Reasons for renewing Vs Reasons for not renewing

What convinces me that this is not the case is the enhanced involvement of Jean Cryne.
Mrs Cryne is a lifelong fan and there is no way that she would allow herself to get involved in that scenario.
If it's kosher for Jean it's kosher for me.

 

On the day Matchday prices when last in league 1 for adults were £25-£28. Barring the family stand. Based on seating area.
My main concern are those on Benefits.
But in a previous thread. I thought for those not. I suggested £20-£25 based on seating area.
£23 today will not buy you what it bought 4yrs ago. And inflation at the mo has far outstretched pay rises. I'd argue people are worse off.
Perhaps paying over the top. players wages would be a target of any club. To reduce costs. Not inflate fan contributions.
We obviously have a different viewpoint mate. I respect your opinion but for now I'll leave it at that.

 

While I agree with you about Jean Crynes motives and connections to the club, the Cryne stakeholding is unaltered. The fact remains we know very very little about the group Quay now represents and little clarity has been offered. I believe it's today that she may be speaking with the media. I very much hope the journos focus on this and try and uncover more about this group given the incredibly delicate balance of power.

I think many of us are in a position of being relieved that Conway in particular seems to have less day to day involvement. What we don't yet know is whether Quay (and who she represents) and Parekh are any better or what may happen if the new board fail to add value to their asset or that the other investors get itchy feet and switch allegiance once more.

 

It will be more awkward to see us live in League 1 as the games aren't covered by the Red Button. If the prices are right that might contribute to more fans attending for their Barnsley fix.

 

We have to massively reduce costs as it is, and player sales will be at the point of that. There will be a want within the fan base to return to the Championship, however difficult that is to do. The more we fill the ground with free to hugely discounted tickets, the less budget we have to do that. And the more fans we have, the higher the variable costs for matchday operations. And given the issue is one of affordability, drinks, programmes, raffles, merchandise aren't going to allow for additional revenue generation from that cohort.

As I said, I've no issue with a couple of games with heavily subsidised tickets for anyone, but the club is also on its knees. Though it professes to be a community club, it's also not a charity.

But lets see what the club does. If we're around £23-25 for a ticket, I think that's fair.

 

There has been a lot of talk around not renewing because of running of the club. I get that. But for me relegation , standard of football. And peoples affordability have been the main driver. Whereas affordability was less of an issue last time we went down.

 

From what we know, the 38.5% is split as Lee 31%, Conway & Hung combined 7.5%.

We know for certain that the shares won't generate a profit at any point in the near future. There are no dividends likely to ever be paid, so the route to profit is an exit strategy based on the valuation of the club increasing. With the best will in the world, we're at least 2 years away from that being a remotely feasible prospect and the only way it happens with certainty is if we were to be promoted to the Premier League.

Sitting in Lee's or Conway's shoes now, what incentive is there to retain my shareholding, particularly when it bars me from a stated ambition of investing in a Scottish club. If I were to receive a fair offer for the shares, based on a current valuation of the company, the best option might be to accept the loss and sell them to pursue other interests.

I sincerely hope this proves to be the case, but in the meantime the extra equity injection looks like a smart way to incrementally dilute their shareholdings.

NB: As far as I'm aware, the only difference between the Class A and Class B shares related to the number of board members who could be appointed by each class. A could appoint 4, B could appoint 1 (this being logical, based on them being issued in a 4:1 ratio originally). The evidence suggests that Class A shares were needed to elect Jean Cryne and JAQ onto the Board, which is good evidence that there's been a favourable shift in voting originating from these shareholders.

 

We aren't as far apart as you may think. Re matchday pricing.
But for the sake of repeating myself. We have I believe done it before. Is reduce as far as is possible eg £15 for those on benefits. Equivalent of season ticket pricing.

 

I could manage £15 a game. However, I wouldn't want to attend every game. I'd be in favour of more cheaper games throughout the season.

 

I hope it proves to be the case too. It's a while since I had fellow shareholders, so this may have changed, but I thought 80% was the point where you could essentially breeze through whatever you wanted. I find it incredible if a simple majority allows a new rights issue without approval from the largest shareholder.

