I understand the difference between value and voting rights, share ownership, etc. I'm no doubt being thick here but what does it mean in tangible terms to SSC abd hiw do they realise this value? That's what I don't understand. If they are entitled to 90% of the value but only have 34% of the shares, hiw do they get the other 56%?

Observer status in a board meeting in practice means they get to speak, but just can't vote.

OI - oh. Not a criticism but I can’t imagine he’s your Malcolm Tucker style act

Interested to know whether the new holding company will have Ordinary Shares and "A" Ordinary Shares, in the same way as AFCW PLC has currently, as well as the new class of share capital.

My interpretation (but I may be wrong) is that there will be a new non-voting class of share capital. SSC will eventually own 90% of the totality of shares in the company (i.e. of all the classes added together) but will have voting rights amounting to not more than 49.9%.

it's Bertrand according to the pack Trigger

6MDM - 'value' does not equal shares, if the company is worth 100 million, then 90 million is 'assigned' to SSC but they still only have 34% of the shares.

I love the idea of the observer position they get on the board. Assume that’s someone that gets to sit in PLC board meetings but cannot interact - but can advise the investor group outside of meetings on how to get what they want from future meetings eg replacing the CEO with someone who adds value to the business.

This may help its been simplified somewhat BBC article [Link]

Why would somebody pay 90% of the value of something to only receive 34% of it? That's what I don't understand. If it was just SSC get 90% of any profits or cash windfall like player sales during their tenure or get whateversomebodyis prepared to pay for their shares, that is cash that is available and exists. It's the cash that doesn't exist that bothers me. If it doesn't exist then there is no value as it is just thin air (like goodwill).

6MDM it is 'value' not control. The only shares they can sell are the 34% of the holding company. Someone might buy the 'value' but that provides no direct action they can force on the DT. If we have become really cash hungry either SSC or a new buyer could threaten to turn the taps off and force change.

OK, I've worked a bit of it out. The DT must own the other 66% of the holding company to ensure they own more than 50% of the plc. (66%x75%+ will be more than 50%). SSC will 'own' 90% of the 'value' of the plc after 3 years. There are restrictions on what they can do with it, how solid those are is arguable.

NAZ - and pick up a comb in a case in the club shop!

No way he’s 43 either but who cares he’s giving us £86m and he’s not even letting our tinpots spend it 💪

Lol 😆

As for this money man being connected to the King's Trust, this is the same king that sought ongoing advice from Jimmy Savile over a 20 year period so I would not give any weight or credence to a recommendation or character judgement from him.

And if it all goes tits up I'm off to H&RB where you can drink on the terraces (well you could last time I was there).

PS I bought shares in 2002 which I have since transferred to my son. I have no idea if these were a worthless "donation" or if they could be worth squillions (well, hundreds).

I'm concerned about the 90% value attributed to selling of the shares SSC are buying mechanism. What is it 90% of? Something doesn't feel right to me. Is it 90% of whatever they are offered for just their shareholding or 90% of the enterprise (economic) value of the whole club? If it's just their shareholding, why wouldn't they get 100% as it's their shares and every shareholder has to complete their own stock transfer form? If it's the latter, I see a huge trojan horse with all this. If all they can sell is their shareholding, where would the cash come from to get up to 90% of the enterprise value they are entitied to? Who would calculate the enterprise value? It wouldn't come from the buyer as why would they pay the market rate for 90% but only receive 34%? Is it 90% of any uplift in value between now and when they sell? Again, where would the cash difference come from? Could they force the DT to sell some or all of their shareholding to find the cash to pay the seller, so the DT would lose control and all the cash? Who would this be to? The same buyer? This would ordinarily be a restricted action so could we be agreeing to something now unwittingly but slipping it under the radar with the current restricted action by dazzling us with high up front cash injections? My concern is the DT has to sell it's shareholding when SSC want to sell to a new investor, who will get full control, but SSC walk away with the sales proceeds and we get next to nothing and lose the club completely. Alternatively, SSC renegotiate in 5 years and say to the DT to transfer it's entire shareholding to it for £1 (which still wouldn't get to them owning 90% due to other minority shareholders) but they'll call it quits, putting them totally in control to do what they like anyway as the DT will be irrelevant and they have a big enough shareholding ()75%) to pass special resolutions. They could renegotiate sooner, knowing the club does not have the cash to pay them, even at a lower percentage.

I don't understand all the finances at all but it seems to me that investing in us in a well known and relatively upmarket (excluding our immediate area) part of one of the best known cities in the world is a good bet for both the club and the investors. If they sell out after we get to the Championship then so be it, it's better than being in admistration.

My shares are currently in the plc. The DT has 75% plus of the plc shares, NR 10% etc. Do those holdings stay the same with SSC holding no plc shares but instead having 34% of the holding company shares? If so who owns the other 66% of holding company shares?

OI, I took their shares with a return payable were for the business of the club, sponsorship, naming rights etc, not the separated assