If Conway/Hung or even Lee decide to sell their shares, is there any plan for the ST to coordinate efforts by supporters to try to get a stake in the club? Though this of course assumes the existing shareholders wouldn't get first dibs (and exercise the right to buy them).
Not hers in particular. It wasn’t really public knowledge that PMG’s shareholding was made up of such a significant share that Paul Conway was a nominee for.
I think our energies are best placed focusing on the fan-led review and speaking to the new board of directors over time about any opportunities to implement findings quicker than the government timeline.
Were the Supporters Trust aware at all of any aspect of the PMG holding breakdown? or was it just Conway and Hung as leaders of the other "nameless" (2 of whom are now outed as Mr and Mrs Quay) that you knew about? And is it right that Conway and Hung have peeled off from the rest due to unrest amongst the other 5 investors? Is it right that the change (for us) is that the PMG holding has split allowing the remaining former PMG investors (2 we know, 3 we don't) to now hold the balance of power?
Been a long and busy day but I think you’ve made a few assumptions there that go against the official comms from the club and what’s being communicated on here. Our (mine and Gally’s) appearance on Red All Over explains it best, as does the pre to post breakdown posted in the thread. We weren’t aware of any PMG breakdown. It was just PMG. But we’ve got a confirmed breakdown as we stand now which has been posted in this thread from the slides I put together for tonight’s AGM.
well impressed by every post and poster and news on this thread ... let's call these boardmembers 'us' and let's be respectful, friendly and patient.. absolutely loving this....
Thank-you for the information about the current share structure of Barnsley FC Investment Company Ltd. It is very interesting, but at the same time very puzzling. There are a number of questions that spring immediately to mind. I can see why a 7.5% holding was not sufficient to give Conway and Hung a seat on the Barnsley FC Ltd board, but as the largest shareholder, Lee is certainly entitled to a seat on the board. Why has he walked away, leaving others to control the direction of the club, and with it the value of his stake. I can see a need to re-finance Barnsley FC Ltd during next season. How can that happen with so many investors in BFCIC? Whether the re-financing was done through a loan, or an increase in share capital, it would firstly have to be done in BFCIC before BFCIC introduced the new capital in one form or another into BFCL. It just does not make any sense for just one owner to make the re-financing on his own, given the delicate balance of power that the share structure dictates. What has happened in the case between the 80% and the Cryne Family. If the Crynes win, how would BFCL find the money to pay the Crynes, and how would BFCL make the payment without re-financing, which removes the point of BFCL paying the sum to the Crynes in the first place. The logic of the insistence that the club pay the former Cryne loan back to the Crynes on behalf of the 80% was hard enough to follow in the first place, but a refinancing of BFCL in order to make it happen in that way is just mind-boggling. Others seem happy with the revised shareholding and the removal of Conway, but I continue to see a complex ownership structure with no individual able to set a direction for the club on his own. I see problems in raising the additional finances that would be needed to turn the club around quickly, which means that a long stay in the lower leagues is inevitable.
Chien Lee's shares will entitle him to a seat on the board of BFC Investment company. It doesn't automatically entitle him to be on the board of any company that BFC Investment Company owns. The board of BFCIC will decide the board of any subsidiary companies. His place on the board of Barnsley Football Club was voted against by a majority on the BFCIC board. The perils of structuring the businesses this way.
This is where I have got it up to now. Anyone with any additional detail that wants it added (Such as the Board of each company/holding), tag me with confirmed details (not guesses) or shout up, and I will keep it up to date (Of course, if the breakdowns of PMG and JAQ become available I will add the subsequent %). I find this useful, and it may be useful going forwards
Have to agree, that looks a very fragile structure with potentially tiny changes in sentiment having a major impact on future ownership. The Quay (sic) is just that. Can we find out more how that 20% "investor" portion is made up? Is it majority Quay and her husband and who are the other 3 involved and what % do they own, individually and collectively when stripping out the Quays holding? That absolutely needs to be asked at the first possible opportunity. Conway and Lee need just over 11% to come from that block and they are back in the controlling group again. There also seems to be a contradiction in the share listing that was posted previously and that slide. I think it said on the HK register that Lee held 29.8%, where here it says he holds 31.5%. Although nominal, with such a fractured ownership split, that 1.7% variance could actually be critical. Can we just double check with official records which is correct? A 39% holding (taking the BFCST Lee holding figure) of the ownership company is certainly significant, and though they don't hold the majority at this point, they likely have the ability to be a fly in the ointment, though at least for now, are away from daily decision making at the club and communications.
JAQ is the nominee for that investor group. Their votes are as one through her for whatever duration of time they've agreed on that. Is it the four years that Paul Conway had or is it indefinite? Good question to ask, but it isn't a case that some of the investors in the JAQ group could switch their votes in the immediate future. Long term, potentially.
Given they've just orchestrated a coup, clearly there isn't going to be appetite in the short term. We do need to understand that 20% investor make up and if there are limitations on Quay being their representative.
Agree. Just wanted to correct you/clarify just how JAQ's voting rights will work. The risk only comes round again at the time her nominee status expires - I wonder if it even will given the status/stature of her husband as one of the four investors. Imagine that's a closer knit group than originally now, but I'm only guessing there.
Well we know it's likely to be at least four years. Hopefully we'll hear more about the future of some of the shareholders on 27th May.
Do we know for sure she has a time lock on her voting rights, has that been confirmed, or is it just an assumption given Conway was previously given control of that block by proxy for a 4 year period? I'd be very keen to know why it was a 4yr period too. IF (and there are lots of those in here given so little has been officially confirmed so far) Quay and her husband/hedge fund company have a majority of that 20% voting block AND the remainder are known investor clients of her husbands, I wouldn't have suspected they'd need a fixed term as representative. My gut instinct of a hedge fund is I'm not wholly convinced that 20% is their own money and a majority could well be other investors who are still unknown. The other issue is obviously motive. If motives are purely to make money from the 20% investor group and that jars with Parekh and the Crynes over time, we could well see more twists and turns in the future. Hopefully we hear more on the 27th and some of those concerns can be allayed.
We had it confirmed to us by one of the current Board of directors that it's 20% for JAQ as the nominee for her and her husband plus three other investors. That was so we could communicate that update at last night's AGM.
What's the usual time frame? Intuition says that would be a year, which just sounds right, but I base that on absolutely nothing other than that's probably what I'd do, then review it.
