting? Who said there was a hidden agenda? Babylon, being the inquisitive git that he is () wants to know if Johnson has enough sway to block the bid completely. It's well within his rights, and it's not a hidden agenda. If he's resigned in opposition to the bid, it's not exactly hidden - we all know about it!
lcfc_jme Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Not a clue. I thought there was a post somewhere around here with all shareholders. Can't seem to find it though. You on about the post by Louise which looked like this?? : Full list of shareholders (Oct '05) copy/pasted from another forum. Hammond Grange Ltd 500,000 Pukka Pies Ltd 500,000 Greg Clarke 413,000 Trevor Bennett 350,000 HW Coates Ltd 300,000 Jim McCahill 250,000 Michael Edwards 250,000 Kirby & West Ltd 250,000 Andrew Taylor 250,000 AM Widdowson & Son Ltd 250,000 Stephen Lee 200,000 James Johnson 175,000 David Ross 165,476 Foxes Trust 151,000 David Wilson 150,000 Peter Hockenhill 125,000 Alan Upton 120,000 Brian Maddison 110,000 Clive Sharp 100,000 Anthony Wheeler 100,000 Dominic SHorthouse 100,000 Donald Kendal 100,000 Gary Lineker 100,000 Jon Holmes 100,000 Nicholas Wilkinson 100,000 Timothy Days 100,000 Robert Craig 100,000 Roger Paltrey 85,000 Celia Mackay 75,000 Richard Mackay 75,000 Martin Pace 60,000 Roger Pace 60,000 Emile Heskey 50,000 Martin George 50,000 Karin Swann 50,000 Peter Swann 50,000 Peter Freer 50,000 Walter McRobie 50,000 Peter Lennon 35,000 Roger Moore 30,000 Anthony Lander 25,000 Alison Nettleton 25,000 Kenneth Bradstock 25,000 Vanda Craig 25,000 Thomas Bloor 25,000 Teacher's Pension Fund 1 Teresa Lander 25,000
Babylon Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Who said there was a hidden agenda? Babylon, being the inquisitive git that he is () wants to know if Johnson has enough sway to block the bid completely. It's well within his rights, and it's not a hidden agenda. If he's resigned in opposition to the bid, it's not exactly hidden - we all know about it! On his own he doesn't... but if MM wants complete control we need 90% to say yes for MM to force the purchase of the last 10%. So we would only need another 7.1% to say no to scupper it. If Johnson is going to vote NO that is.
He's not bald Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 You on about the post by Louise which looked like this?? : Full list of shareholders (Oct '05) copy/pasted from another forum. Hammond Grange Ltd 500,000 Pukka Pies Ltd 500,000 Greg Clarke 413,000 Trevor Bennett 350,000 HW Coates Ltd 300,000 Jim McCahill 250,000 Michael Edwards 250,000 Kirby & West Ltd 250,000 Andrew Taylor 250,000 AM Widdowson & Son Ltd 250,000 Stephen Lee 200,000 James Johnson 175,000 David Ross 165,476 Foxes Trust 151,000 David Wilson 150,000 Peter Hockenhill 125,000 Alan Upton 120,000 Brian Maddison 110,000 Clive Sharp 100,000 Anthony Wheeler 100,000 Dominic SHorthouse 100,000 Donald Kendal 100,000 Gary Lineker 100,000 Jon Holmes 100,000 Nicholas Wilkinson 100,000 Timothy Days 100,000 Robert Craig 100,000 Roger Paltrey 85,000 Celia Mackay 75,000 Richard Mackay 75,000 Martin Pace 60,000 Roger Pace 60,000 Emile Heskey 50,000 Martin George 50,000 Karin Swann 50,000 Peter Swann 50,000 Peter Freer 50,000 Walter McRobie 50,000 Peter Lennon 35,000 Roger Moore 30,000 Anthony Lander 25,000 Alison Nettleton 25,000 Kenneth Bradstock 25,000 Vanda Craig 25,000 Thomas Bloor 25,000 Teacher's Pension Fund 1 Teresa Lander 25,000 What am I gonna do at half time! :eek:
BartonFox Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Bill Anderson is to journalism what Josh Low is to football. I have my own theories as to why he, the Mercury, and East Midlands Today are so eager to serve Mandy. Billy's agenda/brief is quite clear - to force through a deal before James Johnson returns from Oz and starts spilling the beans about the true nature of Mandy's bid. But no matter how front-page splashes the tabloid decides to run (and notice how the one yesterday made NO mention of the boardroom split), some of the shareholders may be unwilling to accept an offer in which, according to some reports, up to NINETY per cent of the value of their holdings could be written off. Even supposing that Mandy's tactics succeed, and he is able to process the takeover, his conduct throughout the last three months will leave many fans far from convinced that he is a fit and proper person to run our club. Will he provide money for new signings, or merely seek to underwrite the club's debts and let it borrow more? I doubt whether the bank would let him go for the latter option, but it appears to be the one he prefers. And will he dispense of Rob Kelly's services or seek to retain them? Judging by his statements to the media, Mandy has confidence in RK and will therefore presumably have stuck to this line while soliciting support from shareholders. But has this position changed? How long will it be before Mandy realises what many of us already know, that RK is out of his depth as manager of Leicester City? Meanwhile it has also been suggested that Mandy has been eyeing up the millions to be made from selling off the Belvoir Drive training ground. However that option was examined four years ago during our time in administration. It was rejected because Leicester City Council let it be known that NO planning permission would be granted to developers to build on this site. Sources at the council have confirmed this week that this stance will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. So if Mandy wants to ensure a decent return on his investment, he will have to do what other sugar daddies have done, namely dig into his pockets, which will be well filled due to the efforts of his Russian friend at Pompey. First of all he will need to bring in a new manager and coaching staff, otherwise he won't be able to attract the quality players that we need. Secondly he must provide the wherewithal to allow the manager to carry out the necessary overhaul of the playing staff and recruit replacements who are capable of taking this club in an upwards direction. Finally, in the event of promotion, further funding would clearly be needed to consolidate our position and he would need to ensure that they would be available and spent judiciously. But if Mandy considers the above scenario and decided it requires too much commitment fromhim at his stage of life, then maybe he isn't the messiah that some on here imagine him to be. Come on Ultra if he is that bothered he wouldn't have is arse plonked at the SCG, you know that as well as I do. He has his issues with the deal, but they are more selfish than 'for the overall good of LCFC', MM has confided in several well connected individuals at LCFC, guaged opinion and moved forward. He isn't in this to lose out so I am not sure where all your doom and gloom is stemming from. We agree on one thing though is Kelly has to go.
Mort Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 It's a tough decision, it really is. A bunch of blokes who saved the club with their own money, and seemingly little idea of how to run a club successfully... Or a mutli-millionaire with the financial muscle to back the club up, some leadership skills and a track record in English football? Yeah best give me a month or two to mull it over, factoring in our dire financial situation (!) ...This is a toughie!
Chrysalis Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 A lot presumably depends on how much fuss Johnson wants to make. Since his area of expertise is apparently: "Corporate banking, but in particular leveraged and acquisition finance, workouts, restructurings and structured finance," you would expect some of the other shareholders to listen to him if he makes a stand. If he is that astute at financing then perhaps he should have been more involved because our current financial situation is dire, do you deny this? if you dont do you find it to be acceptable? If we werent in such a bad situation then the current shareholders would be in a stronger position. If he is resigning over the issue of the value of the shares then he needs to grow up there is more important things then the amount they get for their shares. Dont get me wrong, if milan came in sold the training ground stripped assets then dissapeared I would be very angry, but I just dont believe he is in it for that reason and wants more football success.
Chrysalis Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Reading your post, I'd suggest you're not in a position to accuse ANYONE of "paranoia" or "delusions". Whether MM can give us the leadership we need depends largely on who he brings in to replace Kelly as manager. At present, though, he seems to have confidence in Kelly's abilities. This raises serious questions about his judgement before the takeover's even gone through. Security? I very much doubt it. A structure giving total power to someone with no previous affinity to either the club or the community it serves is hardly reassuring for the long term future of the club. Even if he decides to walk away there will be other buyers waiting in the wings. Just because you and a few others may choose to swallow tabloid propaganda doesn't mean that the rest of us have to. any incoming owner wouldnt be dumb enough to say they are about to sack the manager take west ham as a prime example, I think kelly would have a maximum of 6 months under manderic and he has full intentions of bringing a new manager in.
Chrysalis Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 MON would still have left us for Celtic, whatever money we offered him. At least the present board cared enough about the club to keep us in business, and spent their own money in doing so. That's more than Mandy seems likely to do. what money have they put in? excluding to buy shares.
