Just been looking at the club website under 'Company Details'. That lists 7 parties as having 'significant interest' a term that is defined by the EFL as follows: (source) So 10% or more of shares or voting rights (someone please correct me if I'm reading that wrong) The parties listed are the following: Mr Chien Lee Mr Paul Conway Ms Grace Hung Mr Neerav Parekh Mr Billy Beane Mr Dane Murphy The Cryne Family We have been told, I believe, that the Cryne Family have 20%. That only leaves 80% amongst the other 6 parties, with each party having at least 10%. The reason I bring this up is that I was always led to believe that Mr Lee and Mr Conway were high majority shareholders with the rest being minor, but the most they can realistically hold is 20% each, if the rest have 10%. Is it just me that's surprised by this? Of course I could very well be misunderstanding something.
I could have this wrong but as I read it: Looking at Companies House it does not list Beane as a director, but does list a Dickson Kong Lee (who I assume is Chien son/relative). It also lists Chien as a person of significant control (more than 25% but not more than 50) and BFC Investment Company (more than 75%). What that says to me is all the listed directors are owners of BFC IC and Chien is the largest holder. It also reads to me that Murphy is a Director in name not ownership, like Robert Zuk..
If Dane Murphy is a director it makes him seem more spineless in the matter of the 21 word statement imo.
The share capital of Barnsley Football Club Ltd is owned by Bfc Investment Company Ltd, which is a company registered in Hong Kong. I have tried to look at the information held on the equivalent of Companies House in Hong Kong for that company, but I have not been able to do so. My guess is that the holding company is registered in Honk Kong deliberately in order to prevent access to that detailed information. Chien Lee made a voluntary declaration to Companies House to say that he owns more than 25% but not more than 50% of Barnsley Football Club Ltd. This will be through the shares he owns in Bfc Investment Company Ltd. I have always assumed that he owns 40% of the club, but have no grounds for that assumption.Like you, I understand that the Cryne family still own 20% of the club, but this too will be via Bfc Investment Company Ltd. Company directors are merely members of the board of directors. The title can be honorary, because you have a significant number of shares in the company and because you want to have access to the minutes of the meetings of the board (perhaps once each month) in order to make sure you know what is going on and what major decisions are being taken by the active members of the board. Or it can be that you are a working member of the board and are present at the club every day and are involved in the day to day running of the club. A majority shareholder would expect to be involved in major decision-making and also the setting of the annual budgets/approval of annual accounts. My guess is that only Dane Murphy and Robert Zuk are present at the club every day, but that they keep the rest of the board (and particularly Chien Lee) updated with what is happening at the club.
I doubt it’s set up to deliberately hide who owns it, more likely due to the fact the tax benefits are much better by being registered there.
https://www.mobile-cr.gov.hk/mob/docs_list.do Got as far as this on a search, if anyone wishes to pay to download info
We have a Kong? Was there any benefit to either the club or Mr Lee himself or maybe the accountant for making the voluntary deceleration to Companies House about how much he owned (within a range), or just a case of being more transparent and shouldering more responsibility in terms of public perception, for both good and bad performance.
On that Helen, I was at the meeting ( the fan engagement was the first meeting after the incident) where he admitted things should have been done differently re that statement. He’s not a shareholder that I’m aware of, unless he’s been gifted some shares. He would look to go on the advice of the Director shareholders guessing because of the sensitivity of the acrimonious split. He was very new to the role and as such would not be in a position to go against the board in that situation. He did get on very well with Stendel but was in a catch 22 I suppose, We made it quite clear on the night what we thought of the statement put out and ( I’ll stand corrected) the media team were not consulted or not listened to. If they were or not . (Their views matched that of the fans ) I believe it could have all been avoided. The media team knew the implications of the fallout and the directors should in my eyes have listened to anything they would have/could have said. But to blame Dane for being spineless is a bit ott. He is an employee of the club. And would have to act on behalf of the club not himself. He would have to be very careful what he can put out on such sensitive issues. We as fans have the luxury of speaking our minds in public. If anyone in any role spoke/wrote out of turn re who they worked for and it was out there in the public domain would be treading on serious ground if it was of a serious nature. As a union rep. I am allowed to speak my mind and say what I like in a meeting with literally no threat of comeback, But some employees who I represent I’ve had to pull and tell them to for example. To remove some stuff off social media because they can in fact be disciplined and in extreme cases sacked. I always say I’m not their mother it’s up to them to either listen or ignore my advice.
My guess, and this is no more than a guess, is that he wanted it to be known that he is the major shareholder, but he did not want to reveal any more than that.
Or you don't care what the fans think because you live 6,000 miles away, and you have other people to take the flak.
As an aside to the above discussion, I do not know whether anyone can remember the analysis of the annual accounts that I did last year. I fully intended to do something similar this year, but guess what. One club is late filing... again. Last year Sheffield Wednesday could not work out how they were going to avoid trouble because they had broken the Financial Fair Play rules. They eventually sold their ground to the owners for an inflated sum in order to create a one off profit that put things right. However, they did not begin thinking about solutions early enough, so they had to extend their financial year to 14 months. Their new year end is 31 July, which is out of step with every other club. The year ends of the majority of clubs is 31 May (Barnsley included) with just a few at 30 June. The fact that Sheffield Wednesday have not yet filed their accounts might be quite innocent. Covid19 will be playing havoc with the staffing levels at Sheffield Wednesday, their statutory auditor and at Companies House, but the fact remains they are now 10 days late filing.
As I said, IF he had voting rights, I have no clue if he does or not. I certainly got the impression that the statement hadn't been discussed in detail, no way would it have been written like that if it had.
Appreciate your insight. I too tried to get some info from Hong Kong, I paid about £20 for some documents from their equivalent of companies house at one point a few year ago, but they didn’t particularly say anything. What do you think about the fact that the 7 parties mentioned are listed as having ‘significant interest’, which is defined by the EFL as 10% or more of shares or voting rights (as mentioned in the OP)? If Chien holds 40%, it’s not possible for the others to have >10 each, assuming the Cryne family do indeed hold 20. Unless of course there’s a discrepancy between shares and voting rights. You will know more than me about how likely that is.
Why doesn't it matter to you? Look at Blackpool.and Bury, surely it's good to know how a club is set up?
Companies House list 7 names under officers. They are the 7 Directors and Robert Zuk is listed twice because he is also Company Secretary. Under "Persons with significant control", Companies House list Bfc Investment Trust Ltd, because that company owns the shares in Barnsley Football Club ltd. It also lists Mr Chien Lee because he owns more than 25% but not more than 50% of the shares of Bfc Investment Trust, which in turn owns all the share capital of Barnsley Football Club Ltd. I guess that the EFL definition of significant control has nothing to do with Companies House.
