Skyline Drifter

I was. Can't speak for him. You chose to read bitterness where there was none. Go read it again.

Is there something in the water in Dundee? Why is it no-one can ask a straightforward question without being accused of being "bitter" and "jealous"? Personally I don't have any problem what arrangements Dundee have in place, I asked if they actually DID have something in place. It seems from what they say that there is something. That's fine. What is the format of this agreement? Who agreed to it? Who can amend it? Is it part of the articles? You can climb down off your high horse any time now.

Well no ultimately if they have a legal agreement to a veto somewhere along the line then that WILL matter. However, I agree it appears this is a misunderstanding. Talk of this veto power has been around since the shareholding was attained. It has nothing directly to do with Calum Melville.

I don't see how corporate articles could reasonably dictate the site at which business takes place. I've never heard of them doing so. Ours certainly don't. Directors of course could be voted out if they couldn't gather 50% support for their actions. Hence the use of the word "direct" in the previous post. But by then the deed is done. If the board of directors lawfully sell a stadium to a developer and sign a contract to build a new one elsewhere or share one with someone else, voting the particular directors out six months down the line (or even calling an EGM for a motion of no-confidence) isn't going to change what's done provided they didn't act "ultra vires" in the first place.

I did no such thing. I've said that generally in law that would be the case. What I do not know is whether the Dundee Trust do indeed actually have some sort of veto power by agreement on certain issues or whether this suggestion is simply a misunderstanding of what a 26% shareholding means by some of their fans. I'd have thought the latter is more likely but that is why I've asked the question more than once. I suspect the lack of any responses other than conjecture and "I think" type answers probably means they don't though.

It certainly wouldn't require a special resolution to move playing location or sell the existing stadium. Those are running issues. It probably wouldn't even directly require an ordinary resolution. It wouldn't require any direct shareholder approval at all. It would of course require a special resolution to merge with another company though.

A 25% shareholder can block nothing at all. A 25.1% shareholder can block special resolutions but not ordinary resolutions. I have no doubt if he wanted to Mileson could easily have got himself on the Queens board. I doubt generally that he'd have persuaded that many shareholders to sell their shares as very few bought them for investment purposes but yes, theoretically he could have done so. He wouldn't have done so quickly and easily though which was rather the point. He could of course have gotten us into the same mess without actually owning the club. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Just that I don't think that was ever his interest. He wanted to start at the bottom and build the thing himself.

That's because Manchester United are a plc. Dundee FC aren't. Yes, 26% gives the power to veto Special Resolutions being passed so there are benefits. It's not a general veto though. Special Resolutions are things like changing the name of the company (club), changing the articles or memorandum of association, increasing the authorised share capital, authorising a share issue, that kind of thing. It certainly does not in normal circumstances allow a general veto of normal running decisions. It doesn't allow the veto of director appointments, it would prevent the board taking the club into debt if they want to, it wouldn't prevent the sale of the actual ground and relocation of the club per se. Etc, etc, etc. Now that's not to say the Dundee board wouldn't consult the Trust before any such decision (I am aware a Trust member sits on the board) of course. But there's certainly no automatic right that they have to do so. There may well be a private agreement of some sort in place requiring them to do so specifically in Dundee's case. This is why I asked? I'd be curious as to the vehicle that could make it work though. If there is such an arrangement are there any links to details?

No. None at all. With a fine social club on site and a profitable Sunday Market that yielded decent cash flow.

I've asked this before and you didn't answer. What do you think it gives you the power to veto? How does this veto work?

I don't actually think he could or would have chosen Queens because he couldn't have gained financial control so easily. He could have come in, invested his cash, been welcomed onto the board and ran up the same debts on false promises of course but he wouldn't have actually been able to takeover the club in the way he did Gretna. Your first paragraph I agree with. Voting Gretna in wasn't the wrong decision at the time and no-one could have foreseen the appearance of Mileson. Without him they'd almost certainly still be operating very nicely within their means in the 3rd division. Gretna were perfectly well run and profitable pre-Mileson. I don't see what McGregor being "hoodwinked" by Mileson has to do with that (if indeed he was). The Dee4Life Trust owns 26% of Dundee FC apparently. Not that it makes an awful lot of difference what the percentage is. Indeed. This is about the 4th or 5th time that question has been asked and answered on this thread already. It's also for appearances sake to sponsors, more embarrassing to have your top division play short than the bottom one.

