Jump to content

Doctor Jobby

Gold Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Doctor Jobby

  1. On 5/21/2019 at 22:21, BallochSonsFan said:

    Which still doesn't get round the requirements set out in law.

    Brabco own a % stake in the club. That stake is big enough to allow them to throw their weight around if they choose to do so.  It doesn't give them direct ownership of any of the club's assets.

    If Brabco value their asset at £2.2million and their asset is a 75% stake in the club then that values the club as a whole at around £2.9million. it's a crude way of doing things because the shares in Dumbarton are essentially worthless. The club has no real value as a business because as a going concern it generates minimal to no profit and pays no divided. If the value is purely a book exercise based on the value of the assets owned by the club as a potential return to shareholders then at £2.9million total, and £2.2million Brabco's estimated share, they're placing a pretty big valuation on a former industrial site as a land asset.

    It's a book exercise because Brabco can't sell the land. Only the club can. Brabco can influence the board. It can call an EGM and vote out the current board. It can vote in new directors of its own choosing. That still places the new directors in the same position as the current ones regarding fiduciary duty and conflict of interest.

    Focus on the things we actually know about - the fundraising needed for infrastructure projects, the need to increase matchday attendance from both season ticket sales and walk up tickets and the need to generate more income. Going on flights of fantasy gets us nowhere when we have genuine and real issues to try to address.

     

    The 75% holding is no accident. A 75% shareholding grants virtual carte blanche to a majority shareholder. They could do an awful lot of things off their own bat before you can say fiduciary duty.  Also a company which is worth less as a going concern than its assets is extremely vulnerable. 

    Good luck Sons. 

     

  2. 2 hours ago, BallochSonsFan said:

    You'll be surprised then.

    The club owns it's assets. Brabco are merely majority shareholders in the club. If there had been any transfer of legal ownership of any asset then the club would need to obtain an appropriate price or the directors would potentially be acting illegally under the Companies Act.

    Brabco's ownership, and liability, is limited to it's shareholding in the club. It cannot own the assets of the club unless the club chooses to transfer ownership of those assets. To do that the board would need to obtain an appropriate sale price. Anything less would be a failure of the board's fiduciary duty and would open them up to criminal investigation.

    Whatever Brabco are recording as assets, they can only own assets previously belonging to Dumbarton FC if the club has sold them those assets. Which it hasn't.

    You are technically correct. However, read over what you have written, in bold print.

    Brabco owns 75% of the shares in DFC.

    The sum it has recorded in fixed assets in its accounts, is listed as their investment in DFC.

    DFC has one heritable asset, the C and G Systems Stadium.

    Go figure.

     

  3. 3 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

    No.

    Brabco are majority shareholders. They are effectively defacto owners in that they have the majority shareholding and can therefore dictate what happens via shareholder votes (if we ever held an AGM).

    But they don't own the club privately. They're majority shareholders. Dumbarton FC is still a legal entity and the board of directors are tasked with running the club in the best interests of the club. Any move to change the ownership of the land from Dumbarton FC to Brabco, Rankine or anybody else would almost certainly be questionable under companies law. Anything that wasnt at a reasonable market value would see the directors of the club failing in their fiduciary duty that exists under law.

    Its a fine line between ownership and majority shareholding as majority shareholders can essentially act as owners and force their will on the club if they really want to go down that route. It would mean starting a war with the club's board of directors. They own shares in the football club. They don't own Dumbarton FC or any of it's assets.

     Brabco's last accounts,  lists fixed assets worth £2,263,969.00.  I'd be surprised if this weren't the heritable assets of Dumbarton FC

  4. 7 hours ago, BallochSonsFan said:

    You can't actually grant security against an asset that you don't own. Brabco can't do anything with the land. Rankine can't do anything with the land. Its completely owned by the club and the club is the only entity that can borrow against it, sell it or otherwise change its ownership.

    I thought that Brabco owned the club. Isn't that the case?

  5. 8 hours ago, BallochSonsFan said:

    You can't actually grant security against an asset that you don't own. Brabco can't do anything with the land. Rankine can't do anything with the land. Its completely owned by the club and the club is the only entity that can borrow against it, sell it or otherwise change its ownership.

    Really?

     

     

  6. 4 hours ago, Rangeman said:

    I think you will find oot that tns was a semi   Final of a cup ,not a league game ,uhhhhh and lm no ones senior ,ally Roy seagal ,or even the fox  . I just state the obvious which people don’t like , wasn’t that long ago  lots on here wanted rid of dannyboy now he’s a hero .

    Are you masturbating whilst you're typing?

×
×
  • Create New...