ScohamCommentTime1 hour ago quote# 290
Posted By: Henry Irving
Quite different with a Publicly Listed company which has to announce any takeover but we're not one of those.
How does that actually work? The club has a PLC chairman and a football club chairman, but we aren't a PLC?
We ARE a PLC, or a Public Limited Company. That is not the same as a Listed company, which has to comply with the rules of the Stock Exchange where they are listed. A PLC can sell its shares to the general public, but does not have to be listed on a stock exchange. We used to be listed on AIM (the Alternative Investment Market) but we were de-listed some years ago now. Our directors have a duty to comply with Company Law but do not have to follow any stock exchange rules or regulations. So we do not have to announce anything to do with a takeover until a recommendation is ready to be put to shareholders.
God, that's so boring isn't it? Apologies to everybody.
[cite]Posted By: Red_Pete[/cite]We ARE a PLC, or a Public Limited Company. That is not the same as a Listed company, which has to comply with the rules of the Stock Exchange where they are listed. A PLC can sell its shares to the general public, but does not have to be listed on a stock exchange. We used to be listed on AIM (the Alternative Investment Market) but we were de-listed some years ago now. Our directors have a duty to comply with Company Law but do not have to follow any stock exchange rules or regulations. So we do not have to announce anything to do with a takeover until a recommendation is ready to be put to shareholders.
God, that's so boring isn't it? Apologies to everybody.
I have 600 shares, I suppose that if there is a change going on I'll get something in the post. There are other mini shareholders out there like me. I can only say I have heard nothing at all, the evidence up to the last 24 hours or so suggested no change, Philip Parkinson as manager, the owners holding a meeting. The meeting is now cancelled due to 'legal advice', If that is a true statement surely it's because something serious is happening? I regard it as a 'good thing' because it suggests a takeover, or being able to demonstrate there was a mooted takeover that fell through. Of course the 'takeover' could be a manifestation of an internal power struggle, and may not necessarily move the club forward, or bring in financial stability. If we wait another couple of months in this desert of rumour and ignorance, unless the team win virtually all the time, I can see some fans reacting with much more cosmic vituperation than we have seen so far.
everyone's gonna be so disappointed when they find out the reason it's been cancelled is the hall was double booked.
the 'legal advise' excuse is just covering that after recent cut backs, our legal team couldn't do battle with that of the woowich and charlton brownie pack, who had booked the hall for their 'summer craft fayre'.
Well I'm going to have a bit of faith in what we have been told. Anyone who is prepared to write off a good few million for the sake of this club is surely worthy of some patience and trust? All will be revealed soon they have clearly said that and hinted at what is going on. It sounds positive but we will be put in the picture soon.
[cite]Posted By: 3blokes[/cite]Well I'm going to have a bit of faith in what we have been told. Anyone who is prepared to write off a good few million for the sake of this club is surely worthy of some patience and trust?
All will be revealed soon they have clearly said that and hinted at what is going on.
It sounds positive but we will be put in the picture soon.
Feck me, this is more boring than I thought, can someone let me know if the second Saturday home game is going ahead or not as I will miss the first game due to a stag in Prague, interestingly a joint one, both addicks, Perth glory who used to post on net addicks from time to time and Mickey the hat, or sometimes known as the hat, two H blockers and friends will be absent for wycombe, but there for the rest of the season and Prague will be aware of Charlton at the start of the division one season too. As long as the club is still going and my friends are still there, I will keep going. I met that much maligned michael glikstein a few years back, his heart was in the right place, but he never wanted to dip into his own pockets like recent directors have done, I have to say I have nothing but respect for all of them, I can't imagine anyone coming into CAFC hoping to make money and feel bad that they may have lost so much between them. Rambling and random interuption over, carry on.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]
Author CommentTime53 minutes ago quote# 275
Posted By: McLovin
Go onto FT.com and pick a story about a company involved in an acquisition. What you'll almost definitely notice in there is that there is (public) communication with their shareholders, the market, customers (in some cases) and the press. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of it, but are we now saying that all of these organisations failing to comply with company law? Implying that this is the reason for the cancellation is frustrating: if they're saying that they're in the latter stages of takeover talks then they should say that and not just imply something that is not true; at a time when your customer base is feeling confused and unhappy.
