BFC - Owners put in more cash

Just to round this off and link back to the £6.3m (£6,307,500) in your original post @Archerfield the breakdown of this cash put in in the last year has been as follows:-

£2,026,600 - Neerav

£1,864,500 - Chien

£400,400 - PMG

£368,500 - JAQ

£1,320,000 - Crynes

£327,500 - Former Shareholders (assuming Samuelson is now 'former')

So, yes, you'd have to say that since the change to the current Board there's been a distinctly improved approach with Neerav in particular also stepping up to the plate financially. He's also paid whatever he paid to acquire the shares of two of the three former shareholders on top of the above too - I have no idea what he actually paid but at face value Samuelson and Schreiber's holdings were £1.7m.

 

Not be popular on here I know but fair play to Chien for putting significant monies in still.

 

I have no clue and that remains the elusive question from day one

 

Im not sure Conway/Chien have much choice, from my understanding the new board make the decision to invest and the other none board share holders either have to match that investment to keep the same percentage share or they choose not to invest and their share of the club reduces, which means they’ll get less money if the club is ever sold again. All they’ve done is protect their initial investment, they’ve not done it because they want to help. The new board made the decision to invest because we were losing too much money, Conway and co never did that when they controlled the club.

 

Chien just put nearly £2 million in the last year into a club that he’s vilified at by most supporters supposedly forced off the board and no one can see where he’s gonna make a return.
How’s he protecting his original investment by throwing another £2 million at it?

The easy option was for him to say no and cut his losses.

 

Easy option yes. Wise option… far from it

 

Chien being forced to find another near 2 million is amusing.

 

I don't think Chien Lee has ever been the bogeyman and has been falsely vilified through close association with Conway.

 

Fair comment this. He never says much anyway, so it’s hard to know where he stands.

But if he still stumps up the cash when needed, then fair enough so far.

 

My understanding is that If he doesn’t match the investment his share reduces, so by matching the investment he has protected his original percentage of ownership, I’m no expert so could be wrong (?)

it wasn’t his choice to invest, the new board made that decision, his only choice was either to protect his percentage (by investing) or reduce it (and lose percentage of ownership)

 

Nobody is disputing by putting more money in he is protecting his equity but he still made that choice.

Protecting equity doesn’t necessarily mean protecting your investment though, it should but if you’re chasing a negative all the time you’re just loosing more money.

Like I said before he could have gone, I’m hated here, can’t see where I’m gonna get a return worth the effort. Time to chalk it off and move on.

 

I agree. The easiest way to look at a share issue is in terms of a cake. If you started out with a piece of cake that amounted to a third of the total cake, you have a piece of cake of a given size. If there is an equity issue, this is similar to somebody increasing the size of the cake. If you don't increase your shareholding, you still have a piece of cake of the same size you started with so you haven't "lost" anything except that the cake you hold is now less in relation to the overall size of the cake. Of interest, depending on the articles of association, most companies will have to allow existing shareholders to buy sufficient extra shares to maintain their percentage holding. Don't know if that's the case here. If so it indicates Chien is prepared to not invest further and see his control diminish. It might indicate that others want this to happen and are effectively saying to him "put up or shut up". They may want to take control (which they effectively have) to take the club forward, which to me is the cherry on top (of the cake)

 

I still genuinely don't know why the owners are here. I can only assume they were conned by Conway into thinking it was a good investment in the first place when we could all have told them it was a very long shot bet.
I think Neerav and JAQ have developed a bit of an affection for the club otherwise I can't understand why they haven't cut their losses. If they have, thank god because we'd be up the creek otherwise.
If we do manage to get back up I wonder if they might then decide to cash in their chips.
Who knows?!

 

I don't think these type of people operate on sentimental though, Churston. That's why I asked what their aims and intentions are - are we still operating to those outlined by Conway in 2017?

 

I don't think they started that way, Orsen. But when you look at JAQ for example, getting involved in the women's team...there's no money in that. She must have flown over from the states six or seven times in the last twelve months which is about six or seven times more than Chien Lee. There's no reason for that if all she's interested in is the bottom line.
I think there is a sense of affiliation on their part. How deep it goes though is the question.

 

I’m with you if it was me I’d have sold up and moved on ages ago. He clearly thinks it’s worth keeping a large share, who knows what his intentions are

 

Great analogy and now I’m hungry

 

Details of a relatively small value new share issue in BFC Investment Company Ltd have just become available on the Hong Kong Companies Registry site.

According to the paperwork submitted the issue was made on 3rd May 2023 and consisted of 2,878,475 'A' shares and 778,975 'B' (Cryne) shares each valued, as in the last issue in March, at 8p each. This raised £292,596.

The shareholders to subscribe were Neerav (via his company Abhajay) who took 1,969,487 (53.85%) of these new shares, JAQ (via the company Jamakepe) who took 830,238 (22.70%), Pacific Media Group who took just 78,750 (2.15%) and the Crynes (Oakwell Holdings) who took the 778,975 'B' shares (21.30%).

In cash terms this new May money has come from Neerav £157,559, JAQ £66,419, PMG £6,300 and the Crynes £62,318.

I don't want to create unnecessary speculation ahead of any facts but the absence of Chien Lee from this issue and a reduced take-up by Pacific Media Group in relation to their original percentage would seem to add further to the likelihood of a combination of Neerav and JAQ having further increased their stakes and a couple of the original stakeholders having departed