Jump to content
IGNORED

Change Of Ownership


Super

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yes, you do, the PSC regime has that element of "looking through" the corporate structure of a group of companies.  However, there are different statements to use in that case.  You wouldn't say that the have ownership of the shares, you'd say they have ownership of the voting rights perhaps - I have no idea how voting rights are attributed amongst the (presumed) different share classes.

You clearly know a lot more about this than me!

3 hours ago, Drew Peacock said:

Yes, but it doesn't add up!

Two 25% minimums plus 75% minimum is 125% at least!

Yep I got that just wasn't sure they needed to.  Ask @ExiledAjax :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nongazeuse said:

I guess that this has been asked before but what is the status of the shares I bought in 1982 after the club effectively went bankrupt?

Do I still own a portion of any of these companies or are they worthless?

You probably own a very tiny bit of Bristol City Holdings.  I think it was Clarke Willmott who used to look after this, they might be able to help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nibor said:

Not really a change of ownership.  Pula Sport Limited seems to have been taken out of the mix which just removes a layer and makes things simpler as Pula was a Guernsey company.

Bristol City Football Club is still owned 75%+ by Bristol City Holdings.  As @ExiledAjax mentioned they've just added to the register of persons with significant control to reflect that SL and ML ultimately have that control via Bristol City Holdings.

SL and ML are also now listed as directly controlling Bristol Sport Limited, Ashton Gate Limited and Bristol Rugby Limited.

The only real change is that Bristol City Holdings is not listed as having any control over Ashton Gate Limited.  If there is any move to sell shares in the stadium company I'd be worried.  It will be interesting to see what was done when the accounts are published, as there was a £20m loan owed to Pula from SL's investment in the stadium.

To my (very untrained) eye it just looks like some tidying up has been done.

As my dear Nan used to say 

" Takes bigger 'eds than ours " 

and she was right .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CodeRed said:

Well it was an irrational choice not supported by a track record or any achievements but entirely based on emotion........so clearly a female decision! 

Wow! Well I guess if you want annoy people, you might as well take on several groups at once. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Iust read the article.

Would the restructure make a theoretical- and it's purely theoretical- sale of the club, ground and all easier? I think it would.

Think there's no prospect of a sale but re-aligning the 2 to the same ownership officially would surely make it easier if SL decided he might fancy a sale.

It doesn't make any difference, he has had ultimate control for a long time.  It's just paperwork at that point.

If there's ever a move to sell the club without the stadium or the stadium without the club that's the time to start worrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nibor said:

You probably own a very tiny bit of Bristol City Holdings.  I think it was Clarke Willmott who used to look after this, they might be able to help?

@Nongazeuse could also check out the latest confirmation statement which includes a listing of shareholders...

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01501663/filing-history/MzE5MzM2Mjg3OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Nibor said:

It doesn't make any difference, he has had ultimate control for a long time.  It's just paperwork at that point.

If there's ever a move to sell the club without the stadium or the stadium without the club that's the time to start worrying.

I know he's had ultimate control because even if it was owned by BCFC Holdings, or Pula Sport or whoever he owned that.

In this instance then, it seems like it would safeguard against that scenario if anything- but as you say no particular difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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