BFC Investment Company

As I understand it, JAQ is the new nominee for that block of shares and therefore controls the voting for them as a single block. In the same way that Conway held the voting rights for the entire block previously as nominee (which will have included the additional 7.5% that PMG owned within it, then JAQ has the sole discretion to control the voting of the 20% block for whatever period her appointment as nominee runs for.

Also, a personal view, based on the video chats with JAQ on the day of the new board's press conference, I would suggest that there's very little chance that JAQ and Conway see eye to eye on much these days, so the alignment that you've outlined looks somewhat unlikely.

 

Do you know if the agreement with the block she represents has primacy over the shareholders agreement? My bigger worry is if one of the "block" wish to dissolve their position and what happens to those shares. I believe the Shareholders Agreement gives first option for apportioning shares on an equal basis across existing shareholders. But we do have the situation where Beane disposed of his full allocation of shares to Parekh. As Exile excellently outlined, just a 1.26% shift could hand over controlling power to PMG and Lee.

I don't think anyone has inferred a swift change. After all, it took nearly 5 years for the balance to take the shift it has. 5 years is a long time in business. And even longer in football!

 

I think the difference is that dissolving their position would be a last resort option for an existing shareholder, and the equal basis allocation would make sense in that circumstance. However, this presumably would only take place if the shareholder had been unable to find a purchaser for those shares in the usual way.

I would imagine that any of the shareholders can buy or sell their individual shares without restriction, should they wish to do so, with Parekh's purchase of Beane's shares being evidence of this.

 

If I get time I'll try and revisit the shareholder agreement and see if there are any specific terms for general share disposal from existing shareholders. Given the comment of new share offering by Parekh, I only really focused on that aspect and what the timescales and process were.

It would also be interesting to have more insight into the transfers from Parekh to Lee. Maybe some agreement to allow Parekh all of Beanes holding on the basis Lee was able to acquire his allocation in batches at a later date. Speculation of course, but still an unaccounted curiosity at this stage.

 

My take is there's no point in worrying about summat over which we have no say and no control. It is what it is and noone can foresee what happens next.
All we can do is to support those who have the club's interests at heart and had the balls and the clout to remove two shysters who had taken our club to the brink of ruin.
I for one think they have earned the right to be trusted to do whatever they can to consolidate their position and get the club back on track.

 

They have a clean slate and will be judged on their actions, as they have requested. It's up them to rectify the mess we're in and rebuild, however long that takes. And we all wish them well and hope they succeed in a manner that befits the club we follow.

Until Lee's holding (and PMG) are diluted, or, they simply concede and walk away, I don't think we should be so naive to think that its all done and dusted. Boardroom dynamics change over time, particular when its about profit.

The last 5 years should have taught us a great deal. I'd hope that even the most desperately naive wouldn't take the lesson to be to put blind faith in newly discovered hedge funds.

 

Surely, with the club having regressed five years along with the prospects of any substantial profits the only likely scenario is for the likes of Lee and the hedgefunders is to pull out rather than strengthen their hand.

 

Small point Councillors aren’t employees they are elected members

 

We'd have to understand the motives of Lee and PMG (and the other shareholders to be honest) and why they keep hoovering up random clubs across Europe.

I've little doubt that if given opportunity, they'd gladly take up the reigns again. Unless they want to clear their holding in us to take a stake in a bigger english club or a scottish one.

 

I think we became a much less attractive part of their plans when Brexit, and the removal of freedom of movement, happened.

 

I'd love to know the improvements that have happened ?
A few more videos from the media team and a open day that was as bad as it's ever been !

 

That is the question. I can't see a sensible reason for their acquisitions. The longer things continue I find it hard to believe they're legitimate.
Hopefully the fact that they currently can't control what goes on here leads to them losing interest. Certainly that goes for Lee and Conway. The hedge fund lot, I'd have thought their sole purpose is to make cash. Given they seem to have taken little to nothing out of player sales I don't get what they came in for in the first place.

 

True. Bad wording on my part, although they do have access to various pots of remuneration. Ahem

 

So would I. On paper things look to have got WORSE since Conman went if that was possible. Shambles of a open day, fire sale of players, relying on freebies, kits late out, no shirt sponsor, announcing we will announce a player tomorrow that is three days overdue etc.

 

On the pitch couldn’t get any worse than last season ,
Looks as though they playing for the shirt up to now so not worse imo

 

I still don't understand why, if the board were so split and Neerav, James, Jean and the New York investors hated each Conway so much for so long (going back over a year to Dane Murphy leaving) why Paul Conway wasn't removed from his position as nominee for the New York investors at the end of his 4 year term. Why was he still running the show a good 6 months after that?

Trump had a 4 year term and after 4 years he was removed. It wasn't 4 years and 6 months (and only after supporter protests) it was after 4 years because that's the term he had.


Hmm ore maybe he WAS removed at the end of his a 4 year term? In whiich case was JAQ in charge of the disastrous January transfer window and ultimate relegation?

 

Appointed a respected British coach instead of poaching someone from the Latvian Third Division, signed British players of the standard required to compete at our new level (involving the coach in the process), dumping the mantra "we won't sign players over 23", injecting a million quid of new capital (not a loan)...

 

Expenses plus those two Councillors might get something extra for being Directors of the company owning the ground shares , but it’s Barnsley council tax payers that own it really , maybe next Council elections there could be a West Stand Bogs candidate in each ward

 

As a million been invested though or has it been. Pledged amber turd style?