Anyone know what this bottom bit might mean (Administrator, Administrative Receiver ect.)? -
Would assume that to be the club secretary, so Chris Parkes?
Is Parkes not "just" the football secretary, not the company sec?
It’ll be nothing to do with Chris Parkes.
Bearing in mind that the entity which needs to change hands is Baton 2010 Limited - which owns both the football company and holdings limited, which in turn owns the freehold of The Valley and Sparrows Lane - I’m not sure why you would issue new shares in the football company. It does seem likely to be a debt swap.
As a point of order if Baton owned 100% of the football company, then new shares are issued to a 3rd party, reducing Batons holding to 20%, that would in effect separate the football and property companies?
However we have no evidence they have been issued to a third party at this point. Also have to think how the ex-directors’ loans would play into this, if at all, given the loans are secured on the assets.
The directors only have to agree to it. In real terms the 7 odd million is small fry. I am not sure how company law clashes with the efl rules.
Could a 3rd party invest money, secured against shares, without passing the test? Actually they can because of share issues etc thinking out loud but this could mean many things.
Anyone know what this bottom bit might mean (Administrator, Administrative Receiver ect.)? -
Would assume that to be the club secretary, so Chris Parkes?
Is Parkes not "just" the football secretary, not the company sec?
It’ll be nothing to do with Chris Parkes.
Bearing in mind that the entity which needs to change hands is Baton 2010 Limited - which owns both the football company and holdings limited, which in turn owns the freehold of The Valley and Sparrows Lane - I’m not sure why you would issue new shares in the football company. It does seem likely to be a debt swap.
As a point of order if Baton owned 100% of the football company, then new shares are issued to a 3rd party, reducing Batons holding to 20%, that would in effect separate the football and property companies?
However we have no evidence they have been issued to a third party at this point. Also have to think how the ex-directors’ loans would play into this, if at all, given the loans are secured on the assets.
And all ex-directors loans remain outstanding on the companies house. Not that they need to be dealt with right now. But it does seem to be a tidy up to allow the final process to go through soon.
When you issue shares they are issued for some consideration.
The recipient of the shares will either have: paid cash released a loan that was owed to it by the football company delivered some other asset to the football company (which could be an intangible asset (made up asset) such as goodwill or the right to the EFL license or something
i don’t think that shifting the revaluation reserve to another reserve would need a share issue. You would need directors resolution but that would be all inside the company and would not give rise to consideration being given for the issue of the shares.
Does sound positive for the takeover though as looks like a ore-completion step to the sale and you don’t normally do those u too you have the kid from the regulators.
Could it be that His Sheikness will be buying the shares, so he doesn't have to do the Fit & Proper test?
Any person with significant control has to be approved by the EFL. The way round this is to hide behind family trusts in the BVI, as Kevin Cash did, although it backfired later.
Company ownership is independent of the EFL and they can’t dictate who owns the company, but they can - ultimately - expel a club from the league for not complying with its rules, which wouldn’t be great for the company so amounts to the same thing.
Could it be that His Sheikness will be buying the shares, so he doesn't have to do the Fit & Proper test?
Any person with significant control has to be approved by the EFL. The way round this is to hide behind family trusts in the BVI, as Kevin Cash did, although it backfired later.
Company ownership is independent of the EFL and they can’t dictate who owns the company, but they can - ultimately - expel a club from the league for not complying with its rules, which wouldn’t be great for the company so amounts to the same thing.
But would 80% of the "football company" meet that criteria? Its probably about 30% of Batons booked value?
You can't run fit and proper tests on a share issue, for example? Man United have been floated on many diffrent markets, at different times, and man city sold a big stake to "Chinese investors".
I agree that this doesn't smack as "its happening" but something HAS happened.
Could it be that His Sheikness will be buying the shares, so he doesn't have to do the Fit & Proper test?
Any person with significant control has to be approved by the EFL. The way round this is to hide behind family trusts in the BVI, as Kevin Cash did, although it backfired later.
Company ownership is independent of the EFL and they can’t dictate who owns the company, but they can - ultimately - expel a club from the league for not complying with its rules, which wouldn’t be great for the company so amounts to the same thing.
But would 80% of the "football company" meet that criteria? Its probably about 30% of Batons booked value?
You can't run fit and proper tests on a share issue, for example? Man United have been floated on many diffrent markets, at different times, and man city sold a big stake to "Chinese investors".
I agree that this doesn't smack as "its happening" but something HAS happened.
It’s the football company that holds the membership of the league. If you controlled 80 percent of that it’s you they would be interested in first, because it’s football activities they oversee.
So, for example, it’s got nothing to do with the EFL who owns the freehold of The Valley, as long as the team can fulfil its fixtures.
