Possible Takeover on Grove Street ?

[Acido]

What pees me off more than anything here though, is the possibility of yet another fire sale needing to happen January, to help the finances.
All the good work that the players and Duff are doing right now, will be totally ruined and we'll be back to square one yet again. Its an absolute disgrace, and yet some people have the nerve to say Lee and Conway PMG did a good job. 😬

[Shadrack the Red]

What pees me off more than anything here though, is the possibility of yet another fire sale needing to happen January, to help the finances.
All the good work that the players and Duff are doing right now, will be totally ruined and we'll be back to square one yet again. Its an absolute disgrace, and yet some people have the nerve to say Lee and Conway PMG did a good job. 😬

I am not sure that there is any indication of a fire sale in january although there is always a chance that some might move on ,but my understanding is that the meeting the other night was that despite the current gloomy financial situation is that Duff will be backed should he needs to strengthen but I suppose it all depends on where we are in the league & how the squad is regarding injuries etc , we will see .

[Romared]

What pees me off more than anything here though, is the possibility of yet another fire sale needing to happen January, to help the finances.
All the good work that the players and Duff are doing right now, will be totally ruined and we'll be back to square one yet again. Its an absolute disgrace, and yet some people have the nerve to say Lee and Conway PMG did a good job. 😬

weers that got that frum ? Tha gerrin a darkside tuthee , geeor marthing off on theer thuv twigged thi off, ya tooal !! soowin bi Halloween , get that teearshirt wi freetnin face fothi avatar ageeun "scary"

[Acido]

Nope, I din't understand a word of that, summat abaart Halloween I think ?. 😈

[Acido]

I hope so Shad, and like I say its only a possibility that it might happen.
But we all know how this club normally does business, they love selling everybody on who is doing well for a profit, which shows little or no ambition.
😕

[Young_Nudger]

Not true Nudge.

I would prefer to believe what has been legally registered by Barnsley Investment Holdings ( the club) on the Hong Kong Registry that the £1 Million shares sold and registered publically show all the Shareholdings were bought on 22 June 2022 in the first batch of 4 million at 25p each in proportion to existing holdings ie no transfers took place. If Parekh is suggesting the public registration is wrong that is a serious matter.

The second batch of £3.2 million shares have only just been put up for offer and not yet registered,

I haven't "come up" with these numbers. They are a matter of public record.

No I’m not suggesting that you have conjured up these numbers yourself.
I was referring to your efforts to dig deep to find the relevant info.

When it comes to accounts and shares - regarding any company - it’s all smoke and mirrors to me.
I don’t understand them.
That’s probably because I find accounts and shares boring.
I tend to glaze over like Homer Simpson when confronted with them.
So thank God I have a brother that’s a wizard at this sort of thing.

[SBRed48]

No I’m not suggesting that you have conjured up these numbers yourself.
I was referring to your efforts to dig deep to find the relevant info.

.

It's not rocket science Nudge.

The percentage of shares owned is already known from the last legal registration on the Hong Kong Registry.
The shares offered in the first batch totalled £1 million
It was reported on the Registry they were bought in proportion to the percentage already owned. Existing shareholders have first rights to buy up to their existing percentage. They all did.

So, for example, The Investor Group own 20% so what they paid was 20% of £1million which equals £200,000

To purchase their share of the second batch they would need to pay 20% of £3.2 million which is £640,000

And so on. Simply multiply the percentage of shares owned by the amount in money of the value of the shares being offered for sale.

I did not have to "dig deep", Year 6's could do it with a calculator.

[Young_Nudger]

It's not rocket science Nudge.

The percentage of shares owned is already known from the last legal registration on the Hong Kong Registry.
The shares offered in the first batch totalled £1 million
It was reported on the Registry they were bought in proportion to the percentage already owned. Existing shareholders have first rights to buy up to their existing percentage. They all did.

So, for example, The Investor Group own 20% so what they paid was 20% of £1million which equals £200,000

To purchase their share of the second batch they would need to pay 20% of £3.2 million which is £640,000

And so on. Simply multiply the percentage of shares owned by the amount in money of the value of the shares being offered for sale.

I did not have to "dig deep", Year 6's could do it with a calculator.

Yes I understand how you have come to those figures.
So taking onboard what Neerav has said at both of the last two Supporters Trusts meetings ie ‘those directors that didn’t invest, their stake in the club has reduced’.
So I would imagine he was referring to Lee / Conway there.
I don’t know how this works - but Neerav has said this on two separate occasions now.

In other words - as you have shown - there is a way of calculating the individual investment with relation to the percentage of shares held.
But that may not have occurred in practice.
And we have been told that it hasn’t - so where does that sit with the shift in stakeholders within the club?

It would be great to hear that Chien Lee is still interested in the club and is willing to invest his own money.
But reading between the lines that doesn't seem to be the case.

[SBRed48]

As I mentioned before it is illegal to mislead financial markets by posting information that is false on global Registries such as The Hong Kong Registry. I'm sure Parekh would not have done that. So as the declaration on the Registry declares the shares were all taken up as a "rights issue" ie in proportion to existing percentages held then Parekh. or his audience, may have misunderstood something

Contrary to what is said about Lee's shares decreasing the facts shown on the Hong Kong Registry reveal--

---on 11th January 2021 Parekh sold 2.25% of his shares to Chein Lee and

---on 3rd September 2021 Parekh sold a further 1.5% of his shares to Chein Lee

This apparently small movement of shares from Parekh to Lee is important because it took Lee's holding from 27.5% to his present 31.25% and would potentially give Lee a majority holding if he combined with a 20% group such as the Investor Group as together they would hold 51.25%.

It is odd that Parekh is claiming Lee's shares have reduced when he was the very person that sold shares to Lee to increase Lee's percentage.

Summats not reyt darn theear.

[Jules88]

As I mentioned before it is illegal to mislead financial markets by posting information that is false on global Registries such as The Hong Kong Registry. I'm sure Parekh would not have done that. So as the declaration on the Registry declares the shares were all taken up as a "rights issue" ie in proportion to existing percentages held then Parekh. or his audience, may have misunderstood something

Contrary to what is said about Lee's shares decreasing the facts shown on the Hong Kong Registry reveal--

---on 11th January 2021 Parekh sold 2.25% of his shares to Chein Lee and

---on 3rd September 2021 Parekh sold a further 1.5% of his shares to Chein Lee

This apparently small movement of shares from Parekh to Lee is important because it took Lee's holding from 27.5% to his present 31.25% and would potentially give Lee a majority holding if he combined with a 20% group such as the Investor Group as together they would hold 51.25%.

It is odd that Parekh is claiming Lee's shares have reduced when he was the very person that sold shares to Lee to increase Lee's percentage.

Summats not reyt darn theear.

If you aren’t sharing a bed together, why give up your half of the duvet.