Patienceform

[Dr Fundlekrotch]

Patienceform's Annual Return has been posted up at Companies House.  For those that didn't already know, we still have 2 directors - Terry and Gavin.

There are 17 shareholders and all of them are people we already knew about.  JR still has his holding, as does Trevor Milton

[hoolahoop]

Patienceform's Annual Return has been posted up at Companies House.  For those that didn't already know, we still have 2 directors - Terry and Gavin.

There are 17 shareholders and all of them are people we already knew about.  JR still has his holding, as does Trevor Milton

Surprise, surprise all bluff and bluster then

[Jenny]

Have any of the shareholdings changed? I seem to recall in the accounts there was a slight increase in share capital

[Dr Fundlekrotch]

I haven't compared it, Jenny, but an increase in authorised share capital (as opposed to issued capital) was authorised and registered about 2 months ago

[silent majority]

We, the VSC, did have a sit down meeting with the club as soon as they were submitted. One of our directors will be providing a report shortly based on the questions we asked.

[Jenny]

The annual return and the accounts are slightly different Martin, I don't think we have had sight of the return.

[Dr Fundlekrotch]

Form AR01 attached (if this works)

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Yep we've a summary to come of key information. Much of which isn't in the accounts.

[graingrover]

those latest accounts are for the period June 2012 to June 2013.. the '
events' were subsequent to that .

[Jenny]

The AR01 which shows shareholdings is correct to March 2014, so reflects any changes in the ownership of shares to that point, so covers the period in which SC claimed to have acquired shares.

[Jenny]

There has been a 20,000 increase in shares, all of which were issued, interestingly, to Stuart Highfield.

[graingrover]

thanks for that Jenny ..it would be great if  ' Management Accounts ' were published showing such items as transfers and wages to laying staff ... alas !

[since-1969]

Still that crook James Beresford has 290k worth of shares . If so ,Shame on the club to allow this to continue .

[albie]

But how can Beresford be forced to give up his shares?

The biggest joke is that all those who said they were selling up have decided to hold on. It just goes to show that the takeover shambles was all mouth and trousers.

It is a concern that those who thought a sale to such a poor buyer was the right thing to do, still have those shares to offer to the next prospective buyer. No guarantees that their judgment will be any better next time around, and probably still a difference of opinion on the best way forward for Rovers.

[Muttley]

But while TB, DW and David Blunt hold around 60% (and act together), those other shares are worthless in terms of trying to change control.

[Alickismyhero]

Beresford, who is a partner with Ryan in their MYA cosmetic biz, is no longer a director but as far I can work out he can own worthless shares legally in our club.

Do the accounts show how much compensation we got for Saunders from Wolves?

Our club promised to declare it!

[Lifelong supporter]

But how can Beresford be forced to give up his shares?

The biggest joke is that all those who said they were selling up have decided to hold on. It just goes to show that the takeover shambles was all mouth and trousers.

It is a concern that those who thought a sale to such a poor buyer was the right thing to do, still have those shares to offer to the next prospective buyer. No guarantees that their judgment will be any better next time around, and probably still a difference of opinion on the best way forward for Rovers.

If the 'takeover shambles was all mouth and trousers' how can you follow that up by saying that some people had actually thought of selling their shares and then criticise them for poor judgement?
Somewhat inconsistent is it not?
You can't have it both ways.

[The Red Baron]

Still that crook James Beresford has 290k worth of shares . If so ,Shame on the club to allow this to continue .

"The club" can't do anything about it. The only way he can be parted from his shares is if someone buys them off him.

I'm not sure we can call him a crook. As far as I recall he wasn't convicted of anything although he was barred from practising as a solicitor.

[since-1969]

He's a crook . He stole £116m from
The miners compensation due to
Widows . DOH!!!

[knockers]

Why have a growing number of people turned into Homer Simpson on here

[colincramb]

He's a crook . He stole £116m from
The miners compensation due to
Widows . DOH!!!

Not entirely true

[since-1969]

Fact !! He may have escaped  a criminal prosecution  but he knew he was committing a crime far as the Law Society was concerned . He is disbarred as a result only private prosecutions taken out by those effected can take his money away from him now upto 5000 of them .  He lives in Devon now understand .

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Perhaps you could buy his shares with the profits from your business?  You can use investments to offset some liabilities you know?

[since-1969]

It's in the public domain .

http://www.thelawyer.com/beresfords-partners-struck-off/136055.article

http://m.thestar.co.uk/features/shamed-lawyer-had-quit-rovers-1-316383

[WBDRFC]

Fact !! He may have escaped  a criminal prosecution  but he knew he was committing a crime far as the Law Society was concerned . He is disbarred as a result only private prosecutions taken out by those effected can take his money away from him now upto 5000 of them .  He lives in Devon now understand .

What Jim Beresford did was contrary to the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority rules and regulations. Despite it being morally wrong (and I'm not defending him in any way), it was not a criminal offence, and therefore not a crime.

[BobG]

Mmmm. And that makes you all equally liable too 1969.

And Lifelong, Albie is quite right. It was all mouth and trousers, and, the fact they chose to say what they said and take the positions they took is conclusive evidence of their utterly feeble judgement (at least from any professional point of view). Their subsequent collective failure to deliver, and failure to ever mention why, points up their collective lack of probity, of communication with their most numerous stakeholders and the space it left for conspiracies to develop. Poor, poor management indeed. But then, you know all that already don't you Lifelong? You know it because you've been hanging on to their coat tails all the way through.

I'd give up if I were you. You have zero credibility on here. You don't win friends with wit or charm either. Tbh, you don't have a lot going for the agenda you try to peddle.

BobG

[since-1969]

Are you saying he is right to do what he did. He took what was not HIS to take . Call it what you like . People who thought they were  getting compensation for years of risking their lives day in and day out only to be told that instead of getting 12k there only getting a few hundred pounds because his FEEs took the lions share . Crook by any other term. If he'd been a drug dealer his ass would be encased in concrete.

[Iberian Red]

But how can Beresford be forced to give up his shares?

The biggest joke is that all those who said they were selling up have decided to hold on. It just goes to show that the takeover shambles was all mouth and trousers.

It is a concern that those who thought a sale to such a poor buyer was the right thing to do, still have those shares to offer to the next prospective buyer. No guarantees that their judgment will be any better next time around, and probably still a difference of opinion on the best way forward for Rovers.

If the 'takeover shambles was all mouth and trousers' how can you follow that up by saying that some people had actually thought of selling their shares and then criticise them for poor judgement?

The answer is very easily.

[BobG]

If you can't read the words I, wrote 1969, and you can't take the exceedingly clear hint provided by WBDRFC, don't worry about it.

BobG

[since-1969]

You talk too much ;-)