Football Ventures

[DirtySanchez]

15 hours ago, stevieb said:

Eating biscuits. 

Whilst decorating 

[TrickyTrotter]

£6m worth of new shares issued.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11761052/filing-history

 

 

[gonzo]

5 minutes ago, TrickyTrotter said:

£6m worth of new shares issued.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11761052/filing-history

 

 

What does Phil Shortland, Ian Firth and Martin Howells say about this?

 

[Traf]

47 minutes ago, gonzo said:

What does Phil Shortland, Ian Firth and Martin Howells say about this?

 

Unable to speak for the froth forming.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

What exactly do these new shares actually mean?

Someone putting money in for a percentage of the company means that other investors then have a smaller percentage. 

Do therefore, new share issues have to be agreed by all current investors, or is it just the board that decides?

Do the new investors have to be named too?

[TrickyTrotter]

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

What exactly do these new shares actually mean?

Someone putting money in for a percentage of the company means that other investors then have a smaller percentage. 

Do therefore, new share issues have to be agreed by all current investors, or is it just the board that decides?

Do the new investors have to be named too?

I’m no expert so happy to be corrected, but new shares could mean someone has put new money in for a stake or an existing loan could be converted into shares and the debt wiped out. No doubt other reasons as well.

Think you only have to name the shareholders in your annual confirmation statement. The last one was in Jan 23 so is out of date.

 

 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

29 minutes ago, TrickyTrotter said:

I’m no expert so happy to be corrected, but new shares could mean someone has put new money in for a stake or an existing loan could be converted into shares and the debt wiped out. No doubt other reasons as well.

Think you only have to name the shareholders in your annual confirmation statement. The last one was in Jan 23 so is out of date.

 

 

 

Aye, my question was more about the process: who decides if new shares can be issued, and are there legal checks to ensure all is above board?

[Casino]

Id expect the type of share is relevant

Surely you cant just keep issuing more shares as that gb bank thing wouldnt be chuffed at their percentage being diluted

Im fairly sure evatts shares arent of equal standing to those MJ and SB had at the outset

[Mounts Kipper]

3rd year on the bounce new shares and money raised at this time of year. Usually Nick Luccock involved as front for Swiss investors. 

[TrickyTrotter]

There’s two types of shares in FV. 
 

Type A have full rights, Type B no voting or dividend rights. IE and NH have Type B.

New shares are Type A. 
 

The issuance of shares is down to the Articles of Association, as Shazza has the biggest share, she’ll have the biggest vote. GB bank will have little say in it.

[Casino]

2 hours ago, TrickyTrotter said:

 

The issuance of shares is down to the Articles of Association, as Shazza has the biggest share, she’ll have the biggest vote. GB bank will have little say in it.

so we could issue more and more additional shares, to further dilute the 'govt' holding

seems dodgy?

[bwfc2003]

1 minute ago, Casino said:

so we could issue more and more additional shares, to further dilute the 'govt' holding

seems dodgy?

Mu understanding of share issue - which is very limited - is that existing shareholders have to be offered the opportunity of purchasing additional shares to maintain there overall percentage held - or something like that

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 hours ago, Casino said:

so we could issue more and more additional shares, to further dilute the 'govt' holding

seems dodgy?

 

3 hours ago, bwfc2003 said:

Mu understanding of share issue - which is very limited - is that existing shareholders have to be offered the opportunity of purchasing additional shares to maintain there overall percentage held - or something like that

This is what I was getting at.

You would expect current shareholders to have some sort of say.

That said, so long as they value of the shares currently held isn't reduced, then would the percentage holding actually matter? More investment and success on and off the pitch would likely raise share price in the event of a sale.

[masi 51]

How much in total do we know these Swiss investors have ploughed into the club.

Surely each time money is invested FV shares are diluted.....would this be right.

Maybe FV found good investment partners from the outset. They seem happy enough to see FV run the club.....Seems a ideal parnership

[kobeer]

At the time of the bond issue the ownership of Football Ventures was Sharon Brittan 47.3%, James Industrial 16.9%, BMLL Limited 13.6% and FF Nominees (The Government Covid thingy) 6.9%. The balance will be in multiple smaller shareholders. Sharon and Michael James own well over 50% so I persume they can effectively authorise any new issue regardless of the dilution on smaller shareholders. The offer document included accounts for the 6 months to the end of 2022 (which we don't normally see) and there was reference to more conversion of loans to equity. All in all we're arguably in the best financial position we've been for ages.

[Whitesince63]

On 09/11/2023 at 14:05, Tonge moor green jacket said:

 

This is what I was getting at.

You would expect current shareholders to have some sort of say.

That said, so long as they value of the shares currently held isn't reduced, then would the percentage holding actually matter? More investment and success on and off the pitch would likely raise share price in the event of a sale.

