BFC - Owners put in more cash

My understanding is that the board has taken the decision to issue new shares to raise money and those shares are offered to existing shareholders at the existing percentages first. So if you have for example 10 shares (to make it simple) shared equally between 5 people at 2 each and you create 10 more to raise money and decide a price, each of those 5 people have the option to purchase 2 shares first. if any of them decline one of the others can then buy the new shares. so if Shareholder 1 declines and shareholder 2 buys them instead but everyone else buys their own allocation of “new” shares, the shareholdings would be 2, 6, 4, 4, 4.
If none of the existing shareholders want to buy any declined shares i guess at that point they would look for external investors.

 

A sum of £292k would be a figure close to what I’d imagine would be the player bonuses for reaching the play offs.

Which would make sense to cover a one-off operating cost.

I don’t think we’ll lose money this time from the play offs, but it still goes to show that they’re only financially any good if you actually win them and go up. The EFL just take too big of a slice.

 

The bit I don't understand is that say for example me, you and marc put all our together to start a business. You and Marc are rich buggers and I'm not so I put in my entire life savings to own 1/3 of the business, you two put the same amount in to own 1/3 each too. That means we all have 33 shares out of a 100 share company (ok so one has 34).

Then as you two own the majority you suddenly announce that you are issuing another 100,000 shares tomorrow at a quid a share. I can't afford to buy any more because I've put all my money in but you two rich sods can you buy 50,000 each.

Suddenly one day after we all started the company Ive gone from owning 33% of the company to only owning 0.03% because you've deliberately devalued my shares to force me out.

Is that how it can actually work because it sounds like what bfc are doing (not for dodgy reasons though) but seems like it could be wrong on so many levels.

 

Doesn’t it depend on who is the person with significant control?

In your scenario nobody has so the other person unless he agrees to it would either need to be bought out of his shares or agrees to the dilution.

 

Apologies, I should have said that the figure of £292,596 seems to be the unsubscribed balance of the 3rd March share issue - see post number 6 in this thread where £2,107,404 was allotted. The two figures added come to £2,400,000. This most recent issue looks like Neerav, JAQ and the Crynes, principally, mopping up the shares that weren't taken in March.

The small £6,300 invested by PMG in this latest round is a bit odd given that they didn't fully subscribe in March but rest assured that when you take the two issues together Neerav, JAQ and the Crynes have increased their overall percentages and Chien Lee's and PMG's have reduced.

Apologies again - it was late and I'm still recovering from the traumas, both self and Robinson inflicted from earlier in the week!

 

I believe it all depends on the shareholding agreements etc. so there's no exact answer. Sometimes shareholders will have agreements to say they can't be diluted etc. and sometimes it takes unanimous decision to create new shares.

I'm no expert, this is just what I've picked up over the years and could be very wrong.

 

Chien Chien Chien

 

I'm no expert.
But if you buy a vintage car between a few of you. (To invest in) It has to be maintained or it goes to the scrappers. If you dont contribute to maintaining it and the others do. To keep it going or raise the value. your % investment will be lowered.

25% each initially for 4 with a total of 100k investment £25k each 1/4 each

Another £100k to keep it going .
You Don't contribute. But the others contribute another £33.3k each.
£25k of a total outlay of £200k = 1/8th
200 ÷ 8
Means you have now. a share of 12.5% of the asset.

The others would have a stake of (87.5% ÷3) 29.167% each.

Probably got it wrong as im sure other factors need to be put into consideration. if so, I'm sure we have able accountants on here to put it in layman's terms.

Hope that makes sense. It's how I look at it.

Lee. Conman and Pmg. Etc owned more than 50% of the shares originally until some were sold to neerav and others. So had control as they got together to call the shots.
Once neerav and the others got their heads together and got hold of/owned more than 50% of the shares. They are now in control.
That could all change if lee got one or two of the new board to join him. As I see it. But i think highly unlikely as it doesn't seem he'd be welcomed after the upheaval.

 

Has he gone yet? I'm just glad his share is getting less and less