Owner/Majority Shareholder of Albion Rovers

[Solway7]

I am trying to find out who owns Albion Rovers as part of my dissertation but can seem to find anything that’s definitive. 
 

could anyone shed some light please? 
 

much appreciated 

[Bucky]

Majority shareholder is Anton Fagan - son of infamous Rovers Chairman and local Delboy Tam Fagan. Anton is employed by the SFA as Development Officer and therefore cannot play and involved part in the club. He has been offered good money for his shares in the past but has refused.

[Rover77]

The club is a private limited company owned by its shareholders. Fagan is the single biggest shareholder with just over 20% of the shares - which is 7,000 shares.  The next biggest shareholder has 2,000 shares. The names of all the shareholders can be found on documents on the Companies House website.

I don’t think what Bucky says about Fagan not being able to play a part in the club is correct. The SFA don’t seem to have any rules about their employees’ involvement with clubs. Fagan has in the past voted to stop a new share issue being taken forward and can effectively veto any decision he doesn’t like.

[PossilYM]

Have the club ever paid a dividend to the shareholders?

If the answer is No which it obviously is then the shares are worth the same as the old Rangers share.

Which is eff all.

The ground the stadium sits might be another matter allowing for it not being in hock to the bankers.

So the proper question is, who owns the ground?

[Rover77]

The shares aren’t worth eff all. Within the last year, the largest shareholder turned down an offer not far short of £100k for his 7,000 shares.

The club owns the ground and is no longer (since 2019) in debt to bankers.  Accounts all audited and published, and to be discussed at the club AGM on Monday.

[Skyline Drifter]

20 hours ago, Bucky said:

Majority shareholder is Anton Fagan - son of infamous Rovers Chairman and local Delboy Tam Fagan. Anton is employed by the SFA as Development Officer and therefore cannot play and involved part in the club. He has been offered good money for his shares in the past but has refused.

You live and learn. Didn't realise he had a connection to Rovers. Certainly not a majority shareholder or anywhere near it going by Companies House though. Largest single shareholder but not remotely close to a majority.

16 hours ago, Rover77 said:

The club is a private limited company owned by its shareholders. Fagan is the single biggest shareholder with just over 20% of the shares - which is 7,000 shares.  The next biggest shareholder has 2,000 shares. The names of all the shareholders can be found on documents on the Companies House website.

I don’t think what Bucky says about Fagan not being able to play a part in the club is correct. The SFA don’t seem to have any rules about their employees’ involvement with clubs. Fagan has in the past voted to stop a new share issue being taken forward and can effectively veto any decision he doesn’t like.

According to Companies House he has 6,436 shares (there are another 232 in the name of Ann Fagan Trust which is presumably connected). Given there are 54,000 shares that represents just under 12% although there appear to be 22,155 shares held as "Suspense" which I'm guessing means the owners are untraced. That being the case he owns just over 20% of the known shares. Maybe there are other connected shares in different surnames though?

I'm unsure what rules there are about SFA employees being involved with clubs. It certainly wouldn't be allowed in the SPFL where he worked for most of his football career, the move to the SFA is relatively recent. In any event, there are unlikely to be any rules preventing ownership of shares (there clearly aren't or he wouldn't be holding shares now), he wouldn't be allowed to be a director or play in active part in running the club though I assume. He'll be entitled to vote on a motion as he sees fit like any other shareholder though. To be pedantic, that will only let him vote against major changes that need shareholder approval (like a new share issue for instance) and even then 20% is not in itself enough to veto if everyone else votes the other way though I appreciate it's unlikely enough of the other shareholders actually turn up and vote to get to 75%. It's probably an effective veto. However, in reality, outside of a share issue, a ground sale or a name change or something, there's very little that needs a 75% vote to force through. A shareholder wouldn't be able to veto a management decision or a player signing, type decision. Even the appointment of Directors etc only needs 50.1% approval so he couldn't necessarily vote anyone out of office if enough other shareholders wanted them to stay.

[Rover77]

A very good analysis.  Fagan’s only involvement with the club is to turn up at AGMs. He generally keeps quiet at these, but once  intervened to veto work on a possible share issue being taken forward, and another time to attempt the same thing (but he was denied by the Chairman). He has never revealed his motives in keeping his Rovers shares, such as whether he wishes to cash in at some point or become Chairman himself after he retires from the SFA. The former is more likely as he isn’t thought to have any real affection for the club and has never been an active supporter.  In theory he can be outvoted, but many of the other large shareholders don’t get involved so Fagan does have an effective veto on major decisions.

Because of all this he is spectacularly unpopular at the club. Rovers might be able to improve with new investment, but Fagan shows no sign of wanting this to happen and our Directors are too spineless to take him on.

[LongTimeLurker]

18 hours ago, Rover77 said:

...Within the last year, the largest shareholder turned down an offer not far short of £100k for his 7,000 shares...

Wonder how much those shares would be worth if Rovers are a West of Scotland League club five seasons from now. Guess he maybe views it in terms of what 20% of Cliftonhill would be worth if it was sold for another purpose.