Reasons for renewing Vs Reasons for not renewing

Just a curve ball to consider.

Though on one hand, season tickets give a club cash in advance and something to budget and forecast around, they deliver the lowest level of profit.

If we get off to a good start and people begin to return, the club may actually generate better return from those attending on a match by match basis who previously had season tickets.

 

I'd agree with that as success on the field will always increase attendance. But with the cost of living at the mo, lots are going to have to prioritise. Watching Barnsley will be a luxury. That's why I'd champion lower pay on the day prices. I think and will stand corrected those on benefits used to be able to get tickets cheaper.
The 3 month interest free and 10month options. ( bear in mind I don't know the interest charges.) Should help those wanting to attend most if not all games. If affordable.

 

If people just can't afford it, a season ticket isn't going to be that viable either.

It's also difficult for the club. They are in a very dire financial position and are faced with inflationary pressures too given how much energy and travel we'll have to utilise over a calendar year. There isn't much sensible option to make prices super cheap. The less we generate in revenue, the more we have to cull or, lean on the board for capital injection.

 

Question. This view that "Conway and Lee have been kicked off the board", is it really true?

I understand that they have officially unregistered from the board, but my understanding is that they will still influence decisions and the direction of the club through the new representative that is Julie Anne Quay?

I ask this, as I feel it's just a bit of a mirage into making the fans feel like big things have changed. When really it's just a way of Conway and Lee having the same impact but can just send Julie to the board meetings.

 

probably explains the support for Barnsley tbf

“History repeats the same conceits”.

 

if Conway owns shares. He’s not gone though is he. Just not in operational charge.

 

Those with a major shareholding will have a major say.

 

Of the 6 I go with 4 were definitely not and are sticking to that. The other lad waivered a bit after the board changes. I know he’s skint so offered to buy it for him and one for myself to keep him company. Spoke to him again yesterday and he just can’t face it even for free. I could find plenty of other people to sit with but in truth I’m relieved I don’t have to go.

 

match day tickets are different. If you are on a fixed income then you can budget to buy one. If you want to go to a random game you wouldn’t be able to magic up a radon 30 odd quid to see is in L1. You might manage 20. After all 20s Plenty.

 

That's why I finished with, if affordable. I'm not asking the club to make em super cheap. Just cheaper and more so for those who can produce benefits documentation. There are also those who through no fault of their own are just above benefit claims. Any income to the club would be welcome in my view.

 

I'd be surprised if we're charging £30+ in League 1. You never know of course, but I'd be expecting mid £20's if they don't do categories. And just on an inflationary basis, if £20 was plenty a few years ago, we're probably at £23-25 on a like for like basis now.

 

It's a difficult one. And we've also got to consider the additional admin burden on the club who even at championship level are significantly undermanned.

 

Your talking about normal times. These are not normal times and inflation is far exceeding income rises.
Barnsley dropped a clanger during the miners strike. By not making it easier for people to attend. I don't know what the final figure was on lost support. But I know a few who got out of the habit and never returned.
Last seasons category prices for adults were
Category
A £36
B £28
C £23
For benefit claimants I'd reduce those payments to the equivalent of season ticket equivalent matchday price.

 

And the club have just taken an £8m hit, have run out of cash so that the board are having to somehow inject £1m into the club to fulfil the coming season and are facing the same inflationary pressures. We'll be lucky if we aren't skinning the admin operations to cut costs further.

The club has to try and balance encouraging supporters and generating a small surplus. I'd certainly not be averse to a handful of designated games where match day tickets are subsidised, but we need the club to survive, so they have to set ticket prices at a point that isn't counterproductive.

 

You've edited your post after I'd replied, so just picking up on the edit. That was last season. I had a feeling we dropped prices when we were last in league 1, I thought £23-25 was the level depending on whether you bought in advance or not.

I think given everything, £23 for a ticket would be very generous.

 

But when all the others board members club together. Then they do not have a majority share and absolutely no say in anything.
Their choices are three.. keep the shares and hope for a payback when and where. Try to buy out the other shareholders so they can regain control. Or sell there shares to anyone who wants to buy.

 

The renew ,don’t renew question has been done to death.how about those who want to renew do it & those who don’t want to renew don’t & leave it at that.

 

Julie Anne Quay, along with her husband, were two of the shareholders within the PMG grouping who had elected Conway as the nominee for their shares, meaning that he controlled the voting rights for them. Within the PMG shareholding bloc, Conway and Grace Hung's individual shareholding account for only 7.5% control of the shares in BFC, but Conway as nominee controlled the voting for the whole bloc.

Conway has effectively been sacked as the nominee for these shares and JAQ is now the nominee in his place. Her votes are now aligned with those of Parekh and the Crynes, giving them a majority of votes on the board sufficient to control the decision making.

Chien Lee's shareholding was nothing to do with any of the above. He has an individual shareholding of around 31%, but now has no say in the day to day running of the club as, like Conway, he has been voted off the Board.

The easiest way to think of it is to view Conway's and Lee's shareholdings as hostile to anything that the new Board want to do. The problem for them is that they can't outvote the other board members with 38.5% of the voting power. Previously, when Conway was the nominee for all of the PMG shareholding, they had a voting majority on the board, so could override any opposition from the Cryne/Parekh cumulative shareholding.

The announcement that the existing board are adding £1m of equity into the club should, logically, dilute the shareholdings of Lee and Conway in due course. When shares are issued under a rights issue, the existing shareholders have the right to purchase new shares equivalent to their existing shareholding. Should they choose not to do so, then these can be purchased by the other shareholders. To maintain their current percentage shareholding, both Lee and Conway now have to invest capital alongside the other shareholders. Logically, with no effective voice in how the club is run on a day to day basis, there'd be little incentive for them to do so.

EDIT: For clarity, all of the above relates to the shareholdings within BFC Investments Ltd, the Hong Kong registered company which owns 100% of BFC. The shareholding within Barnsley Football Club Limited hasn't changed at all. The changes have arisen due to the changes in voting power within the Hong Kong parent company, as there are effectively two factions within the shareholders. The faction that was previously in opposition has now become the controlling party due to one shareholding bloc effectively switching sides.

 

But the fact is .. unlike before he's no say in anything. But at the end of the day you can only take wants on offer. That is Lee /Conway off the board. Ether back that or don't it's totally up to you But no one has a magic wand to make things perfect in your eyes.

 

I'd be very keen to see what the shareholders agreement states in terms of a new share issue. And in particular, what Exile uncovered about the Crynes shares being B shares and what rights are associated with those.

Given the former ConLee block had a majority, it would prove to be a colossal error if they've allowed new rights issues to be granted from a small majority that overrides Lee's stake. As you rightly say, that could potentially dilute their shareholding. And frankly, if I were part of the new shareholder group, I'd be pushing hard to do that given the very delicate balance of power and the JAQ holding which further splits into what could be faction groups. And given we have no idea who they are and what percentage they have, we could well find another power struggle in time.

If I were Lee, I certainly wouldn't be selling my stake any time soon. 38.5% (ish) holding is sizeable and I'm sure they will still want to generate a profit on that holding.