The Cryne Era's...

They didn’t say that. They said if needed they would look at it. No commitment either way.

 

I stand corrected. Was a lot to remember.

 

The current directors bar one were part of the same ownership group. Unless all the people who did forensic investigation into the structure of the club told lies.

 

.

 

It's interesting how this thread has developed and how some posts have been interpreted and spun. Some of those who have responded, have done so with information gleaned from posters on here and the club itself, (me)
The club is still in a parlous state financially and is making moves to change this, good. The club is attempting to improve and change the playing squad in an affordable way,good. The club has employed a UK coach who has some experience of the level at which the club is at,good.
That's where we are now but let's not forget how we got to this position. Ok

 

If you're a retail business and the customers don't like your offer do you ask them to buy your stock anyway and once it's gone you'll get some better stock in that might appeal to them?

 

It's how it's being financed that is my main issue. I'm not wanting them to be sugar Daddy's. I'm wanting them to admit they've been wrong (which they've done). However, they aren't in my opinion atoning for their own financial errors and decisions.

 

They had to put the one million in to keep us afloat ! No other reason for it

 

I wish that would happen as well Ponty, the loathsome duo Conway & Lee have got such a lot to answer for here.
But no, Im sure they will just carry on doing what they do 'best' at their many other clubs. And they won't ever have to take responsibility for it. They are a disgrace!.

 

Neerav and the Crynes were minority shareholders, their objections would have been outvoted. Perhaps the investment group headed by JAQ bears responsibility for initially putting Conway in charge, but it seems weird that you've decided to name the Crynes specifically. What a strange agenda.

 

The Cryne family’s involvement, and Jeans endorsement of Neeravs intentions, is the main reason I have faith in the new board. We know very little about the other shareholders but the Cryne family have always had the clubs best interests in mind.

 

Off topic a bit, can anyone explain to me how equity investment works? So the new board invested 1m, does that mean they all personally contribute their shareholding equivalent in return for more shares?

Example: the board vote in favour of investing 1m. Neerav owns *20% so he pays 200k, the Crynes 20% so they put in their 200k etc. Does that mean Lee/Conway were forced to pay their shareholding equivalent (*32%/8%). And if they refused to pay they lose shares? I’ve no idea how it works. But if Lee/Conway we’re forced to put in I’d have liked to have been a fly on the wall

*I can’t remember exactly what everyone’s share was so I’ve guessed with those percents

 

SD - I know you’re a real fan.
If you can you should change your stance and get down to the Well - you know it makes sense!

 

This I agree with.
During covid when many of our season ticket holders were furloughed on just 80% of their usual minimum wage pay and worrying daily about whether they'd have a job to go back to our owners asked these penniless supporters to gift the club money in order for it to survive. The message was quite clear too, the owners would not inject any cash to aid it's survival. Not Fat boy, not chien - office above a shop - Lee, not jean, not James, not neerav, not Julie and not any of the other investors. No, the club was tugging on the heart strings and asking hard up fans to donate cash to fund the club's survival instead.

Fat lad and Miami vice I understand. They're pricks without morals. But Jean, James and Neerav claim to be Barnsley fans, as does Julie. Extremely wealthy fans sat with their wallets firmly closed asking hard up fans to donate cash to fund their company.
That's just plain wrong in my opinion.

There are two things to say though. Firstly if their excuse is that they were minority shareholders then that doesn't wash with me. I wasn't even a shareholder but the club would accept my cash injection so why couldn't they have accepted their gift too? The other thing is I wouldn't be surprised to hear 'oh but so and so actually did inject some cash then, it was a lie when we were told they weren't doing so because Conway is a liar. Ok but do these people not have any way of speaking?they all say silent for 4 years while Conway tried destroying the club.


I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now and see how things pan out but you're right on who should fund their failing business. I just think that 2 years ago was far worse than now for that.

 

They wouldn't lose shares, but proportionately their investment would go down as others increased their holdings.

 

If the people who own the club do put 1 million in .
(there is no confirmation that this has happened ,in fact they appeared to say they had put a million in then in another interview the week after that didn't seem to be the case)
i believe you said it dilutes the shareholding ?
does that mean all the shares are worth less, there's just more of them or there's are worth more and chien conways are worth less if they don't contribute.
or it alters it percentage wise there's gets larger conways chien goes down.

what i am getting at, is this a business decision to make there shareholding more valuable.
will putting a million in make it worth more than a million in theory, when and if they decide to sell the club or there percentage

 

At the fans forum when we were introduced to Neerav I'm sure he said up to DM the departing CEO telling him about Conway representing the JAQ mob he wasn't aware they existed he was under the impression it was conways cheins own investment and not the fact they had a 4 year deal in place to represent the others he also said when he invested he'd never met the pair of them
Re the 1 million input not being a loan but buying equity he was asked would Conway and Chein also be contributing...now if I'm not mistaken his answer was on the lines of ..I can't answer for them but there own share value would be devalued if they didn't or words to that effect
I have on audio the full meeting that I recorded on my phone...the trouble is I'm no techno wizard...I've tried to uploaded it to certain places and message it to folk but it says the file is too big to do so ....haven't got a clue how to cut it lol

 

@Deputy Dawg As i understand it the cash raise has been undertaken by a rights issue. That means each shareholder has a right to participate in the issue of new shares.

What a rights issue aims to do is tap existing shareholders for new capital. All things being equal and all rights being taken up by all shareholder the impact is an injection of capital to the business with the shareholding remaining in the same allocation.

The issue arises when some shareholder choose not to take up their rights and that means that other shareholders are, typically, the first to be offered these new shares.

So in short, a rights issue should increase the value of the business by the cash raised. if all shareholders exercise their rights the shareholders remain the same weight. If some shareholders do not wish to take up their rights they will be diluted by the other shareholders increasing their holding.