Hale attempts to block Rights Issue

05 November 2000

An article in today's Sunday Mercury describes how former Chairman Tony Hale will be voting against the Rights Issue being proposed by the current Board of Directors. Although on his own, Hale does not hold anywhere near enough shares to prevent the issue being approved by shareholders at their forthcoming meeting, he has always been able to rely on the support of Graham Waldron - between them, they hold just under a quarter of the Club's shares. Even this may not be enough, as the motion proposing the Rights Issue only requires a simple majority of votes cast in its favour - i.e. 50% plus one [Note: the Mercury article incorrectly states that the motion requires 75% of the vote in order to be carried].

Hale's arguments for opposing the rights issue are as follows:

• We should concentrate on the team and training facilities
• Through the issue, the current Board could gain 40% of all the shares, making it undemocratic
• We do not need to redevelop the Rainbow stand

However, Tony Hale's argument seems to have missed the point of the issue - and the facts as stated in the documents issued by the plc for voting at the meeting. First of all, the purpose of the issue is to fund the purchase of the 46 acres of land and the building of the new facilities at the training ground. Only a small proportion of the money is connected with the redevelopment of the Rainbow stand, the rest coming from a bank loan that will be repaid over ten years. Anything raised by the issue in excess of the £1.5 million minimum it is expected to, will be provided to the manager for team strengthening. Admittedly, the money used to repay the loan will have to be made available from funds that could otherwise be spent on the team, but the argument is that the improved new facilities available in the redeveloped stand will bring in more money - not just while the loan is being repaid, but for years to come. What is also somewhat suprising is Hale's sudden insistence on the importance of training facilities - when after five years as Chairman, the Club still didn't have any of their own.

Secondly, the fact that the Board could gain control of 40% of the shares, and that this would not be democratic. The Board currently hold 34% of the votes - an increase to 40% is hardly a major difference in the spread of ownership and voting rights. Hale and Waldron, by taking up the shares available to them under the terms of the issue, could ensure that the balance of ownership remains unchanged. And since when have the Boards of Football Clubs had to be democratic? Most of them are far less so than Albion's, with one major shareholder having almost total control of their Club. Thomspon has stated that he does not wish to hold more than 30% of the shares, and will only take up as many shares through the issue as he can without exceeding that figure. If democracy was so essential to Hale, of course, he'd have resigned as Chairman when it was quite obvious that the majority of shareholders wanted him to do so...

Finally, the argument that we don't need to redevelop the Rainbow stand is one that I'd certainly disagree with. I can't deny having some fond memories of it, and I sit there because it offers the best view of the ground - BUT the catering facilities are poor, the toilets are primitive, those pillars are a pain, the roof is too low, the climb up the steep steps just to go all the way down to your seat is tiresome (especially in bad weather), there are no disabled facilities at all, and the whole thing has become an eyesore that is out of place next to the rest of the ground. But while the new design sorts out all of those problems, as well as providing a much improved Club Shop and the return of the Woodman Corner, what it really gives us are first class commercial facilities. I hear time and time again of businesses that would love to host their corporate functions at the Hawthorns but are unable to do so because they just can't offer anything suitable. Serious amounts of money are being turned away due to our inability to cater adequately for businesses, and it's painful to find out that those customers end up filling the pockets of our rivals at places like Villa Park. That money could be paying for the new stand and, once that's been completed, funding development of the first team and youth squads.

Try as I might, I can't find anything in Tony Hale's arguments to agree with. Hale ended up having to resign because he incorrectly accused Thompson of trying to block his attempts to bring money into the Club, and yet here he is trying to block Thompson's attempts to do exactly the same thing. I find it hard to see how anyone could ignore the progress made under Thompson this year and try to convince us that they know better. And I'd rather remember Tony Hale for the achievements he did make in his time as Chairman - rather than someone who seems to be driven purely by bitterness towards the man who replaced him.

Previous Stories:

  03 November 2000:  They don't like it up 'em!

  27 October 2000:  Albion plan Rights Issue

  26 October 2000:  Kasper's in hot water!

Back to the News Index