Who actually owns Barnsley Football club?

Oakwell Holdings is the original owner of the shares of Barnsley Fotball Club (2002) Ltd. My original report may have said BFC Holdings, but I am Old and I get confused.

 

Can’t see how James owns 20% in the investment company as he owns a separate company with Jean that has shares in the club.
My understanding is the investment firm owns 80% & is made up by the newcomers and 20% by other firm which is owned by Crynes

 

The accounts set me thinking today. Purely supposition but it looks like the deal was the existing loan paid back and £4m for 80% ownership. The £4m structured £1m within 12 months and a further £3m after that. Do you see it as that?

Seems a very cheap purchase but validated by the £2m value placed on the 20% holding.

 

It would be good to know what percentage of the club each board member owns. I assume at least 51% ownership of the club had to want Stendel gone.

 

Oakwell holdings was the business that owned Barnsley Football Club. The sale to BFC investment Company of the Share capital of Barnsley Football Club resulted in cash and a 20% holding in BFC investment Company sitting on the balance sheet of Oakwell Holdings.

This is how James continues to have a holding in Barnsley Football Club through Oakwell holdings' investment in BFC investment Company.

 

Think that would depend on circumstances of parting of ways.
I can th No of two scenarios,
1) Shareholders have a chat and decide he has to go which would include a majority vote if needed.
2) There was a meeting that got out of hand and person there took decision on cuff(in theory the other members could override afterwards but unlikely).
My own suspicion based on no fact and only what has been posted is it was more like the second.

 

It is complicated by the amount of cash in Oakwell Holdings, which I cannot explain. However, if the shares held by Oakwell Holdings are valued at £2m, and that represents 20%, then the logic is that the other 80% is valued at £8m. That is, Barnsley Football Club (2002) ltd was sold for £10m. My reading of the £4m still owed is that the new owners paid £4m down and £1m per year for 4 years. However, the whole thing is complicated by the amount of cash (over £7m) which seems to have come from nowhere.

 

Chien Lee is the majority share holder. He owns between 25% and 49%.

 

I think it’s a front for ISIS and North Korea who are using the sale of players to fund a space mission to take over Uranus

 

M

Agree, but if you think the loans in to BFC have been converted to share capital (loan effectively written off) would explain the cash amount that has found its way in to Oakwell holdings. Purely supposition but a value of £10m would equate to £4m plus a debt adjustment of £6m.

 

Getting 'old' is no excuse for getting 'confused' - Get a Grip lad!

 

When I thought about it before, I could not make it work, but you could be right. They could have mutually agreed to convert the loan to Share Premium, but BFC Holding could have paid cash to Oakwell Holdings. If so, it is a very strange way to go about it, because in order to get cash out of Oakwell Holdings Ltd, tax would have to be paid on any dividends paid to the current share holders of that company. If the loan was simply repaid to Patrick Cryne, there is no tax. It is simply the repayment of a loan. It just does not seem right to me.

 

agree but...

Oakwell holdings also has a creditor broadly equal to the loan value (£6.288m) payable to the directors. Given that this is structured as a loan would accord with my thinking.

 

The lack of information on the cause of the 'seperation' of DS from the club has only served to alienate and anger the fans. Nobody knows the was on why and that has led to suspicion and rumours based on assumptions and conclusions founded on a lack of communication. The board only have themselves to blame and goodwill between themselves and the fans has transformed into suspicion on finances and the boards long term ambitons for the club.

 

Does that not suggest that the creditor is in respect of a loan made by a director to Oakwell Holdings Ltd.

The only way that I can get this to work with the few figures we have got is this.

BFC Holdings paid £7m to Oakwell Holdings Ltd for Barnsley Football Club 2002 Ltd. That purchase price was made as follows:

Cash Deposit £1m
Debtor Payable within 1 year £1m
Debtor payable within more than 1 year £3m
Shares in BFC Holdings Ltd £2m (held in the name of Oakwell Holdings Ltd)
Total purchase price £7m

NB. This would mean that the selling price roughly covered Patrick Cryne's outstanding loan balance.

This sum fits in with the profit for the period covered by the Financial Statement (closing balance £6.5m plus debit balance brought forward -£0.5m)

The creditor for money owed to the directors of Oakwell Holdings £6.3m, is actually cash introduced into the company by the Cryne family. At the date of the accounts, it sits in the bank account with the £1m deposit paid by BFC Holdings Ltd (Total £7.4m).

If these are the figures, it means that the facts would fit with the story in the accounts. Of course, the £2m investment by the Cryne family is more than 20% of the £7m currently accounted for by payments by BFC Holdings Ltd to Oakwell Holdings Ltd. I am assuming the balance of £3m has been contributed by the other shareholders and that it currently sits in a bank account in the name of BFC Holdings Ltd, in Hong Kong along with the £4m still owed to Oakwell Holdings in respect of the purchase of Barnsley Football Club 2002 Ltd. This gives that company a limited working capital. If any more working capital is needed, if for example BFC Holdings wanted to fund the purchase of the ground by Barnsley Football Club 2002 Ltd, it would not have sufficient cash (the ground would cost at least £6m). In that case, it would have to raise more cash in the same proportions as current share capital. I presume that this is why cash is being held in the bank account of Oakwell Holdings Ltd, to cover the 20% share of any call that would have to be raised by the Cryne Family.

This explanation fits all the facts that we currently have. It does not mean that it is correct, but it does mean that I have a headache.

 

I spent a few quid but could only ascertain directors, no accounts or shareholding listed.

 

I don't know the validity of the website, author or the accuracy of the analysis, but a decent read. I think something similar was posted a few months ago on Twitter.

http://financialfootballnews.com/barnsley-2018-finances-relegated-but-ready/