BFC Ownership

Im talking about the EFL definition, not the companies house definition. The EFL definition of significant interest is 10% of shares or voting rights, with the 7 parties in my OP listed under this definition.

Billy Beane in particular surprised me that he has 10% or more, but I don’t understand how all those parties can have 10%, if Chien has 40% and Cryne has 20% - doesn’t add up. Only thing I can think of is that There’s a discrepancy between voting rights and shares, so people with <10% shares have 10% voting rights or vice versa and thus have to be listed.

How likely is it that there’s a discrepancy between shares and voting? Aka Dane maybe has 10% voting but no shares?

 

At least I now understand the point that you are making, which is a good first step. I would be surprised if Dane Murphy has any shares, but he exercises control/interest because he is CEO. That leaves just 6 persons listed. If Chien Lee had 40% and the Cryne Family 20%, that leaves 40% controlled by the other 4 persons listed, ie 10% each. This is of course just speculation.

 

Whether Chien Lee holds 1%, 10% or 50% what difference would it make, though? If our shareholding was public knowledge we could still well end up like a Blackpool or a Bury.

 

I thought I was quite clear in my OP what my point was, but that’s ok, we’re there now!

If your speculative numbers are correct, I’m surprised that Conway and Billy Beane would be at the same amount of shares. Not out of the question though, I suppose.

I don’t know that Murphy would be listed as having significant interest under EFL rules if he didn’t have 10% or more shares or voting rights, so I do wonder if he has significant voting rights. Would somewhat go against those that say he’s just following orders etc.

 

If significant interest in terms of the EFL means 10% of shares OR voting rights, I would assume in a limited company all the employed directors listed at companies house will have a vote, but some may not necessarily have any shares (I’m thinking Murphy). Shareholders don’t have to be employed directors and Employed directors don’t have to be shareholders.

Shareholding could be anything between the others, if Beane has a vote as a director he would come under significant interest category from EFL, but he could have any % number of shares from 1% upwards.

I think.

 

I just don’t know how common it is for a 1% shareholder to have 10% or more voting rights?

I always thought there was more parity between shares and voting rights in most situations.

 

The definition posted in the OP reads to me as legal and/or shareholder, in other words Chien would qualify under both, but Dane as CEO would qualify under the legal rights, as an appointee of the owners to represent the club.

 

Could it be that when speaking generally about share percentage at Barnsley they are taking into account both companies... Barnsley Council own 50% of the holding company don't forget

 

The council owns 50% of the stadium holding company, not the club

 

I think there are three different factors at play here. Firstly, a declaration has to made at companies House of persons with significant control of a company. This is not the same as a director. A director is an officer of a company who can be removed by a meeting of shareholders etc. Secondly, since June 2016 all UK property owned by foreign entities has had to have the beneficial owners declared. Therefore if someone owns 5% of a Hong Kong company which owns 50% of a UK company which owns a UK stadium they are beneficial owners. Thirdly, the EFL/fa have rules on declaration of ownership. The cynic in me thinks this is to stay ahead of being roped into the money laundering regulations, the last big expansion of which, the criminal finances act left them alone. Go figure when Leeds United under ken bates were deducted 15 points for failing to declare who owned them, but allowed to continue in the league when in any other line of business they would have been prosecuted. I don't impute anything dodgy about our owners from what they are filing, as for their motivation in the first place, that's a different issue.