Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:52 am  

My only concern with France is the way he pulled out of the Embassy Racing Team when money got tight. I only hope if he were successful in becoming the new owner, his commitment would extend beyond what was shown towards the racing team. RL clubs have a habit of crapping money away unless you are getting regular 12K+ attendances.

Trinity are an awful long way from that, and whoever comes in will have to be ready to stump up possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds per year until the club reach such a level.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:42 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

My only concern with France is the way he pulled out of the Embassy Racing Team when money got tight. I only hope if he were successful in becoming the new owner, his commitment would extend beyond what was shown towards the racing team. RL clubs have a habit of crapping money away unless you are getting regular 12K+ attendances.

Trinity are an awful long way from that, and whoever comes in will have to be ready to stump up possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds per year until the club reach such a level.

His commitment to backing Embassy Team Racing, his own team, ran into the millions but like many other companies he pulled out when the recession hit.

Working from memory alone there were about 4 other backers/teams from the same competition that took the same decision to pull out as JF.

There were multi £million backers in the F1 circuit that made the same decision it wasn’t through lack of commitment but (ahem. . . Cough) financial prudence.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:38 pm  

altofts wildcat wrote:

If somebody buys a certain percentage of a business ( i can't remember the exact amount) then they are obliged by law to make an offer for the remaining shares.

30%

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:39 pm  

LyndsayGill wrote:

30%

If rumours are to be believed then shareholders should expect to hear something soon.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:44 pm  

LyndsayGill wrote:

30%

Really? So little? I always thought it was nearer the 90% mark.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:55 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Really? So little? I always thought it was nearer the 90% mark.

I believe that's nearer the mark.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:24 pm  

IF this is true, then i will think very carefully before selling my shares. i do not mind whoever it is having full control of the club by percentage, but one person owning it all could be dangerous.

+ if whoever it is has asked for the whole board to go (and i do not doubt the wisdom in that) isn't john kear on the board? (would please some...)??

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:26 pm  

LyndsayGill wrote:

30%

Is that if its a hostile takeover.

If an investor just buy's Ted shares which I believe will be over 50% and takes control I do not believe he has to make a bid for the remaining shares but I'm not an expert in Company Law.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:35 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote:

Jimmyfivebellies - you've not really done well in keeping the name of your friend secret when revealing their job title and all but confirming who they work for!

I thought that also I can see a sacking coming soon I bet they are not a nice family then

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:43 pm  

Says 90% here http://corporate.practicallaw.com/2-107-5970

Says 90% here http://corporate.practicallaw.com/2-107-5970