THERE IS LIGHT AT THE END OF OUR VERY DARK TUNNEL

I reckon so as long as Guy gets his £9 mill back Borley gets his few million owed to him on top of the shares.

Do you think Sam would accept the deal?[/quote]

Sam has already accepted a deal.[/quote]

Is the deal that Sam has accepted from the Malaysians ?[/quote]

Yes PR did that on behalf of the Malaysians with Sam, thats when they thought they could trust him.

I reckon so as long as Guy gets his £9 mill back Borley gets his few million owed to him on top of the shares.

Is the deal that Sam has accepted from the Malaysians ?[/quote]

Yes PR did that on behalf of the Malaysians with Sam, thats when they thought they could trust him.[/quote]

Was that the loan deal or a share deal, sorry so may questions just intrigued by it all at the moment. Seen it happen many times in business but never affected me personally.

If there's light, can it be used on the pitch please :p

but I still don't buy the story that the Malaysians are waiting for Ridsdale to go. It just doesn't make sense.

If it were true Ridsdale himself would probably even stand down, as it would mean he would get his return on his shares and the fans would be happy the club has been taken over and our short term problems would be sorted.

TBH I don't think people realise just how much Ridsdale has invested in those shares. He owns just over 10% of the club which was valued at £9.6m when he bought in, meaning his total investment was initially worth around £1m.

£500,000 (or half his share holding) came from the famous bonus paid in 2007 the rest was paid in cash as his contribution to the January 2007 takeover where several investors (including Steve Borley & Paul Guy) put in £500,000 each.

The Land Registry shows that on 29th September 2006 (just a month before Sam said he was standing down as Chairman at the Norwich game) Peter Ridsdale remortgaged his home in Lancashire. Unfortunately the LR doesn’t give specific figures but IMO PR used his home as collateral to raise his £500,000 share.

If the club went into Admin or the Malaysian's took over by paying only 10p per share then Ridsdale would stand to lose a huge amount of money and that's on top of his problems with WH Sports.

Therefore his reluctance to leave the club and his attempts sell his shares at 45p each starts to make sense.

Personally I hope the Malaysians do buy in and at even less than 10p a share.

Tony.

Sorry , but those figures re Ridsdale`s personal investment in the club are totally wrong.There was no cash contribution by PR to the Jan 07 takeover.

He has put no cash whatsoever into the club . His company WH Sports Ltd was GIVEN £500k worth of shares on 15 Jan 2007 - it paid no cash for them.Then , in Spring 2008 , PR bought that £500k worth of shares personally from WHS for only £20k - that money was paid to WHS not CCFC.

So if the Malaysians or anyone else only pay 10p a share (personally I think they will pay less), PR will not have lost any cash but he will not be in a position to use a share GAIN to repay what he now owes personally to the taxman and liquidator in WHS.

The above position leaves PR with a major potential conflict of interest. He would wish to get as much as possible for the club shares to improve his personal return , but should not as a director prevent a deal that is best for the company as a whole (e.g. a debt pay-off but minimal share price payment).To do so would be a breach of his stautory duties as a director under Companies aCT 2006 and could lead to hefty personal fines and other sanctions.

The same duty of care applies to all the other directors as well , both the full time ones and the non-executive ones.

I spoke to Borley while he is in Sonta Ponsa, I am not going to go on about everything he said, as thats unfair to him, but he is keeping me believing we will get there sooner than later.
Positives he said was he cant wait for EGM on Feb 24th
The Malaysians are still very much on board, I do not want to cause trouble, So I will say My belief once PR is gone they will be fully on board within 7 days.

Annis.

I have a real problem with the meeting called for 24 Feb.

You will have received the meeting papers. They clearly show that the only matter on the agenda is to authorise Steve`s land deal (which I agree with and will be voting in favour of).

There is NO OPPORTUNITY to discuss anything else such as finances so P Ridsdale (and the other directors) can simply refuse to discuss it and close the meeting having "wriggled out" of facing up to the issue yet again.

The Trust have written to the club asking them to confirm that adequate time WILL be allowed at the meeting for shareholders to ask the questions they want to about finances.Perhaps when you next speak to Steve , you could pursuade him to get his fellow directors to confirm in writing that they will do so.

If the board refuse to allow a full discussion of finances at the meeting , then why?


Keith

So do u REALLY believe pr will be GONE after the meeting?

would the other share holders be happy with 12p instead of 45p shares

I reckon so as long as Guy gets his £9 mill back Borley gets his few million owed to him on top of the shares.

Do you think Sam would accept the deal?

He doesn`t have to.

As long as more than 50% of the shareholdes agree a price with a buyer , then the deal is binding on all the other shareholders at the same price.

would the other share holders be happy with 12p instead of 45p shares

I reckon so as long as Guy gets his £9 mill back Borley gets his few million owed to him on top of the shares.

Do you think Sam would accept the deal?

I think just like the other mentioned shareholders who are also creditors of the club, as long as they get the debt repaid to them, they honestly won't care about what price the shares go at. The the option is the prospect of admin or liquidation and in that event they would stand to lose a lot more.

I spoke to Borley while he is in Sonta Ponsa, I am not going to go on about everything he said, as thats unfair to him, but he is keeping me believing we will get there sooner than later.
Positives he said was he cant wait for EGM on Feb 24th
The Malaysians are still very much on board, I do not want to cause trouble, So I will say My belief once PR is gone they will be fully on board within 7 days.

Annis.

I have a real problem with the meeting called for 24 Feb.

You will have received the meeting papers. They clearly show that the only matter on the agenda is to authorise Steve`s land deal (which I agree with and will be voting in favour of).

There is NO OPPORTUNITY to discuss anything else such as finances so P Ridsdale (and the other directors) can simply refuse to discuss it and close the meeting having "wriggled out" of facing up to the issue yet again.

The Trust have written to the club asking them to confirm that adequate time WILL be allowed at the meeting for shareholders to ask the questions they want to about finances.Perhaps when you next speak to Steve , you could pursuade him to get his fellow directors to confirm in writing that they will do so.

If the board refuse to allow a full discussion of finances at the meeting , then why?


Keith

Probably to stop it getting into the public domain through places like this - there would be uproar lol.

I'll be there at the meeting btw and think it's absolutely ridiculous that, given they've had no General Meeting in years, only one item is on the agenda when there's clearly more information that shareholders want to know about their club and investment.

I spoke to Borley while he is in Sonta Ponsa, I am not going to go on about everything he said, as thats unfair to him, but he is keeping me believing we will get there sooner than later.
Positives he said was he cant wait for EGM on Feb 24th
The Malaysians are still very much on board, I do not want to cause trouble, So I will say My belief once PR is gone they will be fully on board within 7 days.

Annis.

I have a real problem with the meeting called for 24 Feb.

You will have received the meeting papers. They clearly show that the only matter on the agenda is to authorise Steve`s land deal (which I agree with and will be voting in favour of).

There is NO OPPORTUNITY to discuss anything else such as finances so P Ridsdale (and the other directors) can simply refuse to discuss it and close the meeting having "wriggled out" of facing up to the issue yet again.

The Trust have written to the club asking them to confirm that adequate time WILL be allowed at the meeting for shareholders to ask the questions they want to about finances.Perhaps when you next speak to Steve , you could pursuade him to get his fellow directors to confirm in writing that they will do so.

If the board refuse to allow a full discussion of finances at the meeting , then why?


Keith

Because they are all in it together ?

but I still don't buy the story that the Malaysians are waiting for Ridsdale to go. It just doesn't make sense.

If it were true Ridsdale himself would probably even stand down, as it would mean he would get his return on his shares and the fans would be happy the club has been taken over and our short term problems would be sorted.

TBH I don't think people realise just how much Ridsdale has invested in those shares. He owns just over 10% of the club which was valued at £9.6m when he bought in, meaning his total investment was initially worth around £1m.

£500,000 (or half his share holding) came from the famous bonus paid in 2007 the rest was paid in cash as his contribution to the January 2007 takeover where several investors (including Steve Borley & Paul Guy) put in £500,000 each.

The Land Registry shows that on 29th September 2006 (just a month before Sam said he was standing down as Chairman at the Norwich game) Peter Ridsdale remortgaged his home in Lancashire. Unfortunately the LR doesn’t give specific figures but IMO PR used his home as collateral to raise his £500,000 share.

If the club went into Admin or the Malaysian's took over by paying only 10p per share then Ridsdale would stand to lose a huge amount of money and that's on top of his problems with WH Sports.

Therefore his reluctance to leave the club and his attempts sell his shares at 45p each starts to make sense.

Personally I hope the Malaysians do buy in and at even less than 10p a share.

Tony.

Sorry , but those figures re Ridsdale`s personal investment in the club are totally wrong.There was no cash contribution by PR to the Jan 07 takeover.

He has put no cash whatsoever into the club . His company WH Sports Ltd was GIVEN £500k worth of shares on 15 Jan 2007 - it paid no cash for them.Then , in Spring 2008 , PR bought that £500k worth of shares personally from WHS for only £20k - that money was paid to WHS not CCFC.

So if the Malaysians or anyone else only pay 10p a share (personally I think they will pay less), PR will not have lost any cash but he will not be in a position to use a share GAIN to repay what he now owes personally to the taxman and liquidator in WHS.

The above position leaves PR with a major potential conflict of interest. He would wish to get as much as possible for the club shares to improve his personal return , but should not as a director prevent a deal that is best for the company as a whole (e.g. a debt pay-off but minimal share price payment).To do so would be a breach of his stautory duties as a director under Companies aCT 2006 and could lead to hefty personal fines and other sanctions.

The same duty of care applies to all the other directors as well , both the full time ones and the non-executive ones.

£500,000 would buy only 5% of the shares so how is Ridsdale listed as holding 10%?

I spoke to Borley while he is in Sonta Ponsa, I am not going to go on about everything he said, as thats unfair to him, but he is keeping me believing we will get there sooner than later.
Positives he said was he cant wait for EGM on Feb 24th
The Malaysians are still very much on board, I do not want to cause trouble, So I will say My belief once PR is gone they will be fully on board within 7 days.

Annis.

I have a real problem with the meeting called for 24 Feb.

You will have received the meeting papers. They clearly show that the only matter on the agenda is to authorise Steve`s land deal (which I agree with and will be voting in favour of).

There is NO OPPORTUNITY to discuss anything else such as finances so P Ridsdale (and the other directors) can simply refuse to discuss it and close the meeting having "wriggled out" of facing up to the issue yet again.

The Trust have written to the club asking them to confirm that adequate time WILL be allowed at the meeting for shareholders to ask the questions they want to about finances.Perhaps when you next speak to Steve , you could pursuade him to get his fellow directors to confirm in writing that they will do so.

If the board refuse to allow a full discussion of finances at the meeting , then why?


Keith

Because they are all in it together ?

There all full of shit

Board out

Tony

Ridsdale holds 4,145,455 shares which is 10% of the shares in issue.

Why do you think that £500k would buy you only a 5% holding?.

Whatever price is paid for the shares , they only carry the same 10p nominal value and equal voting rights.

Tony

Ridsdale holds 4,145,455 shares which is 10% of the shares in issue.

Why do you think that £500k would buy you only a 5% holding?.

Whatever price is paid for the shares , they only carry the same 10p nominal value and equal voting rights.

The club's shareholding was valued at £9.6m in 2007 (I have the AGM document) when the current board bought in. Therefore £500,000 would secure around 5% of the shareholding.

Basic maths?

BTW I have never argued about the voting rights, but it is curious that Ridsdale holds 10% when he has apparently only paid for 5% via WH Sports.

As I pointed out he took a second mortgage on his Lancshire home in September 2006. The original mortgage was obtained in September 1997.

Keith, If Peter Ridsdale is running the risk of having a potential conflict of interest then for that reason alone surely he should be removed as chairman of our club

Tony

Ridsdale holds 4,145,455 shares which is 10% of the shares in issue.

Why do you think that £500k would buy you only a 5% holding?.

Whatever price is paid for the shares , they only carry the same 10p nominal value and equal voting rights.

The club's shareholding was valued at £9.6m in 2007 (I have the AGM document) when the current board bought in. Therefore £500,000 would secure around 5% of the shareholding.

Basic maths?

BTW I have never argued about the voting rights, but it is curious that Ridsdale holds 10% when he has apparently only paid for 5% via WH Sports.

As I pointed out he took a second mortgage on his Lancshire home in September 2006. The original mortgage was obtained in September 1997.

I have just looked again at the share register and the document which alloted the shares to WH Sports on 15 Jan 2007 and have realised that there is an error in the share register.

The shares allocated were 4,545,455 (not 4,145,455 as typed on the share register) at an allocation price of 11p which therefore valued them at exactly £500k.

Most other shareholders who bought shares from Jan 07 onwards paid a higher price of 15.69p a share.

Looking at the latest Annual Return , made up to 29 August 2009 , the total nominal value of shares in issue is £7,705,076 which includes £3,600,000 of deferred shares (from the conversion of old shares down to 1/10th of their value when SH was ousted)leaving £4,105,076 of ordinary shares at 10p.Those deferred shares also gave the past holders 2.25m ordinary shares at effectively free value on conversion.

As I said above ,WH paid 11p a share for its 4.5m shares =£500k. Most others paid 15.69p for the other 34.25m issued (41m less 4.5m less2.25m) =£5.4m.That comes to £5.9m - add on the £3.6m of deferred shares and that comes back (approx) to your £9.6m.

Its complicated , but I think it is these deferred shares and the different price WH Sports paid to others that is causing us to have a different view of what was paid for what percentage.

Tony

Ridsdale holds 4,145,455 shares which is 10% of the shares in issue.

Why do you think that £500k would buy you only a 5% holding?.

Whatever price is paid for the shares , they only carry the same 10p nominal value and equal voting rights.

The club's shareholding was valued at £9.6m in 2007 (I have the AGM document) when the current board bought in. Therefore £500,000 would secure around 5% of the shareholding.

Basic maths?

BTW I have never argued about the voting rights, but it is curious that Ridsdale holds 10% when he has apparently only paid for 5% via WH Sports.

As I pointed out he took a second mortgage on his Lancshire home in September 2006. The original mortgage was obtained in September 1997.

I have just looked again at the share register and the document which alloted the shares to WH Sports on 15 Jan 2007 and have realised that there is an error in the share register.

The shares allocated were 4,545,455 (not 4,145,455 as typed on the share register) at an allocation price of 11p which therefore valued them at exactly £500k.

Most other shareholders who bought shares from Jan 07 onwards paid a higher price of 15.69p a share.

Looking at the latest Annual Return , made up to 29 August 2009 , the total nominal value of shares in issue is £7,705,076 which includes £3,600,000 of deferred shares (from the conversion of old shares down to 1/10th of their value when SH was ousted)leaving £4,105,076 of ordinary shares at 10p.Those deferred shares also gave the past holders 2.25m ordinary shares at effectively free value on conversion.

As I said above ,WH paid 11p a share for its 4.5m shares =£500k. Most others paid 15.69p for the other 34.25m issued (41m less 4.5m less2.25m) =£5.4m.That comes to £5.9m - add on the £3.6m of deferred shares and that comes back (approx) to your £9.6m.

Its complicated , but I think it is these deferred shares and the different price WH Sports paid to others that is causing us to have a different view of what was paid for what percentage.

There is another reason for Ridsdale hanging on as long as possible.

£500k per year o n a rolling contract.

His interests to me seem the opposite of borley and PMG who I'm sure are more interested in having their multi-million pound loans/debts paid off than making a (comparatively) small profit on their shares.

Who is up for storming the palace??? I cant take any more, I had a day off today due to the stress this is causing me!

