You're a bit of a character mate. I'm not sure whether it's your avatar but you remind me of Pete Burns. You spin me right round.
Well technically she represents the investor % but otherwise, they have a majority combined hence the removal of Conway/Lee
people on here should just be more thoughtful thats all. Im sick and tired of being ridiculed and am lashing out. Sorry if I upset you. Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment. Again, apologies if so. I dont mean any offence to anyone whatsoever but I am on alert for it with regards to me,. Best wishes if your reply was well-meant
Yes but there's so far been no confirmation that Quay has any shareholding. I'm questionning whether Parekh, the Crynes and Quay themselves have overall ownership versus Parekh, the Crynes and sufficient of other shareholders such that in total it's more than 50%, which if she was representing them would be sufficient. What happens in the future could well be different in the second scenario.
I was being genuine. I thought the short and simplistic one liner might confirm what you thought you'd read.
She's the nominee for the investment group. The same group Paul Conway was the nominee for. I have no idea if this is true but I'd be surprised if her husband wasn't one of these many investors in that group, and that's her link in to being the nominee and why she has stepped forward.
At the end of the day what does all this mean for the team that will line up next season? How does a change of shareholding help us next season?
Seems feasible. I'd be happier if she personally held shares such that between her and Parekh and the Crynes they had a majority shareholding. I guess the likelihood of future changes will therefore depend on the size of her husbands holding (if it is true), and ultimately keeping >50% of shareholders happy.
fifty-fifty is good in this instance. neither party can make big decisions about Oakwell. In fact this is a good setup. A hundred percent ownership by the people of Barnsley would be the ideal... but fifty-fifty gives us some protection from the likes of the conway-types.
There's loads more info to come in the coming days and no doubt once they've spoken to the press. One question from me, is how long is JAQ the nominee? Is it another four years like Paul Conway or is it a different agreement? Would prefer it to be much longer as that protects us better. She essentially does own shares, without actually doing so. But I take your point.
But stops any investment. Oakwell has sat rotting for 20 years. Without investment it will no longer be habitable within a decade or so.
I want to know more about the ‘investors’. Sounds shady. Like those blokes with the masks who fund Squid Game, or The New Founding Fathers of America. I also think there’s now a whole raft of questions that fans have, and with it a huge opportunity to genuinely engage fans and start trying to rebuild some bridges. On a slightly related note, I personally feel the BFCST survey needs doing again….and possibly differently. I think if people had known when it came out, what was coming just days later, it might have had a very different response. Huge opportunity to start rebuilding trust, through direct engagement with fans. Would be an equally huge shame to waste it. I hope that msg is reaching the new Board.
In the same way we all thought Paul Conway owned shares, but didn't. She's at the coal face representing the investment group as their nominee, so acts as a shareholder in terms of her place on the board of directors, but just like Paul Conway the shares are really owned by someone else. Her husband likely being one of them.
In light of this announcement coming much earlier than expected we'll just take the data as of today. Still useful and almost supports why we should be supportive of this change, but still demand updates on what we'll learn from the mistakes made last season.
It wont it’s the same people who owns us which means the plan, the same mistakes and the lack of investment will continue