______________________________________________________
Are you saying that the lawyers advising RM/The Board don't know what they are doing? Come on. lets be adult about this, I do not believe they cancelled this out of convenience or avoidence of the issues, they are perfectly capable of dodging the questions if they need to. No the lawyers have made it clear that it would be folly for them to meet in a public forum at this stage in developments.
No, I didn't say that at all. To spell it out basically, I'm saying that lawyers involved in much bigger and more complicated takeovers wouldn't give that advice under normal circumstances. If they did they would back up the specifics of the decision and they would not wait until 2 days' before a long-planned and eagerly anticipated event because they know that such a sudden move is likely to be negatively perceived.
There is absolutely no legal basis for the chairmen of a company - who are continuing to give quite revealing statements to the press - should not have a cordial meeting with some key stakeholders during an acquistion.
Personally theory only but while they may be limited in what they could answer at this stage. I believe that most of our supporters would be big enough to understand that. I just think they don't want to do it. I think they a) expected the takeover to be done by now and so always expected the event to have been cancelled or be academic OR b) don't want to do the discussion either because of perceived negativity or because of the hassle of not being able to answer some questions. To answer your point about why they'd not just be more staraightforward about it, I suspect they don't want to be seen to be dodging bullets at the moment because of the potential negative impact on renewals.
The problem is 300 season ticket holders aren't key stakeholders, they are merely customers of the company. If it was the top 300 shareholders, then that may be different. Secondly I think you under-estimate the smallness (to use you big enough statement) of some supporters. A small, but vocal percentage of any group would disrupt the meeting, refuse to accept "no comment" and basically make the meeting untenable.
I'll hold my hands up and say i was wrong in my earlier comment. My initial reaction was that there still would have been an opportunity to hold a salvaged meeting, but i think it is clear now that in a non-disclosure period that really could not have happened.
Disappointing on one hand, but lets all pray for a positive outcome.
At the end of a 9 page thread containing numerous posts about an event that the club barely put any resource behind, it gets cancelled based on vague third party advice. Hmm, wonder if it was ever going to go ahead?
An NDA exists, but it is rather unlikely that it says Charlton Officials cannot be in a room where the word takeover is mentioned. And the point is it's very very unlikely to have been put in place on Monday. And, if that was the basis for the "legal" advice then maybe they should have said "we're bound by confidentiality agreements", but it might raise the question of why they didn't just filter out questions on that subject or cancel the event earlier. Club officials including RM have answered questions (at a high level) on the takeover before, I think (at least it's been mentioned in the press), and I think it unlikely that any NDA would exclude much other than the specifics involved (price timings parties).
It's not a great reason for me, just think a bit of forward planning and a little more disclosure and it wouldn't have set off so many alarm bells.
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]At the end of a 9 page thread containing numerous posts about an event that the club barely put any resource behind, it gets cancelled based on vague third party advice. Hmm, wonder if it was ever going to go ahead?
An NDA exists, but it is rather unlikely that it says Charlton Officials cannot be in a room where the word takeover is mentioned. And the point is it's very very unlikely to have been put in place on Monday. And, if that was the basis for the "legal" advice then maybe they should have said "we're bound by confidentiality agreements", but it might raise the question of why they didn't just filter out questions on that subject or cancel the event earlier. Club officials including RM have answered questions (at a high level) on the takeover before, I think (at least it's been mentioned in the press), and I think it unlikely that any NDA would exclude much other than the specifics involved (price timings parties).
It's not a great reason for me, just think a bit of forward planning and a little more disclosure and it wouldn't have set off so many alarm bells.
Without seeing the NDA how can we say.
What we do know is that the lawyers have seen the NDA and have given their advice based on that.
Now they and/or the directors may have been over cautious or maybe they felt that the potential risk was too great.
It's immensely frustrating, not least for people like Tel who were instrumental in organising it. I don't know Richard Murray personally but everything that I have heard about the way he operates suggests to me that if he thought he could have got away with the meeting continuing, he would have done so. Clearly, as custodians of shareholders interests (bear in mind the club is a separate legal entity) and with the legal advice given, he/Chappell felt it was too risky. Anybody who has had legal advice knows that it is rarely couched in absolute terms unless the law is explicit and what is proposed clearly falls outside it.