Mort Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Dont get me wrong, if milan came in sold the training ground stripped assets then dissapeared I would be very angry, but I just dont believe he is in it for that reason and wants more football success. Why on earth some people actually think that's what he's interested in doing is simply beyond me and frankly that's what Ultra and Co have been in effect suggesting... why on earth buy a football club with the aim of selling off its assests and utterly destroying any credibility you had built up in the game? It makes no sense, MM wants to get LCFC back into the prem and then some years later he'll sell the club on, no doubt at a big profit... his investment will be far from massive (he's not Abramovic) but that is how he will make his profit.
lookwhaticando Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 On his own he doesn't... but if MM wants complete control we need 90% to say yes for MM to force the purchase of the last 10%. So we would only need another 7.1% to say no to scupper it. If Johnson is going to vote NO that is. No, I know. I didn't suspect that he did. Every individual shareholder is, by themselves, totally powerless in the current regime. That's clear now, indeed. But still - I fail to see where this supposed 'hidden agenda' of Johnson's is. I was responding to the chap who seemed to think my posting of a list of shareholders, in response to your question, was somehow seeking to find a hidden agenda of Johnson's. I still fail to see where he read that 'accusation' from. Certainly couldn't have read it 'between the lines' in my post. There were no lines...
Babylon Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 No, I know. I didn't suspect that he did. Every individual shareholder is, by themselves, totally powerless in the current regime. That's clear now, indeed. But still - I fail to see where this supposed 'hidden agenda' of Johnson's is. I was responding to the chap who seemed to think my posting of a list of shareholders, in response to your question, was somehow seeking to find a hidden agenda of Johnson's. I still fail to see where he read that 'accusation' from. Certainly couldn't have read it 'between the lines' in my post. There were no lines... Sorry I wasn't spelling it out to you, I knew you already understood. I was just following up on my previous post with an explanation of why I said it for that other chap.
lookwhaticando Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Sorry I wasn't spelling it out to you, I knew you already understood. I was just following up on my previous post with an explanation of why I said it for that other chap. Ah right. If only I was clever enough to know you thought I was clever enough to understand you, I wouldn't have done quite so much typing.
Swedging Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 If he is that astute at financing then perhaps he should have been more involved because our current financial situation is dire, do you deny this? if you dont do you find it to be acceptable? If we werent in such a bad situation then the current shareholders would be in a stronger position. You keep demanding I answer questions for some reason. Why don't you try answering a few first: Why did Mandaric sell Portsmouth? How much did he get for Portsmouth? Has he actually completed the sale of Portsmouth? Before he sold, how much of his money was in the club and how much commercial debt was Pompey exposed to? Would that make the club viable by any normal yardstick? When he sold the club, wasn't it true that everyone assumed that Portsmouth were doomed to relegation? How would a relegated club, with that level of debt, have fared? If the FA is beefing up it's compliance unit, how likely is it that Mandaric will be able to sell another club to another Gaydamak? Why did Redknapp say, when he returned to Portsmouth, that they had the worst squad ever seen in the Premiership? How does that reflect on Mandaric's leadership? But since I'm overly generous, I will give you a clue and a bit of an answer to your question. The financial situation of Portsmouth in Mandaric's last year in charge was far worse than Leicester's is this year.
BartonFox Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Why did Mandaric sell Portsmouth? Because Gaydamak offered him a ridiculous price. How much did he get for Portsmouth? It doean't actually matter, because LCFC is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I believe it was in excess of 25 million though. Has he actually completed the sale of Portsmouth? Yes he has. Before he sold, how much of his money was in the club and how much commercial debt was Pompey exposed to? Would that make the club viable by any normal yardstick? There was none of his money left in the Club, that is what promotion to the Premiership and survival meant. There is no significant debt at Pompey. When he sold the club, wasn't it true that everyone assumed that Portsmouth were doomed to relegation? How would a relegated club, with that level of debt, have fared? What level of debt? He was shrewd enought to bring in additional investment and right a wrong, I fail to see why he is beaten continually with that stick? If the FA is beefing up it's compliance unit, how likely is it that Mandaric will be able to sell another club to another Gaydamak? Oh that much vaunted money waster from the FA. It is a powder puff organisation and has no merit within the game. The FA is a joke. Why did Redknapp say, when he returned to Portsmouth, that they had the worst squad ever seen in the Premiership? How does that reflect on Mandaric's leadership? Much the same as Elsom and Walker during the Peter Taylor era, but it was righted so get over yourself. But since I'm overly generous, I will give you a clue and a bit of an answer to your question. The financial situation of Portsmouth in Mandaric's last year in charge was far worse than Leicester's is this year. :laugh:
Swedging Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 Because.... To be honest, I'd have expected more considered and reasoned replies from you.