From what I can make out there were only around 6.5m shares allotted prior to this allocation of these 26+m shares. So gives around 80% of shares to whoever owns them. Can’t see it can be anyone other than Roland who has injected cash for equity otherwise it would amount to a change of club ownership without EFL approval. Assume that RD gets it back on acquisition as an addition to the sale price. It’s a way cash could be provided to back up any committed spending that the new owners have sanctioned but are unable to legally fund before EFL approval. Could be the “strange” idea LB was told about. Might also explain why RD is bitching about the delay, he didn't include a charge for interest as he thought the deal would be closed in a few days.
From what I can make out there were only around 6.5m shares allotted prior to this allocation of these 26+m shares. So gives around 80% of shares to whoever owns them. Can’t see it can be anyone other than Roland who has injected cash for equity otherwise it would amount to a change of club ownership without EFL approval. Assume that RD gets it back on acquisition as an addition to the sale price. It’s a way cash could be provided to back up any committed spending that the new owners have sanctioned but are unable to legally fund before EFL approval. Could be the “strange” idea LB was told about. Might also explain why RD is bitching about the delay, he didn't include a charge for interest as he thought the deal would be closed in a few days.
Have been told that he is worried about paying the December wages, although personally I find it odd that he would expect otherwise since he must have collected the revenue and he employed the staff.
i highly doubt Lee Bowyer would know anything at all about shares or comment about it if he did. The speculation from within is that the “strange” comment related to his contract.
From what I can make out there were only around 6.5m shares allotted prior to this allocation of these 26+m shares. So gives around 80% of shares to whoever owns them. Can’t see it can be anyone other than Roland who has injected cash for equity otherwise it would amount to a change of club ownership without EFL approval. Assume that RD gets it back on acquisition as an addition to the sale price. It’s a way cash could be provided to back up any committed spending that the new owners have sanctioned but are unable to legally fund before EFL approval. Could be the “strange” idea LB was told about. Might also explain why RD is bitching about the delay, he didn't include a charge for interest as he thought the deal would be closed in a few days.
Have been told that he is worried about paying the December wages, although personally I find it odd that he would expect otherwise since he must have collected the revenue and he employed the staff.
i highly doubt Lee Bowyer would know anything at all about shares or comment about it if he did. The speculation from within is that the “strange” comment related to his contract.
Reckon the "strange" comment could also allude to MS and maybe Nimer maybe saying that everything had to start going through them, before the take-over had been completed?
Could it be that His Sheikness will be buying the shares, so he doesn't have to do the Fit & Proper test?
Any person with significant control has to be approved by the EFL. The way round this is to hide behind family trusts in the BVI, as Kevin Cash did, although it backfired later.
Company ownership is independent of the EFL and they can’t dictate who owns the company, but they can - ultimately - expel a club from the league for not complying with its rules, which wouldn’t be great for the company so amounts to the same thing.
But would 80% of the "football company" meet that criteria? Its probably about 30% of Batons booked value?
You can't run fit and proper tests on a share issue, for example? Man United have been floated on many diffrent markets, at different times, and man city sold a big stake to "Chinese investors".
I agree that this doesn't smack as "its happening" but something HAS happened.
It’s the football company that holds the membership of the league. If you controlled 80 percent of that it’s you they would be interested in first, because it’s football activities they oversee.
So, for example, it’s got nothing to do with the EFL who owns the freehold of The Valley, as long as the team can fulfil its fixtures.
Is it or is it actually Baton? Symantics but legally a big difference
Looks to me like Roland converting his loans to equity for whatever reason - presumably to smooth the sale.
So what the former CFO told the fans forum about loans being 'quasi-equity' may actually turn out to be correct.
I don’t know whether shariah finance plays into this. The prohibition of interest bearing loans may require Roland to convert the debt to equity to avoid the appearance of repaying debt plus interest as part of the transaction.
Or or they could just be structuring this in a way that is tax efficient for one or both parties.
Could it be that His Sheikness will be buying the shares, so he doesn't have to do the Fit & Proper test?
Any person with significant control has to be approved by the EFL. The way round this is to hide behind family trusts in the BVI, as Kevin Cash did, although it backfired later.
Company ownership is independent of the EFL and they can’t dictate who owns the company, but they can - ultimately - expel a club from the league for not complying with its rules, which wouldn’t be great for the company so amounts to the same thing.
But would 80% of the "football company" meet that criteria? Its probably about 30% of Batons booked value?
You can't run fit and proper tests on a share issue, for example? Man United have been floated on many diffrent markets, at different times, and man city sold a big stake to "Chinese investors".
I agree that this doesn't smack as "its happening" but something HAS happened.
It’s the football company that holds the membership of the league. If you controlled 80 percent of that it’s you they would be interested in first, because it’s football activities they oversee.
So, for example, it’s got nothing to do with the EFL who owns the freehold of The Valley, as long as the team can fulfil its fixtures.
Is it or is it actually Baton? Symantics but legally a big difference
Baton owns everything the football company owns, but it would seem to be nonsense for it to hold the membership outside the football company as it does not trade except through its subsidiaries. There is also the fact that the football company pre-existed Baton and its predecessor (the plc).
Anyone got any concrete updates from the EFL? Didnt someone here used to have a pal working there?
That was Addickted, however the guy no longer works for the EFL.......unfortunately.
OMG, our double agent was discovered, I hope his/her end was swift and not made to suffer. "You will be taken to the New Den and not be offered a blindfold."
Let is be clear, there is a potential chairman who used to be a football agent and has, as one might expect, decent PR skills and a desire to do well for himself financially.
The primary investment vehicle is run by the man who runs the private family office of one of the six ruling families of an oil state. His job is to diversify the oil money into long term investments that are successful reputationally and financially.
I’m sure he may have had some failures along the way but I am also sure he is not where he is by having failed often.
Let’s just hope we get rid of Duchatelet soon and then if there are issues with the new plans, let us engage with the new owners at an appropriate time with any concerns.
I would not expect any regime to be perfect. Anyone who does probably needs to visit their doctor.
At the end of the day why would ANYONE buy a Championship football club, a division where clubs make horrible losses?
There are a TINY number of owners who happen to be be fabulously rich AND genuinely support the club, but the rest of the them are doing it for more complicated motives, whether ego, personal or national prestige, politics, the desire to tap the PL money bucket etc. That is the reality of modern day football, and unless you can find a local billionaire who stood on the Covered End in his youth, the only likely option for a new owner.
I came pretty close on a couple of occasions..............but sadly no cigar!
Those of you not familiar with Dippenhall's ability to analyse and interpret a balance sheet, cast your minds back over the last 3 to 4 years when IIRC he did a very thorough job on the annual accounts produced by the regime. Not that others views should be dismissed but his take on the movement in share capital is certainly credible.
- How shared are made and how they generate instant cash? - Are they literally introduced to the stock market and bought up straight away? - How clubs / companies (Man U) can be "refloated" on the markets time and again?
I'm sure it ain't just me on here who don't understand all this
Comments
Could a 3rd party invest money, secured against shares, without passing the test? Actually they can because of share issues etc thinking out loud but this could mean many things.
When you issue shares they are issued for some consideration.
paid cash
released a loan that was owed to it by the football company
delivered some other asset to the football company (which could be an intangible asset (made up asset) such as goodwill or the right to the EFL license or something
i don’t think that shifting the revaluation reserve to another reserve would need a share issue. You would need directors resolution but that would be all inside the company and would not give rise to consideration being given for the issue of the shares.
Does sound positive for the takeover though as looks like a ore-completion step to the sale and you don’t normally do those u too you have the kid from the regulators.
Company ownership is independent of the EFL and they can’t dictate who owns the company, but they can - ultimately - expel a club from the league for not complying with its rules, which wouldn’t be great for the company so amounts to the same thing.
You can't run fit and proper tests on a share issue, for example? Man United have been floated on many diffrent markets, at different times, and man city sold a big stake to "Chinese investors".
I agree that this doesn't smack as "its happening" but something HAS happened.
So, for example, it’s got nothing to do with the EFL who owns the freehold of The Valley, as long as the team can fulfil its fixtures.
Assume that RD gets it back on acquisition as an addition to the sale price.
It’s a way cash could be provided to back up any committed spending that the new owners have sanctioned but are unable to legally fund before EFL approval.
Could be the “strange” idea LB was told about. Might also explain why RD is bitching about the delay, he didn't include a charge for interest as he thought the deal would be closed in a few days.
i highly doubt Lee Bowyer would know anything at all about shares or comment about it if he did. The speculation from within is that the “strange” comment related to his contract.
So what the former CFO told the fans forum about loans being 'quasi-equity' may actually turn out to be correct.
Or or they could just be structuring this in a way that is tax efficient for one or both parties.
realist : jiggery pokery and a step towards a likely sale
pessimist : they’re at it cooking the books already , it stinks
70%
10%
It's the Royal mail's fault !
- How shared are made and how they generate instant cash?
- Are they literally introduced to the stock market and bought up straight away?
- How clubs / companies (Man U) can be "refloated" on the markets time and again?
I'm sure it ain't just me on here who don't understand all this