Discussion in 'Dulwich Hamlet FC' started by Fingers, Aug 26, 2015.
Agree with last 2 posts and partner and I have now both supported proposal .
I'm a bit unsure in the club's statement when it states, " As a fan owned club DHFC could not afford the estimated costs of longer-term renovation (over £2 million) or the estimated costs of a replacement stadium compliant with the demands of the modern game (over £10 million)."
Are the words 'fan owned' inaccurate? Can we say that DHFC is a fan-owned club? DHST is now a significant shareholder, but one can be a significant shareholder with only 3% of the shares. McCormack is still the controlling shareholder, is he not? Unless a democratic fan body is the controlling shareholder, can one say that DHFC is really 'fan-owned?'
Nah. All this information is in the public domain if you could be bothered to take a look.
Chelsea are fan owned, its PR innit.
The majority of allocated shares in the last public breakdown are held by people who can legitimately be described as Dulwich Hamlet fans.
The phrase fan owned can be read in many ways. Its use may be intentional.
I was going by disclosures on companies house which seemed to indicate that McCormack was the controlling shareholder. If I’m wrong please correct me, though it may be nice if you did it without the condescending attitude.
I’m not saying I’m against the planning application, but the use of ‘fan-owned’ may raise an eyebrow at clubs like Fisher and Clapton CFC.
Maybe we should go bust and reform? Is that your business plan? Those clubs did it that way after all.
It is a matter of public record that Nick signed over the bulk of his shares to a company run at the time by Ben, Liam and Tom. (I haven't checked they are all shareholders in that company still. Gavin may also have been involved at one point)
Liam posted a while back that a new share register was being prepared due to a recent investment. Unless that was the one the Trust have confirmed they made, we don't know who it was. There is no reason to believe it was Nick.
If Nick's shareholding remains as in the last share register, he remains a large shareholder, second biggest from memory, but has zero control as the block vote he transferred can outvote him. From memory that would hold true even if every other shareholder voted with Nick. Which is pretty unlikely to happen anyway.
Note the investment may perhaps have been Ben converting loans into shares. If so, he as an individual probably moves ahead of Nick in the number of shares held. We will know for sure when the updated share register is released
No, that is not my business plan. OK, let’s just agree that ‘fan owned’ may be interpreted various ways, then. I thought it meant where there was a fan body (not just one fan) having majority ownership of the club, but others may interpret it as being owned by a person who is identified as a fan. Obviously, I clearly do not want DHFC to be bust.
Remember that on top of the shares Nick transferred there are many small shareholders.
Not sure how long you have been around the club but if you were here in the mid-90's you will recognise many of those names as regular fans. Most are still around the club.
I doubt the club are using the term fan owned solely because of the biggest shareholding but are instead reflecting the wider share ownership by fans, albeit a small % of allocated share capital.
Full disclosure - I'm one of the mid 90's fans with a small shareholding
Cool. Everyone in agreement. Another Urban success story. Take that the haters!
Fisher Athletic did go bust. With same owner that was manoeuvring the strings controlling the puppet that was Nick McCormack.
Clapton still exist. Clapton CFC are a completely different kettle of fish. Their fans choosing to break away and form their own club. More in the mould of FC United of Manchester or Enfield Town I’d say.
If you weren’t posting false information, there would be no need to be condescending. I’ll spell it out again shall I? All this information is available to read in the public domain. The club has been damaged enough already over the years by the spreading of lies.
“Scum” seems to be the operable word here fella.
Wow, the guy was just asking a question, why be so aggressive?
I've not followed, nor am I going to read the whole of, this thread.
I last looked into all this a couple of years ago, and my thoughts back then were as per my comments quoted below (from another thread). Has anything changed in the meantime, that might change my opinion?
(I have been asked elsewhere for my thoughts, in relation to whether the current planning application should be supported or objected to)
Is that a no then?
From DHFC site:
Seems a bit of a stretch. As far as I can see, what is planned for the astroturf enclosure at present is just a mesh fence.
That's not really the same thing as the hardstanding and enclosure that would be required for spectators etc that would be part of the redevelopment.
The basic argument here seems to be "it'll still be open land really". That it's all still broadly within the intended use of Metropolitan Open Land. But the existing stadium was built on open land, and as I understand it, that was subject to a planning condition that it be used for leisure purposes and not redeveloped. What this proposal facilitates is the loss of that previous open land - supposedly protected against development.
In 20 or 40 years time, when people have forgotten that this new, enclosed pitch was built on supposedly protected open land, it'll be ready for the same argument to develop it. The pitch can be relocated onto some other portion of Metropolitan Open Land. No open land will really be lost, because a football pitch is still open land really! The football club is in financial trouble and this is the only way to rescue it! But some more houses can be built and another developer can make some cash.
If anything you're the only one acting like scum here.
Jesus the guy just asked a question, why be so horrible?
Suspicious of a new members motives, and why not be?
There's being suspicious and there's acting like a wanker
As a semi new user myself some of the ways you see people on here talk to each other is pretty unwelcoming. Maybe the person is new to the forum and wanted to learn more about ownership of the club from the people who know it best?
Send pettyboy to the borstal?
Are we still benefiting from changing to Bulb energy?
yup Bulb - Get a quote
Yes thanks, they're much cheaper than British Gas!
Separate names with a comma.