Different classification of shares - without checking not sure if this level of detail is split out on the published accounts.
Clarets in the black
Re: Clarets in the black
Re: Clarets in the black
Slight error in Mr Maguire's figures - he says transfer fees paid were £8m, when they were actually £11m. £8m was the theoretical book profit.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 11:39 am@KieranMaguire of Price of Football fame looks at the clarets financial results
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 8981610497
Re: Clarets in the black
No, because the £200 is a more or less fictional figure anyway. The value of the club is whatever someone would be willing to pay for it, and that varies over time - a relegation would make the value drop dramatically, for example. Share price and share value is essentially a book figure based on historic figures; it's not much of a guide to future or even present values.
-
- Posts: 4948
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
- Been Liked: 2307 times
- Has Liked: 1033 times
- Location: Ightenhill,Burnley
Re: Clarets in the black
As others have said, it's not as simple as that. As a private limited Company, any transfer or sale of shares can only be done by agreement of the board of directors. Of the 122,478 shares in issue, Mike Garlick,( either personally or through one of his Companies ) owns 60,308, John B. owns 34,544, and Messrs. Crabb, Kilby, Flood, Holt & Nelson each own 4,000 or so. The vast majority of the other 1710 shareholders, have less than 5 shares each.
The Clubs shares are not traded on the Stock Market, so should someone wish to ask to buy 10 shares for £2,000, just to say " I'm a shareholder ", then the directors could happily agree, in the knowledge that it can't be used as a base to build up a holding to try to take over the Company. As to the Club's value, as others have said, it's worth what someone's prepared to pay for it .....
Hope this helps ..
This user liked this post: Mala591
-
- Posts: 2596
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 857 times
- Has Liked: 264 times
Re: Clarets in the black
Generally football clubs don’t pay dividends. In fact, I’m pretty sure that for long time, football league rules didn’t allow it, although it was fairly easy to circumvent the rule by setting up holding companies and such-like.Clarets4me wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:32 pmThere are 1,732 individual shareholders, according to the statement filed at Company's House in December, who hold 122,478 shares between them ...
Glancing at the list of shareholders, a large number are historic, some are long deceased and I suspect current addresses are not held for a sizable number. I've read the price of a share has remained at £200 for a number of years, so if a dividend of £10 a share was paid, it would cost the Club £1,224,780 plus all the admin/postage charges ... the major shareholders don't want it, and it's their " train set " !
Let's not pay any dividends ....
As regards the shares held by most of us fans, it’s been a little debated point amongst us, but the Board pulled a fast one on us a few years ago, when they created a new class of voting shares held only by them, at the same time disenfranchising the rest of us, thus rendering our shares effectively worthless. The most significant impact of this is that, should they at any point decide to sell the club to a wealthy foreigner, “ordinary” shareholders won’t get anything.
Re: Clarets in the black
Burnley FC always paid a dividend under Bob Lord, as already stated on this thread.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:48 pmGenerally football clubs don’t pay dividends. In fact, I’m pretty sure that for long time, football league rules didn’t allow it, although it was fairly easy to circumvent the rule by setting up holding companies and such-like.
As regards the shares held by most of us fans, it’s been a little debated point amongst us, but the Board pulled a fast one on us a few years ago, when they created a new class of voting shares held only by them, at the same time disenfranchising the rest of us, thus rendering our shares effectively worthless. The most significant impact of this is that, should they at any point decide to sell the club to a wealthy foreigner, “ordinary” shareholders won’t get anything.
Why aren't these "new class of shares" mentioned in the company accounts and on the confirmation statement at Companies House? If you're accusing the directors of fraud and misstatement of the accounts, you'd better have proof.
-
- Posts: 2596
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 857 times
- Has Liked: 264 times
Re: Clarets in the black
I’m not accusing anybody of fraud - it’s a matter of fact. All shareholders at the time were notified or the change and had the opportunity to vote on it, but as the board held the vast majority of shares anyway, it was a fait accompli.
-
- Posts: 6889
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1468 times
- Has Liked: 1839 times
Re: Clarets in the black
With all the revenue from tv about to be slashed and the fact that many teams have borrowed on expectations of this money,doesnt that increase our value as a very well run club
If so does this not increase our chances of a takeover by wealthy investors more likely?
If so does this not increase our chances of a takeover by wealthy investors more likely?
Re: Clarets in the black
You do realise what a potential cut in our TV revenue will do ? We will be possibly be looking at around £35m losses.Woodleyclaret wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:48 amWith all the revenue from tv about to be slashed and the fact that many teams have borrowed on expectations of this money,doesnt that increase our value as a very well run club
If so does this not increase our chances of a takeover by wealthy investors more likely?
Would mean wiping out most of our cash at the bank and probably no transfer budget.
The other clubs do have debt yes but often to very rich owners who are happy to subsidise the clubs and not ask for repayment (yet). Look at United for example - they just add it on to the mountain of Glazer debt and pay more interest every year.
