• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Breaking News Club Statement

So the first move in the deal by Justin Rees and the consortium is to heftily dilute the value of the numerous Southend United shareholders who helped save the club in the past?

Is that correct?
Yes this is right.
 
I think a better crisp-based metaphor would be for your 8 crisps to be taken out of your standard size bag and added into a bigger family size bag. You still have 8 crisps but they represent a smaller proportion of the total number of crisps in the bag.
No. Because the club doesn’t turn from a Southend sized club to a bigger club. The crisps have to stay the same
 
Yes this is right.
I see it differently from that. The value of the club has increased massively because of the take-over. Therefore it needs more shares to reflect the increased value. The value of existing shares has not decreased.
 
I'm waiting for this shares situation to be compared to selling a house before forming my opinion.

Like developing a 3 bed in to 5 beds.

Each room has a bit less space but the value of the property goes up a bit?

I dunno, the whole thing confuses me and is well beyond my knowledge of how anything works..
 
Lets say the consortium owes 70% of the shares. then put £7m quid in, Unless us remaining 30% of shareholders come up with £3m to match that e end up benefitting with out any effort. So the consortium issue more shares, buy them up with part of the £7m to take them over 90% then they can make the rest of us to sell our shares.
 
Lets say the consortium owes 70% of the shares. then put £7m quid in, Unless us remaining 30% of shareholders come up with £3m to match that e end up benefitting with out any effort. So the consortium issue more shares, buy them up with part of the £7m to take them over 90% then they can make the rest of us to sell our shares.
I don't think it'd be a good move to force existing shareholders to sell. Many are emotionally attached to those shares! Many have held them for decades!
 
Lets say the consortium owes 70% of the shares. then put £7m quid in, Unless us remaining 30% of shareholders come up with £3m to match that e end up benefitting with out any effort. So the consortium issue more shares, buy them up with part of the £7m to take them over 90% then they can make the rest of us to sell our shares.
There is no benefit for Consortium to buy the last 10%… they will own the vast majority and decisions can pass through easily.
 
Also if I wondrously held 8 shares and that was miraculously reduced to 2, on the previous agreement I could distribute 2 shares to each of my 4 children, upon my death

How do you then distribute 2 shares to 4 people?

If this turns out like this I wont be giving Mr Rees warm applause in his arrival for his efforts and love of the fans
I’ll give you £20 for your shares.
Happy now?
 
I’m a shareholder but I haven’t received my notice of the meeting yet. I have been trying to contact the club but nobody answers the phone there anymore. 🥴🥴
 
Back
Top