I’m over the moon with todays news, but still a little unsure - if Archerfield is stating chien Lee still has 25-50% of shares that’s still a bit of an issue, even though he has no direct right to make operational decisions- let’s be realistic if you’re on a board of directors and one guy owns 50% of the company you would ‘ordinarily’ be wanting to do things to please him and may be influenced by his ‘vision’. im hoping that the breakdown between him and the other shareholders who are now perhaps also directors? is such that they don’t give a toss and he is isolated and will actually want out. Also a change in the directors is great - the incompetent seem to have gone but we have to remember the board can still only work with funds they create themselves through the success of the club or if the investors are willing to put more cash in, if the investors are the same there’s no saying they’re going to do that - particularly Chien Lee. Unless there’s been a change of heart or if there is actually someone new behind the scenes too. A definite step to the good for me, let’s hope it keeps working out for the better. Much happier today than yesterday for sure.
Isn’t the theory that we’ve gone off the rails because we’ve deviated from the data model though? Big money punts like Oulare and Iseka, that were completely off plan? I agree though, can’t all be data driven. Always believed that. But a lot of great signings did come from Cryne’s model.
The stats sheet that identified Hourihane, Scowen, Winnall, Mawson, Roberts, Angus MacDonald, Lindsay, Pinnock, Moore, Morris, Helik, Madds, Brittain, etc. It also identified some players that didn't come off, like Schmidt, Thomas, Frieser and others. But I'd say it's largely been more successful when used than unsuccessful. And rarely does a team get their recruitment to be universally successful (including us over the years).
James was indeed a stats provider on players. But the difference for me was. Experience and age were not ignored.
As OMB states jud. It's the impression I get from the statement. Results on the pitch. The previous season was seen as a failure by Conway. Due to lack of player sales. Worra nob statement that was. It was probably that comment that started turning me against the board. I knew the strategy from day one. And accepted it. We live and learn. (Same with those tha evin to feight with at work. Good luck with that btw.) The latest may not be the end. But I can see light at the end of the tunnel. I know you were more downbeat than me. But hopefully your spirits have been lifted a bit.
That information comes from the Persons With Significant Control (PSC) register on Companies House. The banding is 25% to just below 50%, as a 50% shareholding would put him in the next category (50-75%). I've had to familiarise myself with these categories this week due to a change in shareholding in the company I work for, which requires changes to the register. Significantly, his shareholding within the investment company which owns 100% of BFC was insufficient for him to vote to keep himself on the board of directors. There's no logical reason why he'd allow himself to be removed from it if he had the ability to vote to keep himself on it.
At what? I haven't a clue abart that side of things. Has company house been updated? I have not a scoobydoo.
Until someone can identify to me who now actually owns the shareholdings in the club and in what percentage, such that I can then go on to conclude there has been a positive change occurring here, I am struggling to get excited. The main positive seems to be that Conway doesn't get placed in charge by default to wreak havoc (a.k.a making best transfers) when we have no staff left at the end of any relatively successful season. Otherwise, the fog has yet to clear. And the covenant will still be there when it does......
Would you ‘ordinarily’ be wanting do those things though? Why? He has no say, he’s not a Director, definitely has no vision and there’s no financial dependency. I don’t see any scenario why the new Board would somehow need to pander to him as a shareholder. He has stock, but nothing more than that. As I understand, the worst thing that could happen if he wasn’t happy with Board decisions was two things: sell his shares, and/or exercise his voting rights at AGM. Hopefully he does the former. Brilliant. The latter, meh. Means nothing really. I’d love Archerfield’s view on this though.
Isn’t it just as simple as Conway and co were just running the club for a group of investors, they did a really sh|t job so now they been booted out. ?
My understanding (I'd on my own back been trying to get behind the ownership of the Hong Kong company) is that Chien Lee owned 29.8%. Hence why he is in companies house as owning greater than 25% and less than 50%.
Calling b.ulls.hit on my own post before someone else does. Its >25% and <=50% in that banding. The 2nd paragraph is the relevant info which indicates it's not a 50% shareholding as he'd be able to block a vote to remove him.
thats why I said ‘ordinarily’ - if I was employed by a company and it was 50% owned by someone you are in effect working for them. It would make sense to do things that benefits them and in principal they agree with. I’m hoping here that doesn’t exist and under these circumstances we are actually working with the other shareholders and trying to isolate him.
I believe so Now Julie Quay is representing the majority shareholders shares instead of the previous people who were doing it