Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Nust....

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,927
    Quote Originally Posted by toptoon View Post
    Nothing to do with that tw*t Ferdinand as it’s been being planned for 3 years now.
    Good to see someone actually taking some positive action for a change instead of whinging and doing nothing (me included).

    If the fund eventually buys part of the club, who would own the shares?
    If my contribution was converted into a shareholding eventually then I’d be interested in taking part.
    i'm not so sure you get any return on your money - no mention of any was mentioned and shares were talked about briefly as in - no shares.

    ive a feeling that it would be put your money in and any profits etc stay in ?????

    possibly shares at some point later - someone would have to keep an accurate account of who paid what - not an easy job.

    they talk about regular payments of anything from 1 upwards.
    at least they aren't asking for sums of money that people (ordinary people) couldn't possibly lay their hands on or could afford, so thats a plus. I think the minus is that there's not really anything definitive its just hoy your cash in, if it doesn't work out that cash will go to north east charities.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,927
    Quote Originally Posted by TANYA_ View Post
    its a pipe dream in my eyes. Not being negative at all just realistic, how many other clubs in the PL have been bought by the fans or have the fans as minority stakeholders holders
    Im sure Sir John Hall tried a similar scheme which failed miserably.

    The two glaring obstacles to this plan is

    1) Ashley needs to sell the club first!!
    2) new owners may not want any involvement from fans as financial partners/shareholders

    say this does happen, we get new owners and they allow the fans to buy a small stake, say 1%, they will need to raise 3.5million to get 1%.

    what will that bring? the majority of shares would be held by the new owners so the fans still would be dwarfed in any voting etc, they will have zero say that would impact any decision
    it is possible that the NUST have already held talks formal/informal and come to some agreement already.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19,927
    some questions answered hope this will open for everyone ps theres 8000 or so been pledged so far with the amount rising every second

    https://theathletic.com/2500929/2021...gWhJzmmz77AF_I
    Last edited by toonlegend; 08-04-2021 at 04:33 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    3,820
    Well I am right behind it. If its a choice to donate and possibly give the fans a voice under new ownership or give money to a multi-billionaire for Season tickets, that has destroyed the club and split the fanbase, then I know where my money will go.
    If it doesn't go off it will go to charity.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Geordie1974 View Post
    Well I am right behind it. If its a choice to donate and possibly give the fans a voice under new ownership or give money to a multi-billionaire for Season tickets, that has destroyed the club and split the fanbase, then I know where my money will go.
    If it doesn't go off it will go to charity.
    each to their own but, from what i know about shareholdings, every single shareholder gets a voice and a vote on decisions regarding the structure, safeguarding and direction the company is to go.

    Ballots are held and votes counted. The reason i would not even bother with this is because if the fans collectively held a 1% share that does not reflect the decision in the running of the club.

    Each fan that is a member of the pledge fund will need to have a vote internally with NUST because not every fan who have pledged will be a shareholder, NUST will hold a 1% share NOT THE FANS.

    NUST will then put forward their vote on behalf of the members.

    That 1% vote will count for nothing when the majority shareholder has 99% sharehold and can vote against NUST with 99/1 superiority.

    Mike Ashley is against it and the PIF consortium know nothing about it either so its like wiping your backside before you have had a ****

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    43,240
    I like the idea in principle.

    I see Shearer, Howey and Barton (Warren) are all in, according to their twitters and are rallying others from that team - Lee, Asprilla, Ginola etc.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    20,360
    I think it's a good thing. Even if it's a symbolic gesture where the money buys some sort of position on the board under new owners (because we won't be able to raise enough to buy fatso out-nowhere near, realistically) then it's a group of fans trying to do something positive.

    i'm in.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,105
    Hello all, I haven't posted in a LONG while... mainly because I've been busy, but it has also been a particularly demotivating period of the club's history. Plus, I moved to Thailand recently so been busy adjusting to that. Figured I'd chime in on this one as it's one of the more interesting ideas and movements to emerge.

    Point of clarification to start with...

    Quote Originally Posted by TANYA_ View Post
    Each fan that is a member of the pledge fund will need to have a vote internally with NUST because not every fan who have pledged will be a shareholder, NUST will hold a 1% share NOT THE FANS... The 1% vote will count for nothing
    This is only partially true. A lot depends upon what the new structure of the club would be under the new owners. Assuming it's a limited company, then it's presumably true that NUST would be the shareholder, in the same way that PIF would be, and a representative from NUST would likely be responsible for casting a vote or votes on behalf of the members. How they'd arrange this is anyone's guess right now - they haven't laid this out, and I think that's a failing on their part. Clarity around the voting structure internally at NUST (based on level contribution? Each contribution counts the same regardless of amount? Who is eligible to be nominated to the board? etc.) is needed, even if they can't answer questions on the shareholding of the club just yet. It'd also be good to know what happens to the money if it can't be put toward the stated purpose. Will it be siphoned off into some project I'd not want it to go towards, or will it be put to good use?

    Where this thing about voting share is not entirely accurate is that while it's typical for voting share to be the same as the ownership percentage, it doesn't have to be this way. You can allocate votes at a higher or lower level than the shareholding. So, NUST could own 1% of the club but be given a 25% share of the vote if the directors so chose to make it this way. It's not likely to be that way though, I suspect - though they may give them a slightly higher voting percentage.

    The issue, I guess, is what difference ANY voting percentage makes. If any one board member has majority control of the club's direction, it doesn't matter if it's 1% or 25%. If the votes are split, say, 49% PIF, 24% Staveley, 25% Ruben bros, 2% NUST, then that 2% could be a deciding vote when the board is otherwise split between the PIF and the UK contingent. In which case, 2% is just as significant as 25%.

    Overall, I think this is a positive movement. In the very least, a stake in the club moves the fans from being outsiders unable to have a meaningful say to being insiders able to lodge their discontent with the club's direction in a formal context. Even if that can't sway the club, it dismisses the arguments by people like Rio Turdinhand who say "it's not the fans' money" when talking about our club, like it's the fans' money in any other club in the Premier League. It also makes us harder to ignore. Being able to speak to the other club owners directly is better than having to try and make ourselves heard through an easily ignored diffuse media ecosystem, which is more interested in controversy than serious conversation.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •