| Shareholders 21:40 - Mar 7 with 6312 views | Keaneish |
Does anyone know how many shareholders make up the 12.5% or whatever it is that isn’t owned by ME? I take it they are ordinary shares with no voting rights with no dividend payouts given it’s a loss making enterprise? Although, we did turn a profit one year after the sale of Wickham I think - was there a payout then?
Just curious. |  |
| |  |
| Shareholders on 21:52 - Mar 7 with 4634 views | PJH |
I bought shares in the two share issues in 2004 and 2006 and I think the number of people that bought shares went into the high hundreds if not going over a thousand.
There have been no dividends nor was it ever expected there would be short of getting and staying in the top division.
Apart from the "new" shareholders from 15 or so years ago there will also be some that had shares in ITFC before the share issues. |  | | |
| Shareholders on 22:00 - Mar 7 with 4593 views | Keaneish |
| Shareholders on 21:52 - Mar 7 by PJH |
I bought shares in the two share issues in 2004 and 2006 and I think the number of people that bought shares went into the high hundreds if not going over a thousand.
There have been no dividends nor was it ever expected there would be short of getting and staying in the top division.
Apart from the "new" shareholders from 15 or so years ago there will also be some that had shares in ITFC before the share issues. |
What do the shares entitle you to? Do you get voting rights? | |
| |
| Shareholders on 22:04 - Mar 7 with 4577 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Shareholders on 22:00 - Mar 7 by Keaneish |
What do the shares entitle you to? Do you get voting rights? |
Yes, they do but they don't make much difference when ME has the large majority.
We all bought the shares as an attempt to help save the club from going bust. We all own our little bit of the club but I think there was some sort of restructuring and it is now run by some other over-arching company. |  |
| |
| Shareholders on 22:09 - Mar 7 with 4568 views | PJH |
| Shareholders on 22:00 - Mar 7 by Keaneish |
What do the shares entitle you to? Do you get voting rights? |
The only voting rights now-since Marcus Evans bought 87.5% of the club-relate to Ipswich Town PLC which is the company formed to represent the 12.5% shareholding.There are no voting rights relating to the football club itself.
Before the Marcus Evans buy out there were meet the players evenings and things like that, a signed Roger Osborne 7 replica cup final shirt-plus you got to feel good by helping the club financially in it's time of financial need. | | | |
| Shareholders on 00:15 - Mar 8 with 4476 views | Pinewoodblue |
Most of us who purchased shares saw it as a donation to the club and never expected any financial return. We don’t have shares in the club as such but shares in a company that holds 12.5% of the shares of the club, Evans owns the rest. |  |
| |
| Shareholders on 00:39 - Mar 8 with 4451 views | north_stand77 |
| Shareholders on 22:09 - Mar 7 by PJH |
The only voting rights now-since Marcus Evans bought 87.5% of the club-relate to Ipswich Town PLC which is the company formed to represent the 12.5% shareholding.There are no voting rights relating to the football club itself.
Before the Marcus Evans buy out there were meet the players evenings and things like that, a signed Roger Osborne 7 replica cup final shirt-plus you got to feel good by helping the club financially in it's time of financial need. |
I felt that we were at least appreciated by the club then and they seemed to make an effort in arranging these small benefits when we bought them.
There has been absolutely nothing over the past few years which is another sad indictment of how far we have fallen,
It would be a nice gesture for someone to remember how much they were helped out. |  | | |
| Shareholders on 06:30 - Mar 8 with 4357 views | PrideOfTheEast |
| Shareholders on 00:39 - Mar 8 by north_stand77 |
I felt that we were at least appreciated by the club then and they seemed to make an effort in arranging these small benefits when we bought them.
There has been absolutely nothing over the past few years which is another sad indictment of how far we have fallen,
It would be a nice gesture for someone to remember how much they were helped out. |
Will a similar event be held to thank Marcus for helping out? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Shareholders on 08:59 - Mar 8 with 4204 views | HARRY10 |
A curious point is.... why the 87.5% shareholding ?
My understanding of this is that were ME to acquire 90% of the shareholding of the original company he would have had to buy out the remaining part, rather than just shunt it off was done - into ITFC Plc.
This act was not done to benefit the original shareholders and has been vitually overlooked since.
Please be aware that the above is a very loose explaination to give an oversight - rather than a precise definition of what is known as "Compulsory Acquisition of Minority Shareholders"
Wiser heads in this area will be able to better explain this, perhaps by refering to the Companies Act 1996 section 953(1) or article1(1) of Takeover Bids Directive.
I'll have look myself further into this later.
However there is no suggestion of any skullduggery', but it might help refute some of the guff that gets put up here in this regard. | | | |
| Shareholders on 09:19 - Mar 8 with 4155 views | WeWereZombies |
| Shareholders on 22:09 - Mar 7 by PJH |
The only voting rights now-since Marcus Evans bought 87.5% of the club-relate to Ipswich Town PLC which is the company formed to represent the 12.5% shareholding.There are no voting rights relating to the football club itself.
Before the Marcus Evans buy out there were meet the players evenings and things like that, a signed Roger Osborne 7 replica cup final shirt-plus you got to feel good by helping the club financially in it's time of financial need. |
Don't forget the souvenir share certificate signed by Joe Royle, Jim Magilton and David Sheepshanks... |  |
| |
| Shareholders on 09:24 - Mar 8 with 4139 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Shareholders on 09:19 - Mar 8 by WeWereZombies |
Don't forget the souvenir share certificate signed by Joe Royle, Jim Magilton and David Sheepshanks... |
And the sweat shirt, if you purchased the right number of shares. | |
| |
| Shareholders on 09:24 - Mar 8 with 4147 views | PhilTWTD |
At the time of the takeover there were 3,792. It'll be broadly the same now. They have shares in the PLC not the overall club and the PLC has never made a profit, hence there has been no dividend. |  | | |
| Shareholders on 09:27 - Mar 8 with 4121 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Shareholders on 09:24 - Mar 8 by PhilTWTD |
At the time of the takeover there were 3,792. It'll be broadly the same now. They have shares in the PLC not the overall club and the PLC has never made a profit, hence there has been no dividend. |
Isn’t it also in debt , Evans loans the money each year to cover costs. | |
| |
| Shareholders on 09:27 - Mar 8 with 4123 views | PhilTWTD |
| Shareholders on 08:59 - Mar 8 by HARRY10 |
A curious point is.... why the 87.5% shareholding ?
My understanding of this is that were ME to acquire 90% of the shareholding of the original company he would have had to buy out the remaining part, rather than just shunt it off was done - into ITFC Plc.
This act was not done to benefit the original shareholders and has been vitually overlooked since.
Please be aware that the above is a very loose explaination to give an oversight - rather than a precise definition of what is known as "Compulsory Acquisition of Minority Shareholders"
Wiser heads in this area will be able to better explain this, perhaps by refering to the Companies Act 1996 section 953(1) or article1(1) of Takeover Bids Directive.
I'll have look myself further into this later.
However there is no suggestion of any skullduggery', but it might help refute some of the guff that gets put up here in this regard. |
I think it was purely done to keep the existing shareholders' link with the club. Was insitigated by David Sheepshanks, if I remember rightly. It has no other benefit other than attending AGMs. I think some larger shareholders have been invited to separate meetings over the years as well. | | | |
| Shareholders on 09:32 - Mar 8 with 4092 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Shareholders on 09:27 - Mar 8 by PhilTWTD |
I think it was purely done to keep the existing shareholders' link with the club. Was insitigated by David Sheepshanks, if I remember rightly. It has no other benefit other than attending AGMs. I think some larger shareholders have been invited to separate meetings over the years as well. |
Was one of those randomly invited by Sheepy when he was gathering opinions, I had sent him an email.
One phrase he used still sticks in my mind. Talking about the existing shareholders he mentioned the share issue being dependent of Turkeys voting for Christmas. | |
| |
| Shareholders on 09:33 - Mar 8 with 4091 views | WeWereZombies |
| Shareholders on 09:27 - Mar 8 by PhilTWTD |
I think it was purely done to keep the existing shareholders' link with the club. Was insitigated by David Sheepshanks, if I remember rightly. It has no other benefit other than attending AGMs. I think some larger shareholders have been invited to separate meetings over the years as well. |
I need to put on a bit of weight then... | |
| |
| Shareholders on 09:33 - Mar 8 with 4092 views | PhilTWTD |
| Shareholders on 09:27 - Mar 8 by Pinewoodblue |
Isn’t it also in debt , Evans loans the money each year to cover costs. |
It deals with the interest on the loan notes which is covered by a loan from ITFC:
"The Company continues to pay interest to its external loan note holders, which amounted to £46,000 (2018: £57,000)during the year. To fund these payments, the Company has back to back loan notes in place with ITFC, under which theCompany received £46,000 (2018: £57,000) of interest during the year. As at 30 June 2019, the Company had externalloan notes in issue of £647,000 (2018: £808,000) and back to back loan notes with ITFC of £647,000 (2018: £808,000)."
https://www.itfc.co.uk/siteassets/image/misc/ipswich-town-plc-annual-report-and- | | | |
| Shareholders on 09:34 - Mar 8 with 4071 views | north_stand77 |
| Shareholders on 06:30 - Mar 8 by PrideOfTheEast |
Will a similar event be held to thank Marcus for helping out? |
Why? I'm pretty sure that Marcus Evans has his own way of rewarding himself.
My point was that to some of those shareholders it was a big deal to help save the club - the minimum amount you could buy was probably equivalent to a weeks cheap holiday at the time. Some shareholders spent consderably more.
Not asking for much, just for that to be remembered by the club | | | |
| Shareholders on 10:22 - Mar 8 with 4003 views | HARRY10 |
| Shareholders on 09:27 - Mar 8 by PhilTWTD |
I think it was purely done to keep the existing shareholders' link with the club. Was insitigated by David Sheepshanks, if I remember rightly. It has no other benefit other than attending AGMs. I think some larger shareholders have been invited to separate meetings over the years as well. |
I think not given the implications of owning 90% of the ordinary shares
An examination of the treatment of minority shareholders in a takeover bid. The note looks at the right of non-assenting shareholders to be bought out and the compulsory acquisition of non-assenting shareholders' shares by the bidder using the procedures set out in Chapter 3 of Part 28 of the Companies Act 2006 or a scheme of arrangement.
Unfortunately the full article is behind a trade 'paywall' but the fact still holds true. That had Evans took a 90% holding in the company those other shareholders would be in the position to force him to buy them out.
Far more costly that simply making their shares pretty much worthless.
I shall add more as I find it. | | | |
| Shareholders on 10:22 - Mar 8 with 3999 views | carlisleaway |
| Shareholders on 09:34 - Mar 8 by north_stand77 |
Why? I'm pretty sure that Marcus Evans has his own way of rewarding himself.
My point was that to some of those shareholders it was a big deal to help save the club - the minimum amount you could buy was probably equivalent to a weeks cheap holiday at the time. Some shareholders spent consderably more.
Not asking for much, just for that to be remembered by the club |
When attending the annual AGM, over the years shareholders have given the board a soft time. No hard hitting questions about how and why the club is run seems to be avoided. Mind you is this not the way quiet little Ipswich are run and the reasons why we are in our present position. Players find it very easy to live in Suffolk and do not seem to be pushed hence why many players are quite content with there contracts. |  | | |
| Shareholders on 10:34 - Mar 8 with 3987 views | HARRY10 |
| Shareholders on 10:22 - Mar 8 by HARRY10 |
I think not given the implications of owning 90% of the ordinary shares
An examination of the treatment of minority shareholders in a takeover bid. The note looks at the right of non-assenting shareholders to be bought out and the compulsory acquisition of non-assenting shareholders' shares by the bidder using the procedures set out in Chapter 3 of Part 28 of the Companies Act 2006 or a scheme of arrangement.
Unfortunately the full article is behind a trade 'paywall' but the fact still holds true. That had Evans took a 90% holding in the company those other shareholders would be in the position to force him to buy them out.
Far more costly that simply making their shares pretty much worthless.
I shall add more as I find it. |
"The Act outlines additional requirements for general compulsory acquisitions to ensure that minority shareholders receive protection. The requirements include that the person undertaking the compulsory acquisition must:
offer a cash sum for the acquisition of shares unless:
there are differences in accrued dividends of the shares; or
there are differences in the amounts paid on the shares (the same amount must be paid for each security); "
https://legalvision.com.au/compulsory-acquisition-of-shares/
Perhaps those with a legal mind will be able to add further - as the takeover in 2007 was perhapsnot the kindly benevolence some have thought. | | | |
| Shareholders on 11:46 - Mar 8 with 3951 views | PJH |
| Shareholders on 09:19 - Mar 8 by WeWereZombies |
Don't forget the souvenir share certificate signed by Joe Royle, Jim Magilton and David Sheepshanks... |
Actually I did start to type that in a post earlier this morning then did not post it.
It is framed and on the wall behind me at this moment along with the framed photo of myself and my son along with Mr M Mills, Mr J Wark,Mr K Beattie(RIP),Mr R Osborne and the F.A. CUP and also a framed post game photo at Wembley signed by those four players. | | | |
| Shareholders on 11:49 - Mar 8 with 3943 views | PhilTWTD |
| Shareholders on 10:34 - Mar 8 by HARRY10 |
"The Act outlines additional requirements for general compulsory acquisitions to ensure that minority shareholders receive protection. The requirements include that the person undertaking the compulsory acquisition must:
offer a cash sum for the acquisition of shares unless:
there are differences in accrued dividends of the shares; or
there are differences in the amounts paid on the shares (the same amount must be paid for each security); "
https://legalvision.com.au/compulsory-acquisition-of-shares/
Perhaps those with a legal mind will be able to add further - as the takeover in 2007 was perhapsnot the kindly benevolence some have thought. |
I think the shares would have been just about worthless in any case at the time of the takeover, the club was all but insolvent. | | | |
| Shareholders on 12:10 - Mar 8 with 3892 views | Ryorry |
| Shareholders on 09:19 - Mar 8 by WeWereZombies |
Don't forget the souvenir share certificate signed by Joe Royle, Jim Magilton and David Sheepshanks... |
I never got one of those, doh!  |  |
| |
| Shareholders on 12:17 - Mar 8 with 3869 views | longtimefan |
| Shareholders on 09:34 - Mar 8 by north_stand77 |
Why? I'm pretty sure that Marcus Evans has his own way of rewarding himself.
My point was that to some of those shareholders it was a big deal to help save the club - the minimum amount you could buy was probably equivalent to a weeks cheap holiday at the time. Some shareholders spent consderably more.
Not asking for much, just for that to be remembered by the club |
If I remember correctly the minimum “investment” was £100. I say “investment” as it was pointed out pretty explicitly at the time that the share purchases amounted to little other than a donation. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
