• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Confirmed KLD only owns 41%

Status
Not open for further replies.

'A controlling interest is when a shareholder holds a majority of a company's voting stock. A shareholder does not have to have majority ownership in a company to have a controlling interest as long as they own a significant portion of its voting shares.'

Giving KLD a controlling interest.
Not for 1 second am I condoning the actions of the club or its shareholders but thought it would be of benefit to everyone to define a controlling interest so we all know exactly what denotes a controlling interest when compared to a majority ownership.
 
TommyB said:
'A controlling interest is when a shareholder holds a majority of a company's voting stock. A shareholder does not have to have majority ownership in a company to have a controlling interest as long as they own a significant portion of its voting shares.'

Giving KLD a controlling interest.
Not for 1 second am I condoning the actions of the club or its shareholders but thought it would be of benefit to everyone to define a controlling interest so we all know exactly what denotes a controlling interest when compared to a majority ownership.
Click to expand...
Surely that's only the case if not all of the shares are voting shares? If every share is a voting share then, with 41% of the voting shares, kld doesn't hold a majority of the company's voting stock and therefore wouldn't have a controlling interest.
 
Stevie said:
Despite certain figures repeating Father Ted's phrase "the money was just resting in my account" over and over again akin to Goebbels' notion that if you "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth". Apparently a common tactic in modern PR firms.
Click to expand...
The lies struck a positive chord with many on here.
 
penno13 said:
I’d take a punt in big Mike over these c unts
Click to expand...
He'd do the job..
Look at how he went on when mags dropped.

Look how we went on..
It's a disgrace it's came to this point... honestly hate them.

KLD maybe getting taken for a ride so jury still out on him but the rest of them..

Hope they fall down the stairs and land on a plug
 
TommyB said:
'A controlling interest is when a shareholder holds a majority of a company's voting stock. A shareholder does not have to have majority ownership in a company to have a controlling interest as long as they own a significant portion of its voting shares.'

Giving KLD a controlling interest.
Not for 1 second am I condoning the actions of the club or its shareholders but thought it would be of benefit to everyone to define a controlling interest so we all know exactly what denotes a controlling interest when compared to a majority ownership.
Click to expand...
This is a good point, they could have restructured it so that only KLD's shares have any voting rights, or at least in a way that gives him over 50% of voting rights.
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
Surely that's only the case if not all of the shares are voting shares? If every share is a voting share then, with 41% of the voting shares, kld doesn't hold a majority of the company's voting stock and therefore wouldn't have a controlling interest.
Click to expand...
He does. Individually he owns 41% Giving him a majority as no other shareholder Individually owns more that 41%. You can't just look at the other 59% as one share holding. It's split 3 ways. All 3 holding less than 41% each.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top