|
|
Post by charliedontsurf on Jan 18, 2012 8:19:49 GMT 1
Great article which explains the share issue in simple terms......
Begins....
In 2003 the football club ran into financial difficulties that led to Administration.
The supporters rallied immediately and were solely responsible for providing funding to prevent the Club's liquidation by raising upwards of £100,000.
At a late stage, the Giants' chairman, Ken Davy, came forward to take control of Huddersfield Town, making it quite clear that his motive was to safeguard the future of the stadium for the rugby club. But many supporters became disenchanted as the new chairman refused to honour the 4-year bondholders who had also helped the club in their hour of need.
As the Huddersfield Town Supporters Trust discovered in 2005, Town's stadium shares were transferred by Ken Davy to his own private company (Huddersfield Sporting Pride) in December 2003 for the princely sum of £2 this only months after taking ownership of the club. This meant he had taken control of KSDL as 60% shareholder (with 40% KMC) and had acquired 40% of the Galpharm Stadium and the 54 acres of land for just £2 with the consent of Kirklees.
This meant Mr Davy took overall control of KSDL as a 60% shareholder (with Kirklees Council holding the remaining 40%), and in doing so had acquired 40% of the Galpharm Stadium, and the 54 acres of land, for just £2.
Over the following years the fans started to investigate how the football club was being run and if it was getting full value from having a chairman who ran both sporting clubs, and had control of the stadium. Many of the things that were found were worrying but we were assured the club was in good hands, and Mr Davy had sidetracked the shares to 'protect the football club from future liabilities'. He assured us that the rental formula was 'set in stone'.
Dean Hoyle then got involved, and over time his stake in the football club (but not the stadium!!) grew from 30% to 70% to 100%. Even then Mr Davy did not feel able to unburden himself of the duty to 'protect the football club from future liabilities'. He did not return the shares.
Two years ago, agreement was reached for the return of those shares, subject to all 3 parties agreeing to the deal, and returning to the original vision of 40/40/20 split of the shares. But this new deal collapsed last month in acrimony. The Council and KSDL have, of course, since agreed a new funding deal for KSDL.
This is a public interest issue - the Council consented to the sale of the club's shares for £2 in 2004, but refused to consent to the sale back in 2010.
We believe the Council, and public, have a huge financial risk in KSDL, and it is clear that HTAFC should have a return of its shares in KSDL for the same £2 value they were transferred away for.
Ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by BLUE&WHITE on Jan 18, 2012 9:26:19 GMT 1
That last bit makes it sound like it is the councils fault. We need to be careful here guys, too many incorrect or misleading 'simple summaries' and people who genuinely dont understand will either end up mote confused or thinking we don't know our own argument.
We need one simplified chronological list that if anyone asks we direct them to, there was a good one on one of the threads last week.
In the next two days when this gets wide scale regional and national coverage there will be a lot of people coming here for more info. We need this simplified version stickying and locked so it stays on that info, this should also be the same info used on the website soldfor2quid.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowshed on Jan 18, 2012 9:42:21 GMT 1
Anyone know what the true value of the stadium and it's 54 acres of land with planning permission is actually worth?
|
|
|
|
Post by ToyBoy on Jan 18, 2012 9:46:03 GMT 1
Yeah, about two quid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 9:47:59 GMT 1
Anybody know when it will be fully paid for?
|
|
|
|
Post by cowshed on Jan 18, 2012 9:53:51 GMT 1
Funny Brighton just paid 125 million, and normally the cost of building a property is much lower than its true value?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 10:08:13 GMT 1
Funny Brighton just paid 125 million, and normally the cost of building a property is much lower than its true value? That must be why it was valued at £2 then! By how much has KSDLs balance sheet improved since that £2 valuation? What are KSDLs future 12 months business projections as from end Jan 2012? What is the value of that £2 share holding now? |
|
|
|
Post by Grandfather Berty of Cleck on Jan 18, 2012 10:59:05 GMT 1
This 'buying the shares back for £2' seems to be a new addition.
Was that agreed in 2009?
I was under the impression that everything was/is agreed regarding the shares, and the certificates are just waiting to be signed.
The stummbling block is the change in the way the rent split which Ken Davy has proposed,
and that Deano is refusing to sign the agreed shares agreement because of the rent issue.
Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by keepmoving on Jan 18, 2012 11:02:24 GMT 1
I thought deano had agreed to pay 3 million for the shares. However that 3 million would be far better used on making the football club sustainable rather than going into someone elses pocket. :  : |
|
|
|
Post by BLUE&WHITE on Jan 18, 2012 11:09:02 GMT 1
We know that the shares are costing dean far more than £2. Its a very good point to push, it is the correct 'moral' point and as stated the shares were to be transfered back for this (albeit with a huge extra fee)
But putting pressure on him to give them back for £2, IF the general public support this, it makes his previous deal look even better
|
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 18, 2012 11:12:18 GMT 1
This 'buying the shares back for £2' seems to be a new addition. Was that agreed in 2009? I was under the impression that everything was/is agreed regarding the shares, and the certificates are just waiting to be signed. The stummbling block is the change in the way the rent split which Ken Davy has proposed, and that Deano is refusing to sign the agreed shares agreement because of the rent issue. Is that correct? The deal for the shares WAS agreed as part of the Feb 2010 Agreement, subject to the council also being in agreement. That took a while and was eventually granted in August 2011. Then right before the deal was to be signed, in December 2011, Davy asked for the rental formula to be changed. Dean said no. The deal was removed from the table. The rental formula change led to the deal collapsing. The certificates are not just waiting to be signed. |
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 18, 2012 11:14:49 GMT 1
I thought deano had agreed to pay 3 million for the shares. However that 3 million would be far better used on making the football club sustainable rather than going into someone elses pocket.  Dean agreed to pay £2 for the shares. Dean also agreed to repay Davy his loan stock of £3m. Dean also agreed to pay interest on the loan stock value fron the date they shook hands (Feb 2010) to the date the deal was completed (could have been December 2011). That deal has now passed. The shares are worth £2. That is what Dean will pay for them, and should pay for them. Why should Davy profit from them? Especially as Dean has promised to put them straight into trust. |
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 18, 2012 11:27:56 GMT 1
It is important to keep “emotions” under control and FOCUS the pressure and tactics:
• Persuade not bully
• Have Issue based discussions, not personal attacks (even if that is hard at times)
• Avoid “he” said, “she” said
• Build momentum
• Use all media – especially Social and twitter
• It is a two club issue, for all fans, not just Town’s
Facts
• 54 acres and a stadium sold for £2 by Ken Davy to his private company in 2003 – council consented!
