More money raised.

 

 

3 minutes ago, freds dad said:

More money raised.

 

 

For the layman, to do this, does it need approval by existing shareholders?

Surely it dilutes the significance of existing shares?

 

10 minutes ago, gonzo said:

For the layman, to do this, does it need approval by existing shareholders?

Surely it dilutes the significance of existing shares?

 

I would imagine it is more Swiss Money making FV holding slightly less and the Swiss slightly more.

It is good to have both parties involved

34 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Surely it dilutes the significance of existing shares?

Technically but the value shouldn’t change as it puts more money into the club so existing ordinary shareholders effectively have a smaller slice of a bigger cake.

The advantage of share issue is that it gives the management the operating funds to grow the business even further - so providing the management use it wisely, the ordinary share value could increase even though it’s a smaller overall percentage. The objective is obviously to have a massive cake and ordinary share issues provide the capital to do that.

Doesn’t affect the preferred shares that the owners tend to hold.

Ordinary share issues are for people who are backing/ gambling on the owners to succeed.

 

Edited July 30, 20251 yr by Wanderlust

1 hour ago, Wanderlust said:

Technically but the value shouldn’t change as it puts more money into the club so existing ordinary shareholders effectively have a smaller slice of a bigger cake.

The advantage of share issue is that it gives the management the operating funds to grow the business even further - so providing the management use it wisely, the ordinary share value could increase even though it’s a smaller overall percentage. The objective is obviously to have a massive cake and ordinary share issues provide the capital to do that.

Doesn’t affect the preferred shares that the owners tend to hold.

Ordinary share issues are for people who are backing/ gambling on the owners to succeed.

 

I don't think there are any preferred shares, just A and B.  All are shareholders (part owners of) in Football Ventures. The vast majority of issued shares are A ordinary with voting rights. B shares have been issued as part of renumeration packages e.g. to Ian Evatt, Neil Hart.

The bulk of shares are owned by Sharon Brittan, Michael James, Nick Lucock, the Government, Ian Riley and BMLL ("The Swiss". Agreement between shareholders will be needed to allow the issue of more shares but this can be done by Sharon, Michael and Nick as they own more than half of the shares. 

It's positive that new money is coming in via shares rather than as a loan.

3 hours ago, freds dad said:

More money raised.

 

 

Gets the yacht out of dry dock.

3 hours ago, Wanderlust said:

Technically but the value shouldn’t change as it puts more money into the club so existing ordinary shareholders effectively have a smaller slice of a bigger cake.

The advantage of share issue is that it gives the management the operating funds to grow the business even further - so providing the management use it wisely, the ordinary share value could increase even though it’s a smaller overall percentage. The objective is obviously to have a massive cake and ordinary share issues provide the capital to do that.

Doesn’t affect the preferred shares that the owners tend to hold.

Ordinary share issues are for people who are backing/ gambling on the owners to succeed.

 

We've already had the money for this share issue plus many more to come in the future 

it's been done under an advance subscription agreement 

Basically FV has already  had millions of pounds paid  for the shares in advance without issuing them As the investors have subscribed to buy them in the future

so the cash has been pumped in way before now and then when certain events (triggers) happen then the shares are issued and the balance of the advance payment remaining in the accounts is thus reduced by same amount 

but in reality from a cash in perspective it's a non event as it came in ages ago and is clearly shown in the last accounts 

I'm Bored today as you can see

as you were 

Mate told me that Villa raised cash by selling their women's team to themselves.

Is that legal? Shouldn't we all be able to put on a bid

20 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Mate told me that Villa raised cash by selling their women's team to themselves.

I think Everton have just done the same

Or to the parent company anyway

32 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think Everton have just done the same

And Chelsea.

What happened to all our Bolton shares that people bought in the 90s?

always reminds me of Real Madrid story where they did something like sell their training ground to the government because they were in such debt

they sold it for the amount they needed to pay off debt

then the government said "what are we supposed to do with a training ground? we don't need it, you might as well have it back if you can make use of it"

something like that

1 hour ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think Everton have just done the same

And the women's team are playing at Goodison Park rather than the new one so the men's team will sell them the ground 

Or summat 

45 minutes ago, noxid said:

What happened to all our Bolton shares that people bought in the 90s?

When Eddie took over, I think they were technically bought, but were worth nothing.

Or something along those lines.

A finance expert will be along soon with a more in depth explanation.

5 hours ago, Zico said:

always reminds me of Real Madrid story where they did something like sell their training ground to the government because they were in such debt

they sold it for the amount they needed to pay off debt

then the government said "what are we supposed to do with a training ground? we don't need it, you might as well have it back if you can make use of it"

something like that

The one I heard/read about that, ages ago, was that they sold the training ground to the king for something like 100m, then a month later bought it back for 1m. Who knows what the actual truth is, and there will have been artistic licence used on any tale no doubt, but I'm certain there will truth in them having done something dodgy as fuck 😁

6 hours ago, noxid said:

What happened to all our Bolton shares that people bought in the 90s?

Think my dad had some. 

Mosaic and reverse take overs etc 

1 hour ago, boogs said:

The one I heard/read about that, ages ago, was that they sold the training ground to the king for something like 100m, then a month later bought it back for 1m. Who knows what the actual truth is, and there will have been artistic licence used on any tale no doubt, but I'm certain there will truth in them having done something dodgy as fuck 😁

yeah that's the one, the royal family, not the government

17 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

When Eddie took over, I think they were technically bought, but were worth nothing.

Or something along those lines.

A finance expert will be along soon with a more in depth explanation.

Yes, Eddie put money in that was converted to shares. Eventually he owned most of the company (Burnden Leisure) which meant small shareholdings were worthless. I've a letter from Inland Revenue (20 April 2004) confirming that "shareholdings of less than 1% will be accepted as being of negligible value".  Burnden Leisure wrote to confirm the same stating "following the capital reorganisation of 29 December 2003......"

Football clubs listing on the Stock Exchange rarely turns out well!

NB Anyone want to buy 5,252 Burnden Leisure shares?

18 hours ago, noxid said:

What happened to all our Bolton shares that people bought in the 90s?

We all lost our money and shares

On 30/07/2025 at 13:23, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think Everton have just done the same

£60 million is the rumoured figure.

This is the next Derby and Sheff Wednesday type messing around that will surely come back to bite them

Ebuyer in administration now as well.