Our value would not be increased - in fact most clubs values will have gone down until more certainty and normality returns.
Re: Clarets in the black
Share classification is a pretty complex area. The people who bought these shares will (I’m guessing) have done so for nostalgic / loyalty type reasons.dsr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:18 pmBurnley FC always paid a dividend under Bob Lord, as already stated on this thread.
Why aren't these "new class of shares" mentioned in the company accounts and on the confirmation statement at Companies House? If you're accusing the directors of fraud and misstatement of the accounts, you'd better have proof.
Everything is above board and legal and because there is no market value as such for these shares and they don’t carry any entitlement to ownership of balance sheet or rights to profit (and liability to losses by the way !) they don’t have to be shown in the audited accounts.
-
- Posts: 2596
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
- Been Liked: 857 times
- Has Liked: 264 times
Re: Clarets in the black
I’m sure it was all legal, but the fact is that while shares have voting rights they have a value, and without them, they don’t.
Re: Clarets in the black
Burnley's shares are not complex. Burnley FC Holdings Ltd. has 122,478 shares, which all carry 1 vote, which all share in dividends, and which all share in capital distributions. It is in black and white on Companies House website.TVC15 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:38 amShare classification is a pretty complex area. The people who bought these shares will (I’m guessing) have done so for nostalgic / loyalty type reasons.
Everything is above board and legal and because there is no market value as such for these shares and they don’t carry any entitlement to ownership of balance sheet or rights to profit (and liability to losses by the way !) they don’t have to be shown in the audited accounts.
If, as you are suggesting, it is possible to create a new class of shares that do not appear on public record or in the accounts, while telling absolute lies on the public record about the shares which do exist, then you would be right about share classification being complex. But happily, you're not right. All Burnley's shares are worth the same.
The laws about fraud on the minority shareholders exist for private companies as well as public companies. It would be illegal for the majority shareholders to declare the minority shareholders' shares to be worthless. It has not happened.
And whether a share is shown in the balance sheet or not has nothing to do with its market value. If a company issues a share for £1 then that share is shown in the balance sheet for as long as it exists.
Shares don't carry any liability to losses. That's the point of a limited liability company - the shareholders' liabilities are limited to the value of the share, and if the value of the share is paid up in full (as these are) then there is no further liability.
Re: Clarets in the black
Don't just keep shouting "the records at Companies House are untrue". Come up with some evidence.scouseclaret wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:43 pmI’m sure it was all legal, but the fact is that while shares have voting rights they have a value, and without them, they don’t.
Re: Clarets in the black
I am not suggesting that and I said they had no market value in the same way as listed shares...effectively meaning they have not gone up in value on the back of the clubs recent premier league riches.dsr wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 3:11 pmBurnley's shares are not complex. Burnley FC Holdings Ltd. has 122,478 shares, which all carry 1 vote, which all share in dividends, and which all share in capital distributions. It is in black and white on Companies House website.
If, as you are suggesting, it is possible to create a new class of shares that do not appear on public record or in the accounts, while telling absolute lies on the public record about the shares which do exist, then you would be right about share classification being complex. But happily, you're not right. All Burnley's shares are worth the same.
The laws about fraud on the minority shareholders exist for private companies as well as public companies. It would be illegal for the majority shareholders to declare the minority shareholders' shares to be worthless. It has not happened.
And whether a share is shown in the balance sheet or not has nothing to do with its market value. If a company issues a share for £1 then that share is shown in the balance sheet for as long as it exists.
Shares don't carry any liability to losses. That's the point of a limited liability company - the shareholders' liabilities are limited to the value of the share, and if the value of the share is paid up in full (as these are) then there is no further liability.
I didn’t say they had no value and I don’t think anybody is saying that the club are committing any fraud....so chill with the posts eh
This user liked this post: Bordeauxclaret
Re: Clarets in the black
If you are saying that the club has robbed the minority shareholders of their rights and is lying about it at Companies House, then you are saying (even if you don't realise you are) that the directors have committed a fraud.TVC15 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 3:32 pmI am not suggesting that and I said they had no market value in the same way as listed shares...effectively meaning they have not gone up in value on the back of the clubs recent premier league riches.
I didn’t say they had no value and I don’t think anybody is saying that the club are committing any fraud....so chill with the posts eh
The minority shareholders' shares have gone up in value, because if the directors' shares are sold for £x,000 apiece in a takeover, then so are the minority shares.
Re: Clarets in the black
Which bit of “chill out on the posts” are you not getting ?dsr wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:02 pmIf you are saying that the club has robbed the minority shareholders of their rights and is lying about it at Companies House, then you are saying (even if you don't realise you are) that the directors have committed a fraud.
The minority shareholders' shares have gone up in value, because if the directors' shares are sold for £x,000 apiece in a takeover, then so are the minority shares.
And no I am not saying that and as said already neither was anyone else.
Now go and have a brew and little rest...treat yourself -have a biscuit.