Mike Goddard, the founder and former chairman of franchising giant Belvoir has applied to sell two million of the 4.39 million shares he still holds in the company.His sale of the shares will be at ‘no less’ than £1.05p per share but at the moment the company’s stock is being traded at £1.12p.Therefore the 70-year-old will realise cash from the sale of between approximately £2.1 million and £2.24 million, reducing his shareholding in the company from 12.6% to 5.7% of its issued share capital.Back in May Goddard, who is also a director of The Property Ombudsman and a former chairman of the British Franchising Association, stepped down as chairman of Belvoir after nearly 25 years, and was replaced by Michael Stoop (left).In December last year Goddard gave himself a well-earned Christmas present after he sold shares worth £989,700.Both today’s news and the December share sale are part of a complicated deal struck following the purchase of Northwood which required the directors involved to wait two years before realising any shares.Belvoir was set up by Goddard and his wife in 1995 after he left the RAF as a Wing Commander and it initially grew through franchising using its own brand, but later also through acquisition. As well as its own 174 offices it also operates 90 Northwood and 36 Newton Fallowell branches. September 24, 2019Nigel LewisWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles Letting agent fined £11,500 over unlicenced rent-to-rent HMO3rd May 2021 BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021 Home » News » Agencies & People » Belvoir founder to sell second tranche of shares for £2.1 million previous nextAgencies & PeopleBelvoir founder to sell second tranche of shares for £2.1 millionBelvoir founder Mike Goddard also sold £1m worth of shares in December but still holds stock worth at least £2.5 million at today’s share price.Nigel Lewis24th September 20190572 Views
He said the outbreak had clearly demonstrated the advantages of having suppliers based closer to the United States than in Asia.The initiative would not focus on cheap labor costs, but would build on provisions aimed at protecting workers that were included in the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that entered into force in July, he added.Claver-Carone also said there needed to be an improvement in transparency over Chinese lending in Latin America.He said Ecuador in particular was “not being able to advance and move forward and kind of unshackle itself from that unfair, over-collateralized debt to China.”Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno has sought to renegotiate the terms of its debt to China, which totaled $6.5 billion in 2018.China invests heavily in Latin America and has been responsible for more than $40 billion in lending to the region since 2015, according to Inter-American Dialogue data.The United States wants to “collaborate” with China to ensure its lending practices in the region are more transparent, said Claver-Carone, echoing a push by the World Bank.The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately reply to a request for comment.’Overwhelming support’If he wins a September election, Claver-Carone would be the first US candidate to head the Washington-based Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Latin America’s principal development finance institution.His candidacy has prompted push-back from some Latin American countries and former leaders, including publicly-shared letters signed by former presidents and ministers stating their opposition.Claver-Carone, who as a top Latin American adviser for Trump has played a key role pushing for punitive measures against socialist-run Venezuela and Cuba, said he had “overwhelming support” from countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador.He said 15 countries in the region had publicly supported him for the IDB job and six others, which he declined to name, had privately expressed their backing. The Trump administration is readying a new initiative that would use financial incentives to encourage US firms to move production facilities out of Asia and into the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, a senior White House adviser said on Wednesday.The project could bring $30 billion to $50 billion in US investment back to the Americas, Mauricio Claver-Carone told Reuters in an interview, adding that infrastructure, energy and transportation could be the first potential areas of focus.”We’re essentially creating a ‘Back to the Americas’ initiative,” he said. That would include both returning some facilities outsourced to China back to the United States and basing others in Latin America and the Caribbean in a drive for more so-called nearshoring, Claver-Carone said. He gave no details about the scope of possible incentives, but pointed to the administration’s use of a $765 million loan to encourage Eastman Kodak Co to produce pharmaceutical ingredients in the United States to help fight the coronavirus pandemic.US President Donald Trump has made “Buy America” policies a centerpiece of his administration since taking office in 2017, with those efforts accelerating sharply since the turmoil created by the pandemic.The United States and China signed a trade deal in January, but tensions have mounted in recent months over Beijing’s handling of the outbreak, a national security law limiting the autonomy of Hong Kong, and other issues.Claver-Carone said the administration had already been working with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to help them attract US investors, but the pandemic helped convince US companies it was time to get on board. He did not name any companies. Topics :
