Why have the Malaysians stopped at 49% of the shares ????

Why haven't they taken full ownership or control with over 51% ?????

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55397

Because at 51% they become liable for all debts and they'll all starts banging at the door immediately, not the measured approach that is being taken now.

Besides be grateful they own 1% never mind 49% because with out them the club would be finito.

Because of the outstanding debt to Langston.

If they became owners then Langston would go direct to them because they are the only guys who could pay it off.

Also the companies act requires anyone owning 51% to make an offer to all shareholders to buy their shares

Also the companies act requires anyone owning 51% to make an offer to all shareholders to buy their shares

"Make an offer" being the operative words here. Hardly ever used this unless someone wants to get the company on the cheap. There is a mark where the "owner" can force the other shareholder to sell the shares, I think it is around the 90% mark. Not too sure on that though.

I'm not totally convinced about the liable for all debts reasoning, as they would be only the marjority shareholder not the outright owner of the company. For example if the club went into liquidation then their liability would be limited to the value of their 49% (or if they took a majority holding 51%) of shares and the other shareholders would be liable for the value of the % of shares they own (having said that CCFC shares are worth next to f**k all)

There could be other reasons why they have stopped at 49% one being that the other shareholders do-not want them having a controlling stake? It would be interesting to read the full context of the 2010 agreement and subsequent amendments to see if there is a structure to the takeover process.

Cheers all very interesting, I wasn't having a pop at them just wondering why, it makes a bit more sense now........