I've just finished The Glory Game, which means that I've now completed two of the four football books I bought on Thursday. Oops. Anyway, it's a certifiable must-read, and it's brilliantly written and paced.
One thing I found very interesting, however, was the description of the directors. It explained that the directors had veto power over any sale of shares, which would prevent any kind of hostile takeover (and which goes towards explaining in part why Keston never became a director). But in 1972, Wale, Cox, and the rest were already rather old, with only one person—Geoffrey Richardson—standing in as a director from the thirtysomething audience.
Yet ten years later, Scholar wrested control of the club from Wale and Richardson. I can't find any more details on the sale than the previous sentence, other than that Scholar had been buying up shares clandestinely over time.
Was he buying from directors who were running out of money?
How could he have (hostilely?) taken over the company, if the directors had veto power?
Did Wale et al. want to get out from under the burden of the West Stand redevelopment?
(Additionally, was it the redevelopment of the West Stand that removed 20,000 places from the WHL capacity, or was it getting rid of terraces?)
Anyway, like I said, I haven't been able to find much about this sale online, and I'm not quite ready to fire up Lexis-Nexis, so if anyone has quick answers…
One thing I found very interesting, however, was the description of the directors. It explained that the directors had veto power over any sale of shares, which would prevent any kind of hostile takeover (and which goes towards explaining in part why Keston never became a director). But in 1972, Wale, Cox, and the rest were already rather old, with only one person—Geoffrey Richardson—standing in as a director from the thirtysomething audience.
Yet ten years later, Scholar wrested control of the club from Wale and Richardson. I can't find any more details on the sale than the previous sentence, other than that Scholar had been buying up shares clandestinely over time.
Was he buying from directors who were running out of money?
How could he have (hostilely?) taken over the company, if the directors had veto power?
Did Wale et al. want to get out from under the burden of the West Stand redevelopment?
(Additionally, was it the redevelopment of the West Stand that removed 20,000 places from the WHL capacity, or was it getting rid of terraces?)
Anyway, like I said, I haven't been able to find much about this sale online, and I'm not quite ready to fire up Lexis-Nexis, so if anyone has quick answers…