He's not bald Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 I am gobsmacked at all this. What does it matter? at the end of the day the deal will happen or it won't,all that is typed here is pure speculation and nothing else.We can do nothing about the outcome except sit and watch and hope just as we do at the Walker's.There is one thing and one thing only and that's success on the pitch both now and in the future and we as loyal fans (and that's what I believe we all are or we would'nt be here) will help by being 100% behind whatever regime is in place. Leicester till I die!
BartonFox Posted 3 January 2007 Posted 3 January 2007 To be honest, I'd have expected more considered and reasoned replies from you. Trust me the questions didn't merit anything more than they got
Mort Posted 4 January 2007 Posted 4 January 2007 :laugh: Ditto... I'm so gald we dont have the problems that Pompey did last season, I mean heading for relegation and administration while watching the worst football LCFC has ever mustered is infinatley preferable... honestly the anti-MM brigade are just getting desperate
MC Prussian Posted 4 January 2007 Posted 4 January 2007 And I didn't know James Bond was a shareholder of our club...
surrifox Posted 4 January 2007 Posted 4 January 2007 And I didn't know James Bond was a shareholder of our club... "Do you expect me to talk Mandaric?" "No Mr Kelly , I expect you to clear your desk"
Chrysalis Posted 4 January 2007 Posted 4 January 2007 You keep demanding I answer questions for some reason. Why don't you try answering a few first: Why did Mandaric sell Portsmouth? Only he knows but probably the most profitable time for him to do so. How much did he get for Portsmouth? More then he paid for it. Has he actually completed the sale of Portsmouth? On public evidence it would appear not. Before he sold, how much of his money was in the club and how much commercial debt was Pompey exposed to? Would that make the club viable by any normal yardstick? If you know the answer why dont you tell me instead of asking. The bigger question is, was the debt manageable. When he sold the club, wasn't it true that everyone assumed that Portsmouth were doomed to relegation?How would a relegated club, with that level of debt, have fared? I was one of the people thinking they heading down, but they didnt go down so you can keep thinking of the ifs for all you like. If the FA is beefing up it's compliance unit, how likely is it that Mandaric will be able to sell another club to another Gaydamak? Less likely, but it doesnt mean he will never be able to sell it on. Why did Redknapp say, when he returned to Portsmouth, that they had the worst squad ever seen in the Premiership? How does that reflect on Mandaric's leadership? Because it was a bad squad, that is not manderics fault tho he did back the other managers its just they brought poorly, what was his fault was losing redknapp in the first place but it did show how good his leadership was when he was able to act and get redknapp back in swallowing his pride. But since I'm overly generous, I will give you a clue and a bit of an answer to your question. The financial situation of Portsmouth in Mandaric's last year in charge was far worse than Leicester's is this year. Instead of asking me questions you already know the answers to why dont you answer mine please.
Ric Flair Posted 4 January 2007 Posted 4 January 2007 This James Johnson geezer has apparently been against the MM take-over from the start and according to a rumour on another forum, he had to be restrained at one of the Leicester games when Birch announced that MM had been given the green light to view the books. Wasn't it announced when the board and shareholders gave the go-ahead, that every shareholder in attendance gave the green light? Now either Johnson gave the green light, or didn't attend. Or the story that all shareholders were backing the take-over was untrue. Either way, if Johnson has been against it from the off then it can't have put the other shareholders off too much otherwise the un-animous backing of the principle bid back in November/December wouldn't have happened. MM needs 90%, if the board are backing it then it's likely that the shareholders will do aswell. But 10% isn't that many shareholders put together to de-rail this take-over. I'm sure the shareholders will back what the board have decided, if they don't then it speaks volumes about what our shareholders think of our current board. There would surely be a new board needed anyway? Plus the shareholders that reject it, would and should have to seriously stump up with some cash to keep this club going.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.