TBH I don't think people realise just how much Ridsdale has invested in those shares. He owns just over 10% of the club which was valued at £9.6m when he bought in, meaning his total investment was initially worth around £1m.

£500,000 (or half his share holding) came from the famous bonus paid in 2007 the rest was paid in cash as his contribution to the January 2007 takeover where several investors (including Steve Borley & Paul Guy) put in £500,000 each.

Tony, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Peter Ridsdale paid any cash for his shares, but it's not correct.

The 2007 Annual Report and Accounts of Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd states the following:

"During the year, WH Sports Ltd provided consultancy services in relation to Mr RP Ridsdale's role as a director totalling £534,490.

"In addition, WH Sports Ltd were paid £500,000 as a bonus for successfully renegotiating the size and terms of the loan notes and achieving unconditionality on the new stadium project. All of this bonus was immediately reinvested in the football club when in January 2007, Mr RP Ridsdale acquired 4,545,455 ordinary shares at £0.11 each in Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd."

4,545,455 x £0.11 = £500,000.

The latest shares register shows that Ridsdale currently holds 4,145,455 shares in the company. That means he has either offloaded 400,000 shares or it's a misprint. My feeling is it's probably the latter, although it's very interesting to note that Alan Flitcroft now has 400,000 shares. Coincidence? Maybe, but maybe not.

One things' for sure, though - all of Ridsdale's shares came about as a result of the January 2007 'bonus' - a bonus which was paid before the event it was supposed to be being paid for!

Every dog has his day, the 24th can't come soon enough

yes it can my car insurance and other shitty bills come out of my bank on the 24th

So far, the only item on the agenda of the AGM is the land deal, so unless other items are added, the chair of that meeting is unlikely to allow anything else to be brought up, least of all a vote of confidence. The fact that they've called the meeting for 10 am to be inconvenient says alot about how the board feel about holding it in the first place.

As for the Malaysians coming on board within 7 days of Ridsdale leaving, then why hasn't the board ousted Ridsdale?
Either they've no bollocks or someone is, again, talking bollocks.
I'm no businessman, don't pretend to be one, I have very little understanding of what goes on in boardrooms, but if the solution is as simple as Ridsdale out for the malaysians to come in why not get on with the business of ridding the club of the cancer that is Peter Ridsdale? They done it with Sam, and rightly so, no matter how dirty or unfair it seemed at the time.

Can't help feeling that someone is spinning out another false dawn. Administration NOW would seem a better option than administration in April, meaning that we'd start next year with a 10 point deficit. Whereas Administration now would mean we'd drop to mid table and still be attractive to an investor. Unfortunately though, I fear the Malaysians are long gone.

So far, the only item on the agenda of the AGM is the land deal, so unless other items are added, the chair of that meeting is unlikely to allow anything else to be brought up, least of all a vote of confidence. The fact that they've called the meeting for 10 am to be inconvenient says alot about how the board feel about holding it in the first place.

As for the Malaysians coming on board within 7 days of Ridsdale leaving, then why hasn't the board ousted Ridsdale?
Either they've no bollocks or someone is, again, talking bollocks.
I'm no businessman, don't pretend to be one, I have very little understanding of what goes on in boardrooms, but if the solution is as simple as Ridsdale out for the malaysians to come in why not get on with the business of ridding the club of the cancer that is Peter Ridsdale? They done it with Sam, and rightly so, no matter how dirty or unfair it seemed at the time.

Can't help feeling that someone is spinning out another false dawn. Administration NOW would seem a better option than administration in April, meaning that we'd start next year with a 10 point deficit. Whereas Administration now would mean we'd drop to mid table and still be attractive to an investor. Unfortunately though, I fear the Malaysians are long gone.

Corky has requested in writing for more questions to be asked.

I spoke to Borley while he is in Sonta Ponsa, I am not going to go on about everything he said, as thats unfair to him, but he is keeping me believing we will get there sooner than later.
Positives he said was he cant wait for EGM on Feb 24th
The Malaysians are still very much on board, I do not want to cause trouble, So I will say My belief once PR is gone they will be fully on board within 7 days.