F P S share proposal

[dayster]

Right thing for Dave to do would be to resign IMO.

For the record, and I've never confirmed this before to anyone, Dave coming back on the board was a significant contributory cause of my resignation.

Can i ask why he had to be removed R?

IIRC he twice gave statements to the press that they attributed to ‘Society Director’ Dave Forbes, which were nothing to do with Society business and were detrimental to the society relationship with the club.

In his defence he did say the tele had added the society bit and not him but he had been asked not to give statements to press regarding club business

[jdfc]

This topic is getting better every day, keep it going

[Taintedice]

Fair enough. As I see it DFCSS and FPS need ideas so that they can work together for the good of DFC. I don't think that the demise of either organisation is good idea, but I confess that I have not been able to come up with anything that I think will work. Perhaps if FPS make a rights issue all the current shareholders might want to buy more shares. Was toying with the idea that linking share sales to tickets for games might be a better sales pitch than trying to sell ST's.

DFCSS selling/giving the ordinary shares to FPS would have been a good starting point. Now we're left wondering about DFCSS continually mentioning the 'protections' in the context of the new stadium, and how FPS will have to go to them for permission. They really don't.

[hmac]

Can i ask why he had to be removed R?

Cos Caniggia retired years ago so there was no need for the master forger to keep signing for The Bird?

[hmac]

IIRC he twice gave statements to the press that they attributed to ‘Society Director’ Dave Forbes, which were nothing to do with Society business and were detrimental to the society relationship with the club.

In his defence he did say the tele had added the society bit and not him but he had been asked not to give statements to press regarding club business

Makes sense the Tully went to him they could send a reporter at the same time as sending him the papers

[BCram]

DFCSS selling/giving the ordinary shares to FPS would have been a good starting point. Now we're left wondering about DFCSS continually mentioning the 'protections' in the context of the new stadium, and how FPS will have to go to them for permission. They really don't.

I think DFCSS have said quite clearly that the protections, in the context of the new stadium, will not be applied and that they support the new stadium strategy for the club. Interesting suggestion that DFCSS give the shares to FPS. The discussion has been mainly about the price. I'm hopeful that the decision not to sell will mean that FPS does go for a rights issue and supporters if they want, will be able to put money into the club by buying shares. It isn't an investment that will have any financial return but it might bring more money into the club which could be very helpful.

[Taintedice]

Unfortunately, DFCSS have not said anything like that, when does the spin end? I'm afraid the new stadium will be the next battleground between both sides, I fully expect legal challenges from DFCSS, if only to extract concessions for themselves.

[BCram]

Unfortunately, DFCSS have not said anything like that, when does the spin end? I'm afraid the new stadium will be the next battleground between both sides, I fully expect legal challenges from DFCSS, if only to extract concessions for themselves.

Please look at the copy of the letter from DFCSS post no265approx. You will see a closing sentence from the board of DFCSS that States their position It's just not fair to post statements that suit your point of view.Here's the sentence

Finally, the Board wishes to reaffirm its support in principal for the proposed new stadium development at Camperdown and once more confirm its views that the Society’s entrenched shareholder rights should not be an impediment to the Club's new stadium plans.

I think that is very much more like my statement and is not in any way spin.

[Taintedice]

My comments are based on that paragraph, DFCSS 'reminding' FPS that moving to a new stadium will require DFCSS permission, which FPS will ignore, prompting legal action from DFCSS. DFCSS do like to spend their money on the professionals. Why even mention a stadium move, what's that got to do with selling shares?

[BCram]

My comments are based on that paragraph, DFCSS 'reminding' FPS that moving to a new stadium will require DFCSS permission, which FPS will ignore, prompting legal action from DFCSS. DFCSS do like to spend their money on the professionals. Why even mention a stadium move, what's that got to do with selling shares?

Here's what they said, the Board respectfully requests that FPS abide by the terms of the Club's ‘Articles of Association’ to which they have previously agreed, especially the rights pertaining to the ‘A Ordinary’ shares that they accepted during their 2013 takeover of the Club.

The comment is a statement of fact. FPS have been told that DFCSS support the new stadium so what is the problem. For me it is saying that despite these "rights" DFCSS support the stadium plan. I'd like to see everyone pulling in the same direction. The sale of the shares was declined and I hope that the rights issue that is proposal 2 will turn out to be a surprise bonus for FPS and they get additional funds from well meaning supporters.