Why haven't the Malaysians just bought the club outright ???

Why 30% when none of the others seem to be putting any more money in ?????

Why don't they buy all of the shares, or are they buying more shares every time they pay the wages or put more money in ?????

there is a reason for it , ask Carl for his thoughts about this

Looking at some of the other business the Berjaya Group are involved with (although we are not one of them yet) it would seem that the Malaysian strategy is to take a minority stake in companies to begin with.

They believe in 'synergy' which when applied to business means teamwork will produce an overall better result than if each person was working toward the same goal individually.

This may explain why they are so far disappointed with PMG's efforts which seem to amount to, well nothing.

There was also a recent share issue which raised only £130,000 of new cash from existing shareholders. This fact has been hugely overlooked due to our recent other problems, but it is my personal belief that the Malaysians would have been very underwhelmed with such a response when they themselves invested £6m.

agreed as PMG have just taken ( land etc ) and not really invested hard cash have they ?

agreed as PMG have just taken ( land etc ) and not really invested hard cash have they ?

No they haven't and the Malaysians wouldn't see their asset stripping as 'team work'

if I was a 36% sherholder and just ploughed over £6 mil into a company then I would expect my fellow directors to do the same , but these lot just seem to be after what they can get . Yes we ALL blamed Ridsdale for the shambles of last season but like Ridsdale told us about the Leeds crap he was the chairman of the board and NOT totally responsible for the events , its now obvious that Ridsdale screwed CCFC but I think that many on the board ( PMG ) knew and are doing the same !

Why 30% when none of the others seem to be putting any more money in ?????

Why don't they buy all of the shares, or are they buying more shares every time they pay the wages or put more money in ?????

I guess in buying 36% of the shares they felt that the other major shareholders would help shoulder the financial burden. Sadly they have not!

StT.

Just shows why Vincent Tan is a multi millionairre business man and Mike Hall is just a washed out ex rugby player

Bluebina, Just a though, £6m is not much to the Malaysians, could is it not be feasible that it would be a good bet in view of the £90m return if promotion was acheived. The bet failed so are they now taking a back seat and intend no further investment, as I said just a thought. What do you think?

Bluebina, Just a though, £6m is not much to the Malaysians, could is it not be feasible that it would be a good bet in view of the £90m return if promotion was acheived. The bet failed so are they now taking a back seat and intend no further investment, as I said just a thought. What do you think?

Yes maybe ???

Could they be seeing how cheaply they can force the rest of the board to bail out and buy their shares as cheaply as possible ????

Another thought is, could pleading poverty and making it look like the club is in crisis allow us to pay less for any potential transfer targets.

We don't want to become the Man City of the Championship !!!

Why 30% when none of the others seem to be putting any more money in ?????

Why don't they buy all of the shares, or are they buying more shares every time they pay the wages or put more money in ?????

Branson seemed to work in a similar way. Sharing the burden and using a mixture of skills to grow it.

If the Malaysians find that the others don't pull their weight they will probably push them out and maybe look for other partners (naming no names).

I wonder if that is why they havent' forced through the debt for equity swap which was announced in the EGM (£2.7m of PMG debt to be turned to shares at a time suitable to the club), also there is a big wedge of unissued shares which they may well buy to increase their stake.

This is the biggest clue that they may not all be singing from the same hymn sheet.

Why 30% when none of the others seem to be putting any more money in ?????

Why don't they buy all of the shares, or are they buying more shares every time they pay the wages or put more money in ?????

Branson seemed to work in a similar way. Sharing the burden and using a mixture of skills to grow it.

If the Malaysians find that the others don't pull their weight they will probably push them out and maybe look for other partners (naming no names).

I wonder if that is why they havent' forced through the debt for equity swap which was announced in the EGM (£2.7m of PMG debt to be turned to shares at a time suitable to the club), also there is a big wedge of unissued shares which they may well buy to increase their stake.

This is the biggest clue that they may not all be singing from the same hymn sheet.

Seeing as they only own approx 35% of the shares, how would they be in a position to push through that debt for equity swap anyway? Surely that would need a majority of shareholders to back it and 35% is not a majority? And if it were to be pushed through on a shareholders vote, surely that would be for the unissued share and then simply dilute the Malaysians shareholding and make PMG an even larger shareholder than they already which apparently nobody wants?

Branson seemed to work in a similar way. Sharing the burden and using a mixture of skills to grow it.

If the Malaysians find that the others don't pull their weight they will probably push them out and maybe look for other partners (naming no names).

I wonder if that is why they havent' forced through the debt for equity swap which was announced in the EGM (£2.7m of PMG debt to be turned to shares at a time suitable to the club), also there is a big wedge of unissued shares which they may well buy to increase their stake.

This is the biggest clue that they may not all be singing from the same hymn sheet.[/quote]

Seeing as they only own approx 35% of the shares, how would they be in a position to push through that debt for equity swap anyway? Surely that would need a majority of shareholders to back it and 35% is not a majority? And if it were to be pushed through on a shareholders vote, surely that would be for the unissued share and then simply dilute the Malaysians shareholding and make PMG an even larger shareholder than they already which apparently nobody wants?[/quote]

Good questions.

1. It would be a 'board' decision, rather than put to shareholders. So down to TG, Tan's son, Borley, Whiteley, and Guy. Even if Guy didnt want it he'd get outvoted.

2. Yes it would make PMG larger shareholders and that was my (badly made) point, IF PMG aren't helping out and not prepared to actually INVEST further to help with running costs then the Malaysians won't want them to have a bigger say in things.

1. It would be a 'board' decision, rather than put to shareholders. So down to TG, Tan's son, Borley, Whiteley, and Guy. Even if Guy didnt want it he'd get outvoted.

2. Yes it would make PMG larger shareholders and that was my (badly made) point, IF PMG aren't helping out and not prepared to actually INVEST further to help with running costs then the Malaysians won't want them to have a bigger say in things.

In which case it seems there is very little to be gained by pushing it through?

1. It would be a 'board' decision, rather than put to shareholders. So down to TG, Tan's son, Borley, Whiteley, and Guy. Even if Guy didnt want it he'd get outvoted.

2. Yes it would make PMG larger shareholders and that was my (badly made) point, IF PMG aren't helping out and not prepared to actually INVEST further to help with running costs then the Malaysians won't want them to have a bigger say in things.

In which case it seems there is very little to be gained by pushing it through?

Yes. Apart form the obvious reducing the debt.
Which is why my theory was that the reason it hasn't gone through is that PMG aren't playing ball with the Malaysians.

Personally I reckon PMG are desperate to get their money back.