Club statement

[jdfc]

Out today, says everything we already knew about DFCSS, attention seeking c@nts, will do everything to block the progress of our club, all in it for themselves, still thriving for the day they can get back in the comfortable seats

[HuddersfieldDee]

Indeed, somewhat damning for DFCSS. Cnuts

[Returnofrros]

Not 100% convinced by the statement but at least it's something.

Anybody who was at the meeting would be able to confirm if this was Dfcss timeline of how these A Shares came up for discussion.

It looks to me that Dfcss are stirring and the current owners are happy to be stirred so that they can make Dfcss look bad.

I trust neither.

[BCram]

Not 100% convinced by the statement but at least it's something.

Anybody who was at the meeting would be able to confirm if this was Dfcss timeline of how these A Shares came up for discussion.

It looks to me that Dfcss are stirring and the current owners are happy to be stirred so that they can make Dfcss look bad.

I trust neither.

The fairest comment Rross.

[shaded]

Out today, says everything we already knew about DFCSS, attention seeking c@nts, will do everything to block the progress of our club, all in it for themselves, still thriving for the day they can get back in the comfortable seats

you know my thoughts on how the fans model panned out mate
however
as far as the future of the club as we know it,the dfcss built in a very good safeguard,to protect the club against any future demise of the club through take overs etc and if the present board even considered releasing the a shares in any shape or form or for £'s then more fool them.

me id rather make sure we still played in dark blue,were still called Dundee fc etc than give a group some ffffnn tax relief and leave the door open for being potentially rag dolled some time in the future by someone

[HuddersfieldDee]

It seems to me the statement says or implies:
1. A shares are not required for tax relief, but 75pc shareholding is.
2. FPS were going for a share issue to achieve that.
3. DFCSS said why not do this instead.
4. FPS agreed that was a simpler route.
5. Negotiations dragged on.
6. Merger has never been discussed or contemplated.
7. DFCSS are responsible for merger scare stories.
How much of that is true?

[HuddersfieldDee]

Aside from my post above I think FPS should go for 75pc without A shares, leaving the safeguards in place.
If Campy flies, DFCSS should not block it (accept many think that is a big if).

[jdfc]

you know my thoughts on how the fans model panned out mate
however
as far as the future of the club as we know it,the dfcss built in a very good safeguard,to protect the club against any future demise of the club through take overs etc and if the present board even considered releasing the a shares in any shape or form or for £'s then more fool them.

me id rather make sure we still played in dark blue,were still called Dundee fc etc than give a group some ffffnn tax relief and leave the door open for being potentially rag dolled some time in the future by someone

G, they can get a legal agreement drawn up similar to what they have to insure no amalgamation etc but allows for move to new stadium

[Returnofrros]

It seems to me the statement says or implies:
1. A shares are not required for tax relief, but 75pc shareholding is.
2. FPS were going for a share issue to achieve that.
3. DFCSS said why not do this instead.
4. FPS agreed that was a simpler route.
5. Negotiations dragged on.
6. Merger has never been discussed or contemplated.
7. DFCSS are responsible for merger scare stories.
How much of that is true?

Agree 12345, undecided 6 and 7.

What dfcss must answer is why did they instigate sale of A Shares?

Or am I reading it wrong.

[Taintedice]

Clearly there is open hostility between FPS and DFCSS, stemming back to the takeover. The club needs FPS, no-one needs DFCSS, so as they want to sell the A shares, just get on with it.