OFFICIAL CLUB SOLD TO FV!!!!!

Forget the 'B' shares, Sluffy. They are non-voting, haven't changed and are insignificant.

The 'A' shares  are interesting though. This latest lot are for the exact same number and exact same price as shares issued in July. In total it should amount to £4.5m and approximately the same as the amount raised from the bonds.

A 'Confirmation Statement' is due in January which should tell us a bit more about who has provided the money.

Where's it gone or going? Well we still owe PBP £5.5 m excluding interest and I expect we are still losing money every week despite better attendances.

You could always ask the ST. They have the inside track. They'll know.   Or Iles of the Beeno

P.S. If the shares really are/were worth that much, EDT were fleeced good and proper.

Thanks Bob.

Yes I knew about the B shares but aren't they intended as some sort of bonus incentive for Evatt and Hart, I'm not sure how it works though, do they just get a share premium from time to time or some such thing?

Good point you make about the shares totalling to the same amount as the bond money, maybe someone is being prudent and setting aside the money to repay on maturity by presumably selling back the shares to FV then in turn using the money to settle the debt (the interest being paid annually I believe?).

I don't believe the shares are really worth over £6 each unless someone is daft enough to buy FV at that price but who would have thought to Hollywood actors would ever by Wrexham!

Sluffy wrote:Thanks Bob.

Yes I knew about the B shares but aren't they intended as some sort of bonus incentive for Evatt and Hart, I'm not sure how it works though, do they just get a share premium from time to time or some such thing?

I think you might be mixing up share premiums with share dividends, Sluffy. Dividends are payouts from profits. There haven't been any profits and neither are there likely to be.

Even if there had been, 'B' shareholders wouldn't be entitled to a dividend. Evatt and Hart would only get summat in a takeover situation and even then it wouldn't amount to very  much.

Premiums are close to the opposite. A share premium is when an investor pays more for the shares than their face value. There's been quite a bit of that.

It is interesting though who paid how much for their FV shares and what shares each got for the amount they paid. Its not straightforward but I might find time to figure it all out in due course.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Thanks Bob.

Yes I knew about the B shares but aren't they intended as some sort of bonus incentive for Evatt and Hart, I'm not sure how it works though, do they just get a share premium from time to time or some such thing?

I think you might be mixing up share premiums with share dividends, Sluffy. Dividends are payouts from profits. There haven't been any profits and neither are there likely to be.

Even if there had been, 'B' shareholders wouldn't be entitled to a dividend. Evatt and Hart would only get summat in a takeover situation and even then it wouldn't amount to very  much.

Premiums are close to the opposite. A share premium is when an investor pays more for the shares than their face value. There's been quite a bit of that.

It is interesting though who paid how much for their FV shares and what shares each got for the amount they paid. Its not straightforward but I might find time to figure it all out in due course.

Thanks Bob.

What's the point of giving Evatt and Hart the B shares then if there is no value in them?

Sluffy wrote:

Thanks Bob.

What's the point of giving Evatt and Hart the B shares then if there is no value in them?

Sorry Sluffy, but I have explained all this before and I don't want to go over it all again. Its an insignificant irrelevance that distracts from the main events.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Thanks Bob.

What's the point of giving Evatt and Hart the B shares then if there is no value in them?

Sorry Sluffy, but I have explained all this before and I don't want to go over it all again. Its an insignificant irrelevance that distracts from the main events.

Ok up to you if you don't want to be helpful.

I'll be as equally unhelpful to you.

THREAD LOCKED.

I think that is fair and equitable - trust you agree?

Thread unlocked.

I believe I've now made my point clearly enough to be understood...

Sluffy wrote:Thread unlocked.

I believe I've now made my point clearly enough to be understood...

May I respectfully point you to the 33 pages of FV's Memorandum and Articles, Sluffy. If you can find your way through the legal maze you should find the answers you are seeking.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have put in more than enough time and leg work to help you understand things that had plainly had you flummoxed and I don't intend to repeat the process at your every whim.

I hope that I have now made my point clearly enough to be understood...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Thread unlocked.

I believe I've now made my point clearly enough to be understood...

May I respectfully point you to the 33 pages of FV's Memorandum and Articles, Sluffy. If you can find your way through the legal maze you should find the answers you are seeking.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have put in more than enough time and leg work to help you understand things that had plainly had you flummoxed and I don't intend to repeat the process at your every whim.

I hope that I have now made my point clearly enough to be understood...

You can respectfully point out whatever you like Bob, I asked a simple question that you no doubt could have answered in two or three sentences.

