Do we have a sugar daddy?

[Noggs]

I seem to recall that when the members were asked to vote for a change to to a Plc they said that there would be a covenant put in place which would restrict any single share ownership to 10%. Clearly I was either mistaken at the time or I have missed the change. Perhaps Bill has the answer?

[daktari]

covenant was dropped some time ago

[DCATsOLDMAN]

I seem to recall that when the members were asked to vote for a change to to a Plc they said that there would be a covenant put in place which would restrict any single share ownership to 10%. Clearly I was either mistaken at the time or I have missed the change. Perhaps Bill has the answer?

I don't remember that being the case, but it is a long time ago, and much water has passed under the bridge since then.

[Noggs]

covenant was dropped some time ago

Do you recall the circumstances and the reasons given? I have to say when I voted on the Plc issue that was the main thing that persuaded me to vote in favour.

[Bill W (2)]

If memory serves me right the covenant did not last long. The subsequent (to becoming a PLC) share issue failed to raise the necessary £3M and HSBC took a 10% share holding.

However, any major issue of shares (as here to Tom Scott) requires sharholder approval.

[Noggs]

If memory serves me right the covenant did not last long. The subsequent (to becoming a PLC) share issue failed to raise the necessary £3M and HSBC took a 10% share holding.

However, any major issue of shares (as here to Tom Scott) requires sharholder approval.

I guess the horse has already bolted, so to speak, so on the recommendation of the Board I will probably vote in favour of the proposal. With his history I suspect that while Tom is alive there is little 'risk' to the clubs well being. I trust that in his will he will also make provisions that will protect our future in the long term.

[Bill W (2)]

I guess the horse has already bolted, so to speak, so on the recommendation of the Board I will probably vote in favour of the proposal. With his history I suspect that while Tom is alive there is little 'risk' to the clubs well being. I trust that in his will he will also make provisions that will protect our future in the long term.

I concur with your sentiments re Peter Tom. I also feel sure a suitable successuon plan is in place. Peter will be a hard act to follow.

Having been privaleged to meet the Directors (Executive and Non Exec) I can honestly say there is only one who I have my doubts about - and I understand that he is held in check and his card has been marked.

I would like to see Johnno on the Board at some point.

[Noggs]

I was actually referring to the money man Tom Scott who, if this all goes through (which it will) ends up with close to 50% of the club shares.

The whole reason for the meeting is to avoid the normal ruling that such a percentage ownership would normally automatically trigger a full takeover with Tom Scott having to buy all the remaining share capital. He doesn't want to do this and the Board don't want him to do it but the danger remains that after his passing (or before) the situation may change for whatever reason. If an when that happens the club is no different to Bath or any of the other clubs owned by 'sugar daddies'

[Bill W (2)]

I was actually referring to the money man Tom Scott who, if this all goes through (which it will) ends up with close to 50% of the club shares.

You are quite right. Hence the title of my OP.

[biffer]

I've always had the impression that Tigers adopt the very sensible approach that playing budgets should be covered by annual income from tickets, TV, sponsorship etc, and that when individuals invest in the club it's put towards infrastructure, stadium and facilities - in other words revenue costs are budgeted from revenue income and investment income is used towards capital costs. It's a proper sustainable model and the only sensible way to run any sports club.

[Noggs]

I was actually referring to the money man Tom Scott who, if this all goes through (which it will) ends up with close to 50% of the club shares.

You are quite right. Hence the title of my OP.

Then the short answer is clearly 'yes'. Just how good that proves to be for the club in the longer term is a different matter.

[MurphysLaw]

[quote="Noggs"][quote="Bill W (2)"][quote="Noggs"]I was actually referring to the money man Tom Scott who, if this all goes through (which it will) ends up with close to 50% of the club shares.

[/quote]

You are quite right. Hence the title of my OP.[/quote]

Then the short answer is clearly 'yes'. Just how good that proves to be for the club in the longer term is a different matter. [/quote]

I disagree, but it depends what you mean by 'sugar daddy'.
If you mean an autocrat who runs and funds the club, then I don't think we are at that point here. I do agree that the longer term might be a different matter, so imo, perhaps a more accurate answer is 'not yet'.

[Sajerj]

Economically he would have to believe his return on equity is 7% or higher to make sense.

For Tigers it is an excellent transaction as they have effectively returned 7% on equity for that part part the company. Not bad at all in todays environment. Also it puts the club in an excellent position to re-leverage their balance sheet for their next development.

[Red Boots]

" he would be willing to subscribe for 3,034,426 Ordinary Shares in order to provide capital to the Club to assist with the development at Welford Road and subsequently to redeem all of the Loan Notes to which he is beneficially entitled at par"
What does "subsequently" mean in this context?

[biffer]

" he would be willing to subscribe for 3,034,426 Ordinary Shares in order to provide capital to the Club to assist with the development at Welford Road and subsequently to redeem all of the Loan Notes to which he is beneficially entitled at par"
What does "subsequently" mean in this context?

It probably means it's being set up as a loan at 0% with no interest, which he'll write off at a later date. Injections of capital into sports clubs are often set up this way for tax reasons i believe.