Radio NZ News 30 April 2018Family First Comment: Stand by for report from court Advocacy group Family First is heading to court today in a bid to retain its charity status.The hearing at the High Court in Wellington is the second appeal after the Charities Board ruled in 2013 and again in 2017 that Family First be removed from the charities register.Organisations with charitable status do not pay income tax, can apply for different grants and their donors are eligible for rebates.In 2013 the Charities Board removed the group because it said it was engaged in political advocacy.After the first appeal, the High Court ordered the board to reconsider its decision, which it did in 2017, again concluding the group should be removed.But Family First said the board was wrong to say its purpose was political rather than charitable.In a similar case involving Greenpeace, the Supreme Court ruled groups could register as charities, even if they have a political purpose.In its submission, Family First said the Charities Board did not consider promotion of the traditional family as being in the public interest.But Family First said that was not the case.In recent times it had advocated on strengthening marriage, parenting, child abuse, aged care and sex education; and against abortion, euthanasia and embyronic cell research, it said.“These activities for advancing the family in New Zealand serve to strengthen family life, and encourage stability and positive values in society.”Family First said the total number of supporters who subscribed to its email or mail service this year amounted to nearly 46,000, which was 5215 more than the previous year.https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/356287/family-first-goes-to-court-in-hopes-of-regaining-charity-statusConservative lobby group Family First in the High Court fighting its deregistration as a charityNZ Herald 30 April 2018Family First says its charity work produces research which helps all New Zealand families, even if it aims to promote and protect the “traditional” family unit.The conservative lobby group is currently in the High Court, fighting against its deregistration as a charity by the Charities Board.Peter McKenzie QC, acting for Family First, said that even if a group’s causes were unpopular, that shouldn’t stop them being classified as a charity.“The Trust accepted its purposes can be seen as seeking to promote the family, as understood in the traditional way.”However, [I’m] submitting that its activities seek to benefit all forms of families. An important qualification there.“When Your Honour looks at the various research reports produced by Family First, Your Honour will see that virtually all of those reports deal with matters that are of concern to all kinds of families, whether a solo parent, whether blended, whether so-called gay families.“All of them are concerned with issues of youth alcohol, all of them are concerned with issues of screen time, questions of child poverty and child abuse.“These are relevant to all kinds of family, although the research indicates some are more vulnerable than others.”Justice Simon France questioned whether Family First’s research was “persuasion under the guise of research”, where the authors of research papers chose evidence to reflect the views they already held.McKenzie said that their research aimed to benefit everyone, and promote debate.But although Family First admits to promoting “traditional” values, it was not a religious organisation.“This is not a charity formed for religious purposes,” McKenzie said.“It is simply formed with a statement of purpose relating to faith, but it is not religious in purpose.”The Charities Registration Board made its decision public in August, to deregister Family First for the second time.It had previously attempted to deregister the group in 2013, saying it did not “advance exclusively charitable purposes”.But the High Court ordered the Board to take a second look at the issue in 2015, after Greenpeace took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, to defend its own charitable status.In August 2017 the Board once again decided Family First should be deregistered as a charity.“The board considers that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable.“Family First has the freedom to continue to communicate its views and influence policy and legislation but the board has found that Family First’s pursuit of those activities do not qualify as being for the public benefit in a charitable sense.”The Charities Board has not yet made its submissions to the High Court. The hearing continues.https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12042274Family First fights its deregistration as a charityNewsTalk ZB 30 April 2018http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/family-first-fights-its-deregistration-as-a-charity/Keep up with family issues in NZ. Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.
Liverpool may want to re-think the contract offer made to Steven Gerrard after their captain bailed them out in a 3-1 comeback victory over Leicester like he has done so many times in the past. The former England midfielder’s current deal expires in the summer and, despite the offer of an extension, he has yet to commit to stay at the club he has been with since he was nine. But while Gerrard may be deliberating his next move, reportedly wanting double the one-year contract on offer, he showed no hesitation on the pitch with a coolly-placed goal to set his side on the way to victory and provide a reminder of glory days gone by. Restored to the starting line-up after being rested against Stoke on the 16th anniversary of his debut at the weekend – and now relieved from defensive duties in a more advanced role – the midfielder responded with his first goal in open play since the Merseyside derby at Anfield in January. That completed the comeback after Adam Lallana had equalised goalkeeper Simon Mignolet’s unfortunate own goal in the first half and, when Wes Morgan was shown a red card, Jordan Henderson secured back-to-back Premier League victories for the first time since October. A week can be a long time in football and in the space of seven days Gerrard and Mignolet have both experienced highs and lows. Having been at fault for Ludogorets’ opener in their Champions League draw in Bulgaria last Wednesday the Belgium goalkeeper looked to have turned a corner with a clean sheet at the weekend. However, the jitters which have become more frequent with every passing game and gradually infused his team, resulting in a side which resembles the consistency of jelly when put under pressure, returned quicker than you could say “goalkeeping howler”. His inexplicable pass straight into the path of Esteban Cambiasso, who rolled a 25-yard shot just wide of an open goal, set the nerves jangling and within two minutes Leicester were in front thanks to more weak defending. It was unlucky in some ways as Mignolet made a good save when Jamie Vardy raced on to Riyad Mahrez’s through-ball. But from the rebound Martin Skrtel could only weakly head out Ulloa’s follow-up and the striker was given enough time to collect the ball and smash a shot against the near post which cannoned off Mignolet’s head and into the net. Liverpool’s response was almost instantaneous; Gerrard’s free-kick was half-cleared to Lucas Leiva whose cross dropped at the feet of Lallana off Morgan and he smashed home the 50th league goal of his career. The former Southampton midfielder, returning to the starting line-up, had looked neat and tidy with the ball at his feet but his wild lunge at