Hereford United chairman David Keyte has given a detailed interview to the OS.
Given its importance BN has reproduced it in full :
Q. You expressed your disappointment immediately
after the meeting and on BBC Hereford & Worcester. Have you had time
to reflect on the meeting and your personal situation?
A.
“I have always been the type of person who will say what he thinks and
this can sometimes appear aggressive and I am certainly not the best at
diplomacy when I believe that I am right.
I
expressed my disappointment at the meeting and again to Trevor Owens on
the radio. As the dust settles, I am still disappointed but accept now
that we didn’t explain our proposal well enough to some people.
As
regards to my personal position, I have to admit that personal abuse
can be demoralising but when you realise that 85% of the people in
attendance at our meeting on Monday evening were in support of the
proposals I can positively say that I have no intention of stopping
until the job is completed, namely to get this share issue approved; to
get the ground development projects underway in order to build a
sustainable future for the football club and above all to support our
Manager as we put all we can into our aim of recovering our Football
League status.
As there was not one single
alternative suggestion put forward, and it was clear that 90% of the
shareholders are with you, I am now more convinced than ever that we
have tabled the right plan to secure the future of Hereford United
Football Club. However, I and my Boardroom colleagues, accept that we
need to revisit the presentation made to shareholders and in particular
those who voted against.
Our desired outcome
was to make progress on the share issue without incurring substantial
upfront legal costs (est £250,000) on a full prospectus. We accept that
the tabled document proposing the share issue was steeped in legal
jargon but it was prepared by a specialist leading London law firm in
line we believed with our aims, namely to give first option to current
shareholders with, crucially, the further introduction of new investment
by seeking the current shareholders permission to go outside for the
sale of additional shares.
We also sought
shareholders’ permission to allow outstanding loans to be converted into
shares and finally to produce an updated set of Articles in line with
the 2006 Act that would replace our current Articles of Association that
date back to 1929.
I think we have gone a long way to achieving our aims.
Q. You say that you are pleased with the support for the proposal, why has it not gone through then?
A.
Voting cards returned prior to the meeting were 22 in favour and 5
against and in the meeting 25 in favour and 5 against but the weighting
of the shares was more like 70% in favour and 30% against. We have to go
back to those that voted before the meeting, and the final vote will be
known in the next 10 days or so.
The whole
exercise has revealed that many shareholders on the register are
deceased and many more are no longer at the address originally provided.
As a result approx. 23,000 shares out of the original 39,670 shares
were deemed eligible for the vote.
The most
heartening measure was the clear support for what the Board had proposed
from the majority of those present and we hope to persuade those in the
minority that we are on the right tracks, accepting the fact that the
presentation can be improved upon and discussed further.
Q. There has been a lot of views expressed on various websites/forums. What are your thoughts about that?
A.
At one level you have to accept that everyone is entitled to their
opinion but once again some of the speculation and inaccuracy expressed
in what is a legal, formal domain of corporate rules/’insider knowledge’
etc. is a major concern to us.
For instance I
have read that I personally will end up with 40% of the company; that
our current shareholders will not be eligible to purchase shares let
alone new purchasers; that the Supporters Trust can’t buy etc. etc.
Inaccurate speculation can damage the Club in many ways.
We
are a small business in a relatively small community but too much
commercial information freely passes around or, it seems, often gets
made up. It is no doubt because it is a football club and everyone
feels a part of it but we must keep things in reality – but then, ‘its
only banter they would say’.
Personally, if I
read the Banter I try to imagine the characters who feature. For me the
“Fishlock Forever” character is probably an out of work 24 year old
ex-salesman, living at home because he can’t get a proper job, but who
has time enough to write how the football club should be run and how
everything we do is wrong. Knowing my luck though, he’s probably
ex-Regiment!!
Sadly on a more serious note, I
have been made aware that a leading member of the newly formed
Supporters Trust Committee has texted the Chairman of HUISA stating his
views , that “his sole intention is to get Keyte out and he will work
tirelessly to do so” and how disappointed he was that HUISA voted in
favour of the proposed shares option.
I think
we begin to get a flavour of what the Supporters Trust intentions are
and hope that they have a clear idea of how they intend to achieve those
aims and take the football club forward. My own view remains that a
strong Supporters’ voice is a good thing for the football club but
whether we have the people to do it here seems open to debate on this
showing.
As for the Committee Member in
question I can only assume that he is not of a mind to visit the
football club until his aims are achieved – he won’t be missed.
Q. Returning to the recent Shareholders’ meeting, where do we go from here?
A.
As I said before, we must take encouragement from the fact the vast
majority of shareholders are behind the proposal for a new shares issue.
The tone of the meeting was 90% were sentimental towards the Club and
in support of the Board’s proposal.
The other
10% had other agendas/views some of which are fully accepted. Most
notably the concerns of shareholders who see that their percentage share
would diminish through a much larger share issue.
Ironically,
I personally would suffer most from this proposal but it is not
possible to achieve the scale of future investment that we seek and also
hang on to ‘the way it’s always been’. For the greater good of the
club, dilution of the current shares is something it is impossible to
avoid.
We must however discuss further an
acceptable solution for current shareholders including the more
appropriate value of a multiplier.
In summary,
we would like to take up the very constructive suggestion made at the
end of the meeting to form a small group who are willing to meet to
thrash out the finer points that have put the proposal on hold.
a)
I am planning to meet with a local lawyer in the next few days with a
view to simplifying the proposal document, whilst not losing the
appropriate and necessary legalities.
b) The
above (a) will hopefully allay those concerns raised about the wording
but I would also propose to invite the lawyer to the working group
meeting(s).
c) We need to devise a scheme that
recognises the investment made by the current shareholders together with
acceptable conversion rates for any loans converted into shares. We
would then bring the agreed suggestions back to a shareholders’ meeting.
d)
I am writing as agreed at the meeting to all those shareholders who
voted prior to the meeting and who should now have the opportunity to
review their decisions following the meeting’s wish to revise the
wording in Resolution 2.
I am sure we can keep
working together to ultimately get the go ahead for the new share issue
and welcome the thoughts and input of our shareholders to do so. If
anyone would like to be a member of a small group to discuss these
points please make contact with the Club office, as soon as possible.