The Pit of Misery (All mess in here)

[Chris Jameson]

Haven't the faintest idea about any of the above.

[andyh]

Have just seen this posted on Companies House:




New share money incoming from somewhere?

Combined with a resolution to remove preemption rights so looks like it.

Would that be relevant though as there's no minority shareholder?

While I obviously understand all of this, others might not so could you kindly explain what this means please? For everyone else’s benefit.......

I agree.

I too understand it completely but there are some right thick fuckers on here.

So, ONLY for their benefit, can someone put this into layman’s terms.
I’d do it myself but I’ve got a ton of accountancy work to get through.

[PeterWithe]

I think it’s good news as Tone has worked out how to file stuff online.

[fbriai]

You know it's gone tits-up at a football club when you start learning things about accountancy.

[Legion]

Have just seen this posted on Companies House:




New share money incoming from somewhere?

Combined with a resolution to remove preemption rights so looks like it.

Would that be relevant though as there's no minority shareholder?

While I obviously understand all of this, others might not so could you kindly explain what this means please? For everyone else’s benefit.......

I agree.

I too understand it completely but there are some right thick fuckers on here.

So, ONLY for their benefit, can someone put this into layman’s terms.
I’d do it myself but I’ve got a ton of accountancy work to get through.

It's actually extremely simple to understand but I only know a really complicated way to explain it so if anyone else could do the honours I'm sure that the vast majority would really appreciate it.

[Risso]

The main holding company is issuing some more shares.  One of the subsidiary Aston Villa companies is issuing shares and removing the pre-emption rights, which means that when they issue shares, they don't have to offer minority shareholders the chance to buy them in the same proportion.

None of the detail is accessible though until the document appears fully on Companies House, which can take up to 5 days.

[PeterWithe]

Damn. Beaten to it.

[nevillain]

While there can be subtle differences between issuing shares and allotting them, for most companies and in most circumstances they amount to exactly the same process. ... With a share allotment, the shares are created and issued by the company to the people who become the company's shareholders.

[FrankyH]

You know it's gone tits-up at a football club when you start learning things about accountancy.

That's the first time I've laughed , since the shit hit the fan.

[dalians umbrella]

and the possible implications of this are?

[GarTomas]

The idea of pre emptive rights is to protect minority shareholders to an extent in terms of stopping them being diluted.

So if X owns 50% of a company made of of 100 shares he owns 50 shares with the other 50 owned by others.

If X wants to take over the company he has a number of options. He can buy shares from the other holders but only to the extent they wish to sell or the buyer is willing to pay fair value or above.  If the number of shares in the company is increased though is another way to do this.  So if the company issues another 100 shares, then the end result is 200 shares in the company.

Now X owns 50 and the other 50 are owned by others with the other 100 up for grabs.  The idea of pre emptive is that the 100 shares are offered equally first to other shareholders based on what they all own.

So if the other 50 are owned by 5 with 10 each, they are able to buy 10 each and X can only buy 50.  Thus if everyone exercises their pre emptive rights X ends up with 100 of the 200 and the others own 20 instead of 10. So each shareholder is protected as their ownership hasn’t been diluted in any way. The minority’s shareholder are thus protected as X hasn’t been able to buy all 100 shares and becoming a 75% shareholder at the expense of the minority.

A few things to consider; pre emptive rights work to an extent based on minority shareholders being willing or able to purchase the shares at the fixed rate.  So if the shares are issued at a sufficiently high amount that the minority can’t afford then they can be squeezed out in this way (although the price set has to be agreed by the shareholders up front in some way that prevents this)

Either way given Tony is the owner of the club the removal or pre emptive rights is odd since he’s only taken the rights from himself which he could forgo anyway when seeking alternative investments.

Who knew 10 years in Corporate Actions would come into some use here.

[Legion]

As clear as mud.

[Clark W Griswold]

Sounds a bit like one of them Pyramid Schemes to me.

[dalians umbrella]

Here's a load more about this that I can't understand either:

https://twitter.com/Mike_J_Thornton/status/1004713598269231104

[davidb]

The idea of pre emotion rights is to protect minority shareholders to an extent in terms of stopping them being diluted.

So if X owns 50% of a company made of of 100 shares he owns 50 shares with the other 50 owned by others.

If X wants to take over the company he has a number of options. He can buy shares from the other holders but only to the extent they wish to sell or the buyer is willing to pay fair value or above.  If the number of shares in the company is increased though is another way to do this.  So if the company issues another 100 shares, then the end result is 200 shares in the company.

Now X owns 50 and the other 50 are owned by others with the other 100 up for grabs.  The idea of pre emotion is that the 100 shares are offered equally first to other shareholders based on what they all own.

So if the other 50 are owned by 5 with 10 each, they are able to buy 10 each and X can only buy 50.  Thus if everyone exercises their pre emptive rights X ends up with 100 of the 200 and the others own 20 instead of 10. So each shareholder is protected as their ownership hasn’t been diluted in any way. The minority’s shareholder are thus protected as X hasn’t been able to buy all 100 shares and becoming a 75% shareholder at the expense of the minority.

A few things to consider; pre emptive rights work to an extent based on minority shareholders being willing or able to purchase the shares at the fixed rate.  So if the shares are issued at a sufficiently high amount that the minority can’t afford then they can be squeezed out in this way (although the price set has to be agreed by the shareholders up front in some way that prevents this)

Either way given Tony is the owner of the club the removal or pre emptive rights is odd since he’s only taken the rights from himself which he could forgo anyway when seeking alternative investments.

Who knew 10 years in Corporate Actions would come into some use here.

Since he's the only shareholder i guess he waives the pre-emption rights to simplify the process (and maybe make further issuance easier)?

Bottom line, he's selling shares to someone and this gives him the ability to do it. We'll find out more in 5 days