Vardy, for which he was booked, a few minutes later was anything but. In the first half Gerrard struggled to have much influence in a pin-ball midfield and it was Leicester’s own veteran midfielder Cambiasso, also 34, who exuded an air of calmness and control. At the break Reds manager Brendan Rodgers made a tactical switch taking off Javier Manquillo, switching Glen Johnson back to right-back and bringing Alberto Moreno in on the left but it was a change he made last week which was more pivotal. Against Ludogorets the captain was restored to an advanced role he previously occupied with great success in an attempt to allow Lucas to come in and provide more solidity. And it was the Gerrard of old who strode into the penalty area in the 54th minute, having been involved in the build-up, to caress a shot past Kasper Schmeichel after Morgan could only dangle a foot at Raheem Sterling’s cross. It got worse for the Leicester captain when he was red-carded just past the hour for hauling down Rickie Lambert as the Liverpool striker managed to get beyond him. However, from the resulting free-kick the hosts launched a swift counter-attack and Gerrard showed he still had some life left in those ageing legs by charging back and using his experience to commit a cynical foul on Matty James before he could do too much damage. Leicester were lucky not to be down to nine when Schmeichel collided with Gerrard inside the penalty area after he sprang the offside trap to race through – but referee Lee Mason waved play on. Equally, the Foxes were unlucky when Cambiasso’s deflected shot was diverted wide by team-mate Vardy but by now Gerrard was relishing the open spaces and his cross to Sterling produced the cut-back for Henderson to score the third. And no prizes for guessing who headed clear a corner in added time. As messages go it appeared to say “I’m not finished yet”. Press Association
A poll conducted by the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics in partnership with the Los Angeles Times is applying a new approach to tracking political opinions. The USC/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” Poll implements a rating scale to ask a panel of approximately 3,000 participants questions about their outlooks on the presidential race.The poll, which launched in July 2016 and will run through the November election, is part of the Understanding America Survey managed by the Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research. The UAS is a panel at USC comprised of 5,500 individuals representing the United States. The study is an ‘Internet’ panel, meaning that participants use computers, smartphones and tablets to engage in the survey. Respondents answer questions about a variety of topics, including their household demographics, health, retirement plans and thoughts on the election. The UAS election panel consists of around 3,000 randomly recruited participants from the wider panel who have agreed to answer questions about the election. Each day, around 400 individuals out of those 3,000 are asked to state the likelihood that they will vote in the election, the candidate that they will likely vote for and the chance they think each candidate has of winning. The results of the poll are weighted to take into account demographic characteristics, such as race, gender and income, from the U.S. Census Current Population, and adjusted to the 2012 presidential election outcome based on how participants voted back then. The results are regularly updated online, along with averages of all the prior week’s responses. The Daybreak Poll exhibits a distinguishing characteristic from most polls, which will ask people which candidate they prefer and exclude people who are undecided from any analysis of candidate support. The Daybreak Poll, however, asks participants to rate, using a 0-100 scale, their chances of voting for Clinton, Trump or another candidate. Because of this, every participant will influence the results, which provides insight into how uncertain voters are currently feeling. Unruh Institute Director Dan Schnur said that this method allows for better monitoring of how voters’ opinions are changing. “Our poll isn’t simply measuring the preference for candidates, but rather the intensity of voter support,” Schnur said. “It’s become increasingly clear over the past few months that while Clinton enjoys support from a larger number of voters in this election, Trump supporters are much more fervent in their support of his candidacy.” Some have expressed concerns that the Daybreak Poll shows a Republican bias in terms of candidate support, because of how it factors in the way people voted in the 2012 election. The poll weighs the sample of participants so that 25 percent of the sample are people who claimed to have voted for 2012 Republican party nominee Mitt Romney and 27 percent for President Barack Obama. But problems can occur with self-reported past voting when people aren’t honest about how they voted. Some polls have revealed that the percentage of people who — after an election — say that they voted for the winner exceeds the winner’s actual vote. This weighting could potentially cause too many Republican voters to be included the sample, giving Donald Trump a boost in support. Jill Darling, the survey director of the UAS, said that all pollsters vary in terms of how they choose to collect and model their data. She doesn’t think that there is a definitively accurate technique to poll voters. “One study found that people who had not voted for an incumbent were less likely to participate in a subsequent study about election results,” Darling said. “We can’t know if people are under-reporting votes for a non-incumbent, or whether the sample itself may just not have enough of those people [who didn’t vote for an incumbent] in it.”Some USC students believe that while the poll is useful, it does have certain drawbacks. Ali Main, a junior studying broadcast journalism, said that although she consults the poll frequently, she doesn’t think it’s necessarily indicative of the outcome of the actual election. “The Daybreak Poll is definitely interesting because it constantly surveys the same panel of voters,” Main said. “However, I think some of the polling choices, including weighing the sample based on people’s self-reported voting in 2012 and using the 0 to 100 rating scale and the effects that these choices have on the data prove that the results of any one poll are not enough to accurately predict what will happen on election day. I look at the results of this poll on a regular basis, but I can’t base my thoughts on the state of the election on polling data alone.”