If you haven't got the goodwill or time to help me out (even if you may have told me something before, which I don't believe answered the question I asked above or I would not have asked it), then why should I have the goodwill or time to help you out in your obsessive need to tell the world something that no one really wants to hear?

I'm the only help you have on this or any other forum to get your message out it would seem to me and the way you've treated me over the last few years has shown me no respect at all (not that I look for it on here or in real life) and merely treated me as one of your lackey's.

Well I'm not one of your lackey's Bob, I'm one of those sort of people that believe if someone hits me, then I hit them back, I'm not here to take shit from you or anyone else.

I gave you a second chance and you still decided to demean me and continue to act like the dick you clearly are, so go and spread your message that no one wants to hear someplace else.

Thread locked again.

Thread unlocked again as it seems Bob has clearly taken his ball home as he's one of those who clearly loves to 'dish it out' but clearly doesn't like it when it's 'given back' to him and also because I can now answer my own question as to 'what is the point to B  shares when they don't pay out to you 'dividends' or give you voting rights?

Today another issue of shares in FV was made by them but they comprised entirely of B shares.

Reading through the detail of the issue it states that the B shares only have a right to capital - which basically means they are worth some money when they are sold - but they can only be sold in certain circumstances.

In short they are only valuable to the holder if FV is sold to a new owner.

So in a sense it gives Hart and Evatt a financial stake in the club and they benefit if the club does well and is sold on to someone else - the other side of the coin being if the club doesn't do well and ends up in Administration they get nothing for them.


Now honestly how much time and effort would it have taken Bob to simply say something like this, a minute, two at the most, but no, he had to act instead like the controlling knob he clearly thinks he is, instead.

Just noticed this on the reason why Man Utd owners didn't sell to the Arab bidder -

In documents released yesterday, the timeline around the potential sale of United was detailed.

They state ‘Bidder A’, presumed to be Sheikh Jassim, made a number of proposals to purchase 100% of the club.

However, none of these met with the approval of the Glazer family, either because they were too low or failed to offer the same sums to Class A and Class B shareholders.

On 22 May, Bidder A was informed a bid of ‘$35.25 per Ordinary Share would be considered’, a significant increase on the offer of $30.01 that was made at the time. This demand was never met.


...So this means that just because Hart and Evatt have been given pieces of paper with a face value of a fraction of a penny they 'could' get the full amount per share as Sharon, Luckock, etc, sell for, IF FV were ever to be sold.


(I assume Hart and Evatt are contracted to sell their shares back to FV if they ever left the club before any sale happened)?

(I wonder what the position is if FV ever wanted to sack Evatt and/or Hart?).

Latest shares info has been released

The last entry - the B shares for LUDONAUTICS LIMITED is new information we hadn't known about.

LUDONAUTICS LIMITED is a new company (Management Consultancy - other than financial management) set up last February, owned by Ian Graham
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He has since set up REDRIG LIMITED which is a Book Publishing company?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

NOTE - Ludonautics are shown to be holding 189,148 B3 ORDINARY Shares (Hart and Evatt are shown to hold B Ordinary shares (so the '3' most signify some difference between the two forms of B shares...

NO RIGHT TO A DIVIDEND. NO RIGHTS TO A VOTE. ON A RETURN OF CAPITAL, THE B3
SHARES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE AVAILABLE CAPITAL AMOUNT IN THE ORDER OF
PRIORITY AND IN THE PROPORTIONS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 12.3.2

These 189.148 B3 shares were the full share issue of 5th January, 2024 with a notional value of £18.91p.

LUDONAUTICS LIMITED

About Us
Ludonautics is a sports advisory business dedicated to helping sporting organisations improve their decision making capabilities through access to insightful statistical analysis.
‍
Ludonautics was founded in 2023 by Ian Graham, who served as Liverpool FC's Director of Research from 2012 to 2023. At Liverpool, Ian helped transform the club's fortunes by building the Premier League's first data science department. Now he wants to help other teams do the same.

Many teams have tried to implement a data-driven approach to player recruitment and performance analysis. Many teams have failed. Ludonautics' technical experience in developing statistical models, and practical experience making decisions using data, sets us apart. We are uniquely placed to give clients the opportunity to learn from the best

Ian Graham
Founder

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ian is one of the original architects of the data revolution that has swept through football.

Ian joined Liverpool FC in 2012 as Director of Research, where he developed statistical tools for the prediction of football matches and the performance analysis of players until his departure in 2023.

From 2005 until 2012 Ian was head of football research at Decision Technology, where he ran data analysis projects for the Premier League, Tottenham Hotspur, and bookmakers. He also appeared weekly in the Fink Tank, the Times' long-running article on football statistics.