The much less frequently used Scottish Football Online? I don't recall a Livingston fan posting on it!

You do realise this website has only been going since 2003 right? If these "troubles" you refer to are the Hugh Scott period then that was over before P&B began.

That doesn't actually say how the gate receipts are split for the Challenge Cup. I see the League Cup is actually split 57.5% / 42.5% and not 60/40 as I thought. Apologies.

Incredibly you've actually managed to come over even more precious than you did in the previous post there Callum. He drew a comparison and no-one else appears to have a problem with it. I seriously doubt Ronnie Bradford's family would have given it a second's thought. Your last sentence is fairly pitiful.

The SFL League Cup and Challenge Cups are simply split 60/40 on the net proceeds. I've no idea if that's what they used to do when League gates were split or not. At a guess I'd have said not and since the same number of games were played and costs would even out it would be logical just to split the gate down the middle but like I say I have no idea. How recently did they actually do this? Must be back to before the creation of the Premier Division anyway surely? The Scottish Cup is very similar to be honest. Before they reorganised recently the situation was: Rounds 1-2: Exactly as the SFL, 60/40 split Rounds 3-5: Net proceeds split: 5% to the SFA as a Levy, 57% Home club, 38% Away Club (in other words, 60/40 after the levy is taken off). Semi Finals and Finals are run by the SFA and clubs effectively get 40% of the net takings each. (that's presumably what happens with SFL League Cup semi finals and finals also as well as the Challenge Cup Final). I'm not sure since the changeover what round the levy comes in at now. I think it's the 3rd round still but as we haven't had a home third round tie since the changeover I'm not certain and it may now be the 4th.

There was, and still is at this point, a reasonable chance that Saturday's against us would be their last. There were only just over 100 bothered! The Scottish Cup is slightly different incidentally as that's an SFA competition. That's how the split for SFL cups is worked out.

Don't know how much Livi would have received after the police, stewards vat was paid but something is better than nothing. There were 130 Livi fans at Palmerston yesterday by the turnstile readings. The 108 figure floating about the press came when one of the journalists actually counted them at one point. Livi haven't received anything yet but in the next week they'll get a chequefor 40% of the net proceeds (after VAT) which is how it works. The bills for running the game are the home team's problems and they keep an extra 20% to deal with that. If that means an additional profit, great. If it means a loss, too bad. I don't think Livi will be remaining in business or going under on the strength of their share of the gate yesterday anyway!

Money and credibility. It doesn't look good to sponsors and outside agencies if the top league plays short and more income will be lostg to the game by the bigger first division teams playing two home games less than by third division ones doing so.

Oh calm down! Personally I thought it was an accurate and rather apt observation. It's a well written and pretty stark piece. It certainly doesn't look like the Livi situation will drag on as others have. I'd guess they'll either be taken over this coming week or liquidated at the end of it.

No one said he was.

Am I not "a cock" any more then?

I quote lots of people on lots of subjects. I've 20 odd thousand posts for goodness sake. You have a persecution complex. On the TWO occasions I've picked you up for something you've deserved it (one being a public accusation on this site that a certain player takes drugs and the other the quoting of a racist and homophobic chant aimed at Sol Campbell). You can relax in the safe knowledge I'd have picked anyone else up for the same thing. It doesn't mean I give a damn what they think either. In fact I did also pull Lyn Marie up for the second one.

Frankly Graham I don't give a damn what you think I am. I'm not your biggest fan either but I would never ever wish anything but the best of luck to anyone where a child / pregnancy is concerned. And you have yet again completely misread what I posted. I didn't criticise you for broadcasting anything. You do what you like. I suggested to you that the reason you haven't read anyone else on here having problems is that other people may not have chosen to broadcast them.

Maybe we just don't all broadcast them. Good luck.