Jump to content
IGNORED

BCFC - Change of Constitution


Davefevs

Recommended Posts

From an FFP perspective I don't see how it would change anything- equity ratio, Upper vs Lower limit. We already spend to that level so.

That aside, could mean external investment? Again though that would not increase the £39m cap.

Edit: Kieran Maguire mentions one investor in mind. ?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

From an FFP perspective I don't see how it would change anything- equity ratio, Upper vs Lower limit. We already spend to that level so.

That aside, could mean external investment? Again though that would not increase the £39m cap.

Edit: Kieran Maguire mentions one investor in mind. ?

That nice Mr Musk perhaps ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

From an FFP perspective I don't see how it would change anything- equity ratio, Upper vs Lower limit. We already spend to that level so.

That aside, could mean external investment? Again though that would not increase the £39m cap.

Edit: Kieran Maguire mentions one investor in mind. ?

Mel Morris?:shocking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm whooshing myself a bit here but...

Again doesn't make a difference...equity limits are equity limits- equity does not constitute fresh revenue etc.

Not in the short term, but a spread of the risk on the football side might allow SL to push on with the ground development which in turn will increase revenues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Not in the short term, but a spread of the risk on the football side might allow SL to push on with the ground development which in turn will increase revenues.

Oh yeah for sure, in medium to long term it can definitely help. I was thinking just of the here and now, this summer/coming season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BLRed said:

What does this mean?

Won't know for certain until the docs come through on CH. Although the sharenissue to SL last month suggests these shares are for someone else...

Cheers @Davefevs I saw my alert email from CH but hadn't read it yet.

49 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

I think we need to see the resolution to understand this.

The existing articles of association of Bristol City Football Club Ltd say that there is no limit on Share Capital so it would seem difficult that "Authorised share cap of the company be increased by the creation of shares".

 

bc_sc.png

And it looks like that's exactly what's happened.

Resolutions - Resolution of allotment of securitiesAuthorised share cap of the company be increased by the creation of shares. 31/05/2022.

Note the effective date of this issue of shared is one day prior to SLs capitalisation of debt on 1 June 2022.

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs any acocunting reason why you'd do apossible investment effective on 31 May?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Won't know for certain until the docs come through on CH. Although the sharenissue to SL last month suggests these shares are for someone else...

Cheers @Davefevs I saw my alert email from CH but hadn't read it yet.

And it looks like that's exactly what's happened.

Resolutions - Resolution of allotment of securitiesAuthorised share cap of the company be increased by the creation of shares. 31/05/2022.

Note the effective date of this issue of shared is one day prior to SLs capitalisation of debt on 1 June 2022.

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs any acocunting reason why you'd do apossible investment effective on 31 May?

The only P&S consideration is the commitment to cover losses so that higher threshold (£39m) is applicable rather than lower (£15m)…but other than that no idea, other than housekeeping???

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The only P&S consideration is the commitment to cover losses so that higher threshold (£39m) is applicable rather than lower (£15m)…but other than that no idea, other than housekeeping???

There is presumably a reason. 31 May is a significant date in football and its too specific to be random imo. Shares have been issued on that day for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

I'll add to the conspiracy theories - it makes more sense if it was for Bristol City Holdings Ltd, which has an issued share capital many times the authorised share capital of £10 million 

We may yet see a filing for Holdco as well of course. CH make no promise to upload filings made or update group companies simultaneously.

11 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Perhaps it's linked to Gregor's mystery interview!

This could make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I'll add to the conspiracy theories - it makes more sense if it was for Bristol City Holdings Ltd, which has an issued share capital many times the authorised share capital of £10 million 

It was increased to £15 million by a resolution in November 2008 and then in a filing from December 2008, the adopted Articles of Association again moved to there being no upper limit - as per 4.2 below:

bch_sc.png

Section 2 of the Companies Act 1985 was repealed via the Companies Act 2006 and took effect from October 2009.

Edited by View from the Dolman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

Genuine questions Could we issue shares to top up salary for someone? I presume thats not possible for players but if we wanted someone behind the scenes (head of recruitment for example) would it be allowed? Would that be a FFP work around.

That very much sounds like cheating the system to me 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CyderInACan said:

That very much sounds like cheating the system to me 

It might well be. I know shares are  huge part of recruitment in the tech industry out here, just wondered if that was possible within FFP. You are probably right though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

Genuine questions Could we issue shares to top up salary for someone? I presume thats not possible for players but if we wanted someone behind the scenes (head of recruitment for example) would it be allowed? Would that be a FFP work around.

All wages would be included in the total FFP package save for those excluded for the regular excluded areas- shares would be a form of remuneration surely?

Interesting angle though, maybe not impossible although gaming the system for sure and and doubt it'd be accepted.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

Genuine questions Could we issue shares to top up salary for someone? I presume thats not possible for players but if we wanted someone behind the scenes (head of recruitment for example) would it be allowed? Would that be a FFP work around.

That's it! Every time our new CEO doesn't spunk money on a gratuitous signing and every time he doesn't do a meme interview, he gets a whopping bonus!  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

All wages would be included in the total FFP package save for those excluded for the regular excluded areas- shares would be a form of remuneration surely?

Interesting angle though, maybe not impossible although gaming the system for sure and and doubt it'd be accepted.

Would a ESPP scheme be gaming the system when it is so commonly used? Does FFP restrict this? I would definitely understand if it does, but this is something that defiantly happens in most businesses here. 

I admit this area is not one I know a huge amount about (so I may be sounding really stupid! ?). However if these shares where used in that kind of scheme, would that be a way of tempting high calibre staff without actual financial outlay? technically the employee is buying the shares. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

would that be a way of tempting high calibre staff without actual financial outlay? technically the employee is buying the shares. 

At least the share valuation issues would be easy - Nil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

Would a ESPP scheme be gaming the system when it is so commonly used? Does FFP restrict this? I would definitely understand if it does, but this is something that defiantly happens in most businesses here. 

I can just imagine the conversation: "Yes you ARE having these shares" 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

Would a ESPP scheme be gaming the system when it is so commonly used? Does FFP restrict this? I would definitely understand if it does, but this is something that defiantly happens in most businesses here. 

I admit this area is not one I know a huge amount about (so I may be sounding really stupid! ?). However if these shares where used in that kind of scheme, would that be a way of tempting high calibre staff without actual financial outlay? technically the employee is buying the shares. 

Certainly an interesting concept, one I'd never thought of before.

EFL do have powers though to compel a club to operate within a set budget for the purposes of solvency but also FFP so that could be a way to pull rank on any schemes such as that to get more cash or free things up- presumably they would demand full disclosure etc if doubts arose.

Say for example our FFP headroom allowed us to go for £10m in spending this summer and that was inclusive of £15m in headroom freed up by shares whereas without it we'd have to raise £5m to comply- I assume the budgetary lever might be applied for FFP purposes.

Example- Derby wanted to include the Revaluation Reserve in their accounts in summer 2021 which would have resolved to 2021 but left a major issue probably to 2022...but the EFL said no. I wonder if negotiations between the two were pertaining to that issue as it was only July 19th 2021 that Derby were permitted to sign anyone at all ie "Drop this issue and we will exclude the FA Cup one appearance lot from Professional Standing regs".

It is a genuinely interesting concept but I wonder if this regulation would negate a scheme like that.

Quote

16.20. 1 to require the Club to submit, agree and adhere to a budget which shall include, but not be limited to, Transfer Fees, Compensation Fees, Loan Fees or subsequent payments which become due under the terms of any transfer, players' remuneration and fees payable to any Intermediary; 16.20.

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Thought I read somewhere (in rules,) that staff had to be paid using PAYE?

 

As I said i'm not the most informed in these aread so, I'm not sure why i'm getting further into this! But heyho! I think employers used to be able to withhold PAYE on these schemes, as long as that was reported.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

All wages would be included in the total FFP package save for those excluded for the regular excluded areas- shares would be a form of remuneration surely?

Interesting angle though, maybe not impossible although gaming the system for sure and and doubt it'd be accepted.

Isn't the giving players shares in a business (sports club or another linked to a business the owner is involved with) what caused part of the problem for Saracens Rugby Club. In the Owner invested in business ventures or gave shares to the players in those businesses instead of paying them through the club. To get around their salary cap rules. So I'm sure would be similar within the world of football and the various FFP regs to stop that happening, however this is the EFL so might be a massive wide loophole they've left open. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, cider11 said:

Isn't the giving players shares in a business (sports club or another linked to a business the owner is involved with) what caused part of the problem for Saracens Rugby Club. In the Owner invested in business ventures or gave shares to the players in those businesses instead of paying them through the club. To get around their salary cap rules. So I'm sure would be similar within the world of football and the various FFP regs to stop that happening, however this is the EFL so might be a massive wide loophole they've left open. 

Good point- sounds not dissimilar.

Although I think if we suddenly started spending outside what was expected, loophole or not I could see the EFL utilising the requirement to stick to x budget for FFP purposes- remember they can now impose Business Plans or Monitoring requirements as maybe appropriate ahead of a Projected Breach so pre-emptively to try and prevent...we could try but think it would be clamped down on quite quickly. I doubt it's for this anyway. We are still along with a host of clubs awaiting approval and guidance as to what we can and can't do I expect. Plus see the regulation 16.20 that I posted up the page- they are empowered to impose this for FFP compliance amongst other things where required.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

I can reveal a bit now

 

Ive sold the car and the three piece and am about to become the Clubs new invester

I will have us in the Champions League within 3 years 


 

Any requests , please let me know ??

Can we have a new tannoy system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Won't know for certain until the docs come through on CH. Although the sharenissue to SL last month suggests these shares are for someone else...

Cheers @Davefevs I saw my alert email from CH but hadn't read it yet.

And it looks like that's exactly what's happened.

Resolutions - Resolution of allotment of securitiesAuthorised share cap of the company be increased by the creation of shares. 31/05/2022.

Note the effective date of this issue of shared is one day prior to SLs capitalisation of debt on 1 June 2022.

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs any acocunting reason why you'd do apossible investment effective on 31 May?

Seems a bit aggressive ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The documents are in.

All completely irrelevant to anything other than Holdings putting in the annual slug of cash/loan conversion following an annual slug of cash/loan conversion from Pula Sports etc.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

I can reveal a bit now

 

Ive sold the car and the three piece and am about to become the Clubs new invester

I will have us in the Champions League within 3 years 


 

Any requests , please let me know ??

Can you confirm that an “invester” is a bloke that wears a vest?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hxj said:

The documents are in.

All completely irrelevant to anything other than Holdings putting in the annual slug of cash/loan conversion following an annual slug of cash/loan conversion from Pula Sports etc.

And answers my question as to why it was the day before the June 1 allotment...because it literally created the shares that were going to be allotted.

Nothing exciting at all.

Edited by ExiledAjax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...