He holds a PhD in physics from the University of Cambridge and a MPhys from Cardiff University.


Michael Edwards
Sporting Consultant

In 2016, Michael Edwards was appointed as Liverpool FC's first Sporting Director, having originally joined the club in 2011.

Michael's leadership of football operations at Liverpool led to the club's greatest period of success since the 1980s. During this time Liverpool won the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Super Cup, FIFA Club World Cup, and the Premier League before he left in 2022.

Prior to Liverpool, Michael was Head of Performance Analysis for Tottenham Hotspur from 2009 to 2011 and Head of Performance Analysis for Portsmouth between 2003 and 2009.

He holds a BEng in Informatics from the University of Sheffield.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Former Liverpool Head of Research Graham launches new data consultancy

WRITTEN BY SIMON AUSTIN — SEPTEMBER 8, 2023
FORMER Liverpool Head of Research Ian Graham has launched his own consultancy called Ludonautics, which vows to "help sporting organisations improve their decision-making capabilities."

Graham left Liverpool at the end of last season after 11 years. He has since been linked with a number of leading clubs, as well as with a return to Liverpool, but has instead decided to start his own ‘sports advisory business.’

Michael Edwards, who stepped down as Liverpool’s Sporting Director at the end of 2021/22 after more than a decade with the Anfield club, has come on board as a Non-Executive Director.

On their website, Ludonautics state that... see text already pasted above.

...Graham is the latest analytics big-hitter to make the move from club football to becoming their own boss. Sarah Rudd, who was Vice President of Analytics at Arsenal for more than a decade, has recently set up a consultancy called src ftb,l along with husband Ravi Ramineni.

Luke Bornn, who was Head of Analytics for Roma and Sacramento Kings, has founded a company called Zelus Analytics.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Share changes in the year - current holding first, previous holding from last years statement, total in year

Sharon 2666406 - 2666406 = No Change
James - 952,500 - 952,500 = No Change
Luckock - 455226 - 455226 = No Change
UK FF NOMINEES LIMITED 393881- 393881 = No Change
BMLL LTD - 649399 - 1441801 - 649399 = +792,402
IAN RILEY - 153215 - 153215 = No Change

IAN EVATT - B Shares - 135475 - 135475 = No Change
NEIL HART - B Shares - 106445 - 106445 = No Change
LUDONAUTICS LIMITED - B3 Shares - 189148 - Nil = +189,148


Percentage ownership.

Total Ordinary shares - 5,270,627 (Jan 2023) 6,063,029 (Jan 2024)

Sharon 2666406 - 50.59% - 43.98% = -6.61%
James - 952,500 - 18,07%  - 15.71% = -2.36%
Luckock - 455226 - 8.64% - 7.51% = -1.13%
UK FF NOMINEES LIMITED 393881- 7.47% - 6.5% = -0.97%
BMLL LTD - 649399 - 12.32% - 23.78% = +11.46%
IAN RILEY - 153215 - 2.91% - 2.53% = -0.38%


In theory therefore in the last calendar year BMLL LTD were the only purchaser of new shares in FV and paid £5,250m for an additional 11.5% of the company thus valuing it on paper at least at an incredible £45.65m

Fwiw FV have in their Articles of Association of October 2022 stated their 'hurdle value' to be set at £39m.

(As I understand it the hurdle value is the point which a company believes it has to achieve in order to in order to make a return on the original investment into that company)

Sluffy wrote:Share changes in the year - current holding first, previous holding from last years statement, total in year

Sharon 2666406 - 2666406 = No Change
James - 952,500 - 952,500 = No Change
Luckock - 455226 - 455226 = No Change
UK FF NOMINEES LIMITED 393881- 393881 = No Change
BMLL LTD - 649399 - 1441801 - 649399 = +792,402
IAN RILEY - 153215 - 153215 = No Change

IAN EVATT - B Shares - 135475 - 135475 = No Change
NEIL HART - B Shares - 106445 - 106445 = No Change
LUDONAUTICS LIMITED - B3 Shares - 189148 - Nil = +189,148


Percentage ownership.

Percentage ownership.

Total Ordinary shares - 5,270,627 (Jan 2023) 6,063,029 (Jan 2024)

Sharon 2666406 - 50.59% - 43.98% = -6.61%
James - 952,500 - 18,07% - 15.71% = -2.36%
Luckock - 455226 - 8.64% - 7.51% = -1.13%
UK FF NOMINEES LIMITED 393881- 7.47% - 6.5% = -0.97%
BMLL LTD - 649399 - 12.32% - 23.78% = +11.46%
IAN RILEY - 153215 - 2.91% - 2.53% = -0.38%

It remains unclear how many of Sharon's shares are beneficially owned by Nick Mason  and the insurance guy but this is the controlling shareholding.