I suspect that the lawyers just explained how the meeting might lead to a breach of confidentiality and couched the advice in terms of "would you want to jeopardise the proposed deal)."In the end Mr Client, its your decision".
Comments
Posted By: Henry Irving
Quite different with a Publicly Listed company which has to announce any takeover but we're not one of those.
How does that actually work? The club has a PLC chairman and a football club chairman, but we aren't a PLC?
We ARE a PLC, or a Public Limited Company. That is not the same as a Listed company, which has to comply with the rules of the Stock Exchange where they are listed. A PLC can sell its shares to the general public, but does not have to be listed on a stock exchange. We used to be listed on AIM (the Alternative Investment Market) but we were de-listed some years ago now. Our directors have a duty to comply with Company Law but do not have to follow any stock exchange rules or regulations. So we do not have to announce anything to do with a takeover until a recommendation is ready to be put to shareholders.
God, that's so boring isn't it? Apologies to everybody.
Thanks for that, makes sense.
The meeting is now cancelled due to 'legal advice', If that is a true statement surely it's because something serious is happening? I regard it as a 'good thing' because it suggests a takeover, or being able to demonstrate there was a mooted takeover that fell through.
Of course the 'takeover' could be a manifestation of an internal power struggle, and may not necessarily move the club forward, or bring in financial stability.
If we wait another couple of months in this desert of rumour and ignorance, unless the team win virtually all the time, I can see some fans reacting with much more cosmic vituperation than we have seen so far.
the 'legal advise' excuse is just covering that after recent cut backs, our legal team couldn't do battle with that of the woowich and charlton brownie pack, who had booked the hall for their 'summer craft fayre'.
The Leonard Sachs of Charlton Life:-)
One for the old gits that....
All will be revealed soon they have clearly said that and hinted at what is going on.
It sounds positive but we will be put in the picture soon.
I make you right 3Blokes.
I love that !!!
As long as you get to it before it crashes...
lol, can imagine you screaming at the PC "WELL I WASN'T FCUKING INVITED IN THE FIRST PLACE" !!
The problem is 300 season ticket holders aren't key stakeholders, they are merely customers of the company. If it was the top 300 shareholders, then that may be different. Secondly I think you under-estimate the smallness (to use you big enough statement) of some supporters. A small, but vocal percentage of any group would disrupt the meeting, refuse to accept "no comment" and basically make the meeting untenable.
:-)
Got to see the funny side!
I'm well chilled now or whatever it is the yoof say....
Disappointing on one hand, but lets all pray for a positive outcome.
Haha, no you're not, you're doing exactly what he said and thinking something positive!
Exactly :-)
An NDA exists, but it is rather unlikely that it says Charlton Officials cannot be in a room where the word takeover is mentioned. And the point is it's very very unlikely to have been put in place on Monday. And, if that was the basis for the "legal" advice then maybe they should have said "we're bound by confidentiality agreements", but it might raise the question of why they didn't just filter out questions on that subject or cancel the event earlier. Club officials including RM have answered questions (at a high level) on the takeover before, I think (at least it's been mentioned in the press), and I think it unlikely that any NDA would exclude much other than the specifics involved (price timings parties).
It's not a great reason for me, just think a bit of forward planning and a little more disclosure and it wouldn't have set off so many alarm bells.
Without seeing the NDA how can we say.
What we do know is that the lawyers have seen the NDA and have given their advice based on that.
Now they and/or the directors may have been over cautious or maybe they felt that the potential risk was too great.
What if Yesterday after on going talks the takeover had got resurected and therefore under the advice given the club had to cancel the Q and A
why does it all have to be a lies and deceit can we not just wait and see
Some people just ain't happy if they don't have something to bitch, cry & moan about.
I've never said no to a beer, don't intend on starting now, so sure thing!
I suspect that the lawyers just explained how the meeting might lead to a breach of confidentiality and couched the advice in terms of "would you want to jeopardise the proposed deal)."In the end Mr Client, its your decision".