It’s the percentage that matters most jacket. The SP will move constantly and more shares dilutes holdings so all holders should be offered the opportunity to buy and retain their percentage irrespective of price.

[Casino]

1 hour ago, Whitesince63 said:

more shares dilutes holdings so all holders should be offered the opportunity to buy and retain their percentage irrespective of price.

are you guessing

if not, should or must be

[dave2980]

27 minutes ago, Casino said:

are you guessing

if not, should or must be

It will depend on the articles of association but generally all shareholders must be treated fairly and given the same opportunities as other shareholders 

[Ani]

The Championship is a funny league. You have the recently relegated clubs who have massive budgets but largely funded by selling 2-3 better players to Premier League clubs so show a transfer surplus. 
Lots of clubs wheel and deal and balance the books.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB2
 

Obviously wages is the big unknown. FV have always made it clear that their plan was get to Championship and then review. Pretty sure whatever they have put in will be more than compensated by the value of the club now compared to the basket case they inherited. 

[paulhanley]

I can't pretend to understand all this share issues stuff much. I just hope it's not all smoke and mirrors and that money is real and debt low. I've been intrigued for some time now about the Swiss group. 

[tomski]

5 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

I can't pretend to understand all this share issues stuff much. I just hope it's not all smoke and mirrors and that money is real and debt low. I've been intrigued for some time now about the Swiss group. 

I sit with you on this Paul. In my lifetime I don’t think we’ve had a good owner. I struggle to see outside of MJ why the rest want a great Bolton, outside of filling their pockets. I hope I’m wrong but the smoke and mirrors doesn’t put me at ease. It’s all great at the mo but I sit nervously 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

24 minutes ago, tomski said:

I sit with you on this Paul. In my lifetime I don’t think we’ve had a good owner. I struggle to see outside of MJ why the rest want a great Bolton, outside of filling their pockets. I hope I’m wrong but the smoke and mirrors doesn’t put me at ease. It’s all great at the mo but I sit nervously 

I'm the opposite. 

A successful business person, who by her own admission fancied having a go at owning a club, but without any direct ties chooses us.

In keeping with her (their) ethics, they operate on a steady, professional basis and have done essentially what they said they would.

Quiet, and respectful of others. If that means other investors' details remain unknown, then so be it. 

Really don't see it as a case of smoke and mirrors. Maybe we're a bit wary after the Kuntersons, but so far the ownership has been very positive.

[nantwichwhite]

8 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I'm the opposite. 

A successful business person, who by her own admission fancied having a go at owning a club, but without any direct ties chooses us.

In keeping with her (their) ethics, they operate on a steady, professional basis and have done essentially what they said they would.

Quiet, and respectful of others. If that means other investors' details remain unknown, then so be it. 

Really don't see it as a case of smoke and mirrors. Maybe we're a bit wary after the Kuntersons, but so far the ownership has been very positive.

 

1 hour ago, paulhanley said:

I can't pretend to understand all this share issues stuff much. I just hope it's not all smoke and mirrors and that money is real and debt low. I've been intrigued for some time now about the Swiss group. 

It is shrouded in mystery. But are they really Swiss or the company/entity based in Switzerland, say for tax purposes? It makes sense that James who is a very successful business man and top fan, with say for example the Home Bargains geezer (complete guess) or the Aussie, or all of them, putting money into the club, incognito and also without the aggravation that goes with the infamy of funding a football club.

It is also a fact to state that all debentures/loans listed on companies house have been paid except for the hotel one which is associated with Michael James. Maybe his ace up his sleeve if it all goes tits up again.

Just guess work I know but ultimately we seem to be well run and in an improving financial state, which is quite the miracle really.

[FrancisFogarty]

I’m with TMGJ on this. FV have been the best thing to happen to this club for years and years.

We’ve all got things that we thought ‘they could have done that better’ or ‘I’d have done this….’ Bits of stuff like they missed a trick not showing up on camera for Vernon Kay’s finish or even the snooker competition at a pinch.

Thing is, it’s all going well, we’re on the up. To be sure there is a ceiling for them and we’ll be looking for more financial  support but at the moment FV are doing a great job.

Apart from fucking about with the buses.

[Ani]

1 hour ago, tomski said:

I sit with you on this Paul. In my lifetime I don’t think we’ve had a good owner. I struggle to see outside of MJ why the rest want a great Bolton, outside of filling their pockets. I hope I’m wrong but the smoke and mirrors doesn’t put me at ease. It’s all great at the mo but I sit nervously 

Do you think your unease is a reflection on anything said or done by FV 

Or

a reflection on the way the club had been run for the years before they landed and stories that come out of other clubs.

I might be wrong but I am in the 'they have been brilliant' camp, of course they have been blips along the way but overall excellent, noticeable Sharon is a lot quieter at the moment.