UK FF Nominees is also known as the UK taxpayer. A cunning plan that went rather well for FV.

BMLL Ltd is the Swiss group. Its all as clear as mud but Switzerland is quite well known for that sort of thing. Luckock is the sole director of BMLL, presumably as link man but not beneficial owner.

Ian Riley's a local guy with a bob or two who is also involved in Bolton School.

In summary 21% local funding, 79% not.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Share changes in the year - current holding first, previous holding from last years statement, total in year

Sharon 2666406 - 2666406 = No Change
James - 952,500 - 952,500 = No Change
Luckock - 455226 - 455226 = No Change
UK FF NOMINEES LIMITED 393881- 393881 = No Change
BMLL LTD - 649399 - 1441801 - 649399 = +792,402
IAN RILEY - 153215 - 153215 = No Change

IAN EVATT - B Shares - 135475 - 135475 = No Change
NEIL HART - B Shares - 106445 - 106445 = No Change
LUDONAUTICS LIMITED - B3 Shares - 189148 - Nil = +189,148


Percentage ownership.

Percentage ownership.

Total Ordinary shares - 5,270,627 (Jan 2023) 6,063,029 (Jan 2024)

Sharon 2666406 - 50.59% - 43.98% = -6.61%
James - 952,500 - 18,07%  - 15.71% = -2.36%
Luckock - 455226 - 8.64% - 7.51% = -1.13%
UK FF NOMINEES LIMITED 393881- 7.47% - 6.5% = -0.97%
BMLL LTD - 649399 - 12.32% - 23.78% = +11.46%
IAN RILEY - 153215 - 2.91% - 2.53% = -0.38%

It remains unclear how many of Sharon's shares are beneficially owned by Nick Mason  and the insurance guy but this is the controlling shareholding.

UK FF Nominees is also known as the UK taxpayer. A cunning plan that went rather well for FV.

BMLL Ltd is the Swiss group. Its all as clear as mud but Switzerland is quite well known for that sort of thing. Luckock is the sole director of BMLL, presumably as link man but not beneficial owner.

Ian Riley's a local guy with a bob or two who is also involved in Bolton School.

In summary 21% local funding, 79% not.

I apologise Bob, I've inadvertently misled you with the percentage ownership (I've just realised I hadn't finished it off completely - explanation on my original post - I've also amended your quote of mine so as not to be misleading to anyone viewing it from now on).

local funding is now 18%, non local funding 82%

Sluffy wrote:

I apologise Bob, I've inadvertently misled you with the percentage ownership (I've just realised I hadn't finished it off completely  - explanation on my original post - I've also amended your quote of mine so as not to be misleading to anyone viewing it from now on).

local funding is now 18%, non local funding 82%

I didn't check your calculations and still haven't, Sluffy, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference. I usually make allowances and can safely say that no-one is going to prison or driven out of town should you ever get the facts muddled.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I apologise Bob, I've inadvertently misled you with the percentage ownership (I've just realised I hadn't finished it off completely  - explanation on my original post - I've also amended your quote of mine so as not to be misleading to anyone viewing it from now on).

local funding is now 18%, non local funding 82%

I didn't check your calculations and still haven't, Sluffy, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference. I usually make allowances and can safely say that no-one is going to prison or driven out of town should you ever get the facts muddled.

I never thought anyone would?

Unlike most I've never been afraid to admit to having made a mistake or simply being wrong and this is exactly what I've done here.

I saw that you had used my incorrect figures and apologised for unintentionally misleading you.

That in my book is the right thing to do.

Up to you if you want to accept it or not - I've done what I needed to do.

Just out of curiosity I've just had a look at BMLL Ltd.

On the Confirmation statement for FV on the 10th Jan 23 it clearly states that BMLL Ltd held 649,399 shares in FV which were bought for roughly £6.50 each which in round figures come to £4.25m

On BMLL Ltd accounts made up to the 31st Jan 23 (signed off by Luckock on the 14th September 23) it states the company had been dormant and hadn't traded nor held any assets?



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sluffy wrote:

I never thought anyone would?

Unlike most I've never been afraid to admit to having made a mistake or simply being wrong and this is exactly what I've done here.

I saw that you had used my incorrect figures and apologised for unintentionally misleading you.

That in my book is the right thing to do.

Up to you if you want to accept it or not - I've done what I needed to do.

I quite agree that its better to hold your hand up if you inadvertently get something wrong, Sluffy. So thank you.

I've done my own figures now. The most interesting thing about all this is that the shares in Sharon's name no longer amount to overall control.