• Council / Public funds KSDL – 60% private owned – scale of use of public money is secret
• Stated reason for share transfer in 2003 has gone – protection is no longer needed – Mr Davy is no longer in charge
• Ownership is an issue for both Clubs – could happen to Giants also
• Ownership is a Public interest issue – big risk to Council and tax payer; not transparent
• No individual should profit from shares – now or ever – including Dean Hoyle
• No individual should control KSDL
• Needs resolving quickly – its damaging
• HD1 has no prospect of success without a resolution
• HTAFC and fans want to back stadium to bring prosperity
So
• We are only asking for what is “fair and just”
• We are only asking to get back to the vision 40/40/20
• “Do right thing”
• “Return the shares for £2”
• “No individual should profit from owning the shares – not now, or ever – including Dean Hoyle”
• We won’t go away
|
|
|
|
Post by keepmoving on Jan 18, 2012 11:59:50 GMT 1
It is important to keep “emotions” under control and FOCUS the pressure and tactics: • Persuade not bully • Have Issue based discussions, not personal attacks (even if that is hard at times) • Avoid “he” said, “she” said • Build momentum • Use all media – especially Social and twitter • It is a two club issue, for all fans, not just Town’s Facts• 54 acres and a stadium sold for £2 by Ken Davy to his private company in 2003 – council consented! • Council / Public funds KSDL – 60% private owned – scale of use of public money is secret • Stated reason for share transfer in 2003 has gone – protection is no longer needed – Mr Davy is no longer in charge • Ownership is an issue for both Clubs – could happen to Giants also • Ownership is a Public interest issue – big risk to Council and tax payer; not transparent • No individual should profit from shares – now or ever – including Dean Hoyle • No individual should control KSDL • Needs resolving quickly – its damaging • HD1 has no prospect of success without a resolution • HTAFC and fans want to back stadium to bring prosperity So• We are only asking for what is “fair and just” • We are only asking to get back to the vision 40/40/20 • “Do right thing” • “Return the shares for £2” • “No individual should profit from owning the shares – not now, or ever – including Dean Hoyle”• We won’t go away exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by johnhtfc on Jan 18, 2012 13:05:58 GMT 1
Could someone explain what the rental formula is I've only ever seen 13/13 or 15/13 and it doesn't mean much to me ,anyone know what it works out % wise
|
|
|
|
Post by huddstownjimmymac on Jan 18, 2012 13:49:15 GMT 1
I,M actually starting to get the drift of all this shit davy as caused,,,,in simple terms i and many others have been supporting huddersfield town for many a year,,,,over the past few years huddersfield town have been held back by davy who i NOW BLAME FOR US NOT BIENG IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP......all monies from the coperate do,s and the staduim outlets should of gone to town and help us prosper with new signings ect[ricky lambert],,,davy as held us back for many a year before dean come onto the scene,,,,so basically without dean hoyle we would be proper in the shit,,,,he,s bankrolled us out of his own pocket in the last few years and we,ve been close to getting to the championship....if we had any other chairman[none town fan]we would be probably in the 4th division,,,,dean hoyle is trying to rin a business here and is bieng held back by davy and kirklees council..........JUST DO THE DECENT THING AND GIVE OUR SHARES BACK YOU HORRIBLE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TTID
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 14:33:10 GMT 1
I thought deano had agreed to pay 3 million for the shares. However that 3 million would be far better used on making the football club sustainable rather than going into someone elses pocket. Dean agreed to pay £2 for the shares. Dean also agreed to repay Davy his loan stock of £3m. Dean also agreed to pay interest on the loan stock value fron the date they shook hands (Feb 2010) to the date the deal was completed (could have been December 2011). That deal has now passed. The shares are worth £2. That is what Dean will pay for them, and should pay for them. Why should Davy profit from them? Especially as Dean has promised to put them straight into trust. So basically Ken now has no incentive to give back the shares whatsoever and our campaign is based on him "doing the right thing"? If there is no longer any wonga on the table then there is no chance Burnsy will bow to pressure and give em back for £2, not a chance |
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Jan 18, 2012 14:48:17 GMT 1
Anyone who wants to change their avatar to support the lime green protest. Click on 'profile' at the top of the page  Click on 'modify profile'  Scroll down to this section  Copy and paste the following into Avatar URL box. img269.imageshack.us/img269/5562/image777194.jpgMaximize your avatar at 100x100. Job's a good 'un. Enter any personal text you like but if it's aimed at Davy don't make it too personal  Then scroll right to the bottom and click on 'Modify Profile' bottom left.  |
|
|
|
Post by champ on Jan 18, 2012 15:58:24 GMT 1
How much has that ugly pecker lined his pockets with since he took the shares? Roughly?
|
|
: 
