waldorf34 Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 I am not a lawyer but I believe our directors may have a conflict of interest , as directors of Douglas Street, the company that controls the 52 percent it's not in their interest to invite investment into St Mirren FC through a new share issue as that would reduce their share percentage, but these same directors,based on the latest figures St Mirren accounts SHOULD be issuing new shares to get investment into the club . As I said I am not a lawyer ,any out there care to comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a50lennyc Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) I am not a lawyer but I believe our directors may have a conflict of interest , as directors of Douglas Street, the company that controls the 52 percent it's not in their interest to invite investment into St Mirren FC through a new share issue as that would reduce their share percentage, but these same directors,based on the latest figures St Mirren accounts SHOULD be issuing new shares to get investment into the club . As I said I am not a lawyer ,any out there care to comment? i don't see what difference Douglas street makesany share issue may water down their individual share holding anyway the previous 3 share issues were available to all supporters and were by and large snubbed leaving the directors to buy them up supporters can hardly complain they had 3 opportunities and ignored them and left the board to save club all they are doing is trying to get their cash back im also not a lawyer but i do know its a private limited company and i wouldn't imagine the board are under any compulsion to issue new shares, particularly as the club has no bank debt the cash would no doubt be squandered on sh1te players anyway Edited November 11, 2014 by a50lennyc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 We've seen the huge success Sevco made of their share issues so why would the directors offer shares for a peanuts investment of cash which will take the club nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 . Implying a conflict of interest is actually a very serious thing to do and should not be done lightly. I would question the wisdom of starting this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 Where has there been mention of a new share issue ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) . Implying a conflict of interest is actually a very serious thing to do and should not be done lightly. I would question the wisdom of starting this thread Not so sure.I'd say the OP is looking for clarification as opposed to making accusations? Directors have a responsibility to make decisions in the best interests of the company, SG was quoted saying so prior to the Sevco vote. However, the directors in the past have issued short term loans to the club in times of cash flow difficulties and I believe this would be the simple answer to the conflict of interests/share issue point. Short term loan and budget cuts instead of a share issue to fill the hole followed by another loss would not be in the best interest of the company? Edited November 11, 2014 by davidg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 Conflict of interest isn't really an issue and quite common in business. However. They must be declared and votes when they arise must be abstained from by the directors. Not illegal but requires care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 I wouldn't want to see us have a share issue just so that we would have money to buy a striker in January. That scenario buys into Tommy Craig's post-match nonsense of we'll be fine if we just start scoring goals. The defence needs fixed (we've not kept a clean sheet in 15 games this season), we need more than 1 decent striker as we've seen that when Thommo is out our other 3 strikers aren't up to the job, and we should be looking at replacing Tommy Craig. If we have a better team on the park getting better results more people will pay to watch us and we'll probably get more prize money for finishing further up the table. I'd fancy that a few managers could do a lot better than Tommy Craig is doing with the current squad, as there seems to be no suggestion we would ever contemplate changing our goalkeeper, or changing defensive personnel, or formation and attempting to becoming hard to beat and aiming for some clean sheets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ McG Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 I wouldn't want to see us have a share issue just so that we would have money to buy a striker in January. That scenario buys into Tommy Craig's post-match nonsense of we'll be fine if we just start scoring goals. The defence needs fixed (we've not kept a clean sheet in 15 games this season), we need more than 1 decent striker as we've seen that when Thommo is out our other 3 strikers aren't up to the job, and we should be looking at replacing Tommy Craig. If we have a better team on the park getting better results more people will pay to watch us and we'll probably get more prize money for finishing further up the table. I'd fancy that a few managers could do a lot better than Tommy Craig is doing with the current squad, as there seems to be no suggestion we would ever contemplate changing our goalkeeper, or changing defensive personnel, or formation and attempting to becoming hard to beat and aiming for some clean sheets. its going to be too late by the time we mange to get rid of that useless clown TC, the board have really f**ked up with the appointment and are too stubborn to admit it. St.Mirren park stinks of relegation, we are going down this season and its not going to be pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Douglas Street is only the vehicle to sell the controlling interest, nothing more, as opposed to having a buyer negotiate separately with the individuals owning the 52% share holding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millport Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 If an individual came along and wanted to invest £250k in the club by purchasing unisssued shares, would the consortium/ board bite their hand off or knock it back as it would dilute the 52%. An option of course would be for the Douglas Street to match the purchase. Just all in theory of course, who would invest that sort of money in St Mirren ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.