I think as Exile suggested, the balance in the 80% is now wafer thin, so if the Crynes can be overridden in the holding company, it only needs maybe 1 of the 4 investors in the JAQ group to switch allegiances to create another shift in the power dynamic.

Maybe we'll appear in the next series of "Billions"!

 

I think there are efl rules in place as to what you can and cannot do re special offers.

 

Historically, I think the reluctance to reduce matchday pricing has been justified based on this being 'unfair to season ticket holders' who buy upfront to achieve a saving.

Personally, I've always found it to be a spurious argument. However, they could work around it by giving ST holders a discount on next season's ticket, based on any 'lost savings' that arise from changing prices this season. So if 10 games end up being available at £5 less than was envisaged when season tickets were on sale, then existing ST holders get a £50 discount on the advertised prices next season.

I'm in favour of having Oakwell as full of BFC supporters as possible for any game, so incentivising pay on the day tickets has never been an issue for me as a ST holder who supposedly loses out as a consequence of this.

 

I wasn't watching the Red Button towards the end of last season. I'm turning into a just look at the results type of supporter. It would be great to have a few discounted games if the team is playing well to see if it rekindles my interest.

 

The rules will be whatever applies to HK-based companies, so may not be the same as we have in the UK. Definitely not an area in which I can claim any expertise, but the results so far suggest that simple majority voting is effective so far.

Totally agree with you regarding the 'knife-edge' voting situation and the risk that it could change again in future, so there needs to be an element of caution. In particular, I wouldn't wish to see an purchase of Oakwell taking place while there remained a chance of the voting power shifting again.

 

Very much agree re Oakwell. And we could be in a position of frying pan and fire.

We might get a bit more of a taste of what the new board profess today, but it's going to come down to watching events unfurl and seeing each decision as its taken and building up a perception of credibility and competence. To be fair, to be any better than the ConLee run board, a very low bar has been set.

 

The bar is low but the previous board had the benefit of a strong balance sheet. Neerav starts with a negative asset position and likely operating losses of £5m next season based on the previous accounts.

Their actions will largely be driven by the situation they find the club in. I think things will get a lot worse in the short term in order to stabilise the finances of the club.

 

In our favour, there's also no longer the assumption that there will be zero inward investment from the Board members. We've moved from a stated position of no investment to one of '£1m of equity coming, with more available if needed'.

Naturally that brings it's own concerns, particularly if that further investment is in the form of loans, but the increased influence of the Cryne family in the running gives me hope that it would be along the line of how Patrick Cryne financed us, with an expectation of repayment being only on sale/exit or Premier League promotion. That's something I could live with if the liability was due to parties we know to have the club's best interests at heart.

 

I was thinking more in regard to general running, communications and matchday operations to be honest as things they can show immediate improvement in.

I wouldn't be surprised if given the hard choices facing them that some sections of the fan base see things initially in a more negative way as our better players are sacrificed. But needs must and whatever we start with next season is what we start with.

At least we've heard the suggestion additional capital is to be introduced, and that it may not be limited to £1m. It's certainly something of a juxtaposition, investors for profit having to prop up the company they've acquired.

 

I asked Neerav Parekh during the interval at the Forum (because I didn't want to bore the floor with "technical" questions) about the Rights Issue. My first question was "are the rights proportionate to existing shareholdings ?" - Neerav replied "Yes". My second question: "if a shareholder does not take up rights, are they available to the shareholders who do?" - he smiled and replied "Yes".

As I posted after the Forum, this, to me, is a very smart move. The actual amount of £1 million is not necessarily that significant: the point is Lee and Conway are now faced with the choice of putting more money into a club which the other shareholders have voted them out of control or, if they don't, their prospect of regaining control becomes even more remote (because they would have to buy back, from "hostile" - to them, shareholders, even more shares). I believe this is a very clever move by the new Chairman and Board.

 

It seems a very obvious move if you have the money to inject more capital, and obviously has the flipside of partly assisting in stabilising the clubs finances.

What absolutely amazes me, and nods towards my theory of Conway and Lee being carpetbagging chancers... how you can spearhead a takeover and end up in such a position of weakness is just jaw dropping. I mean, it's quite funny given what they've done to the club, but it's just extraordinary that they didn't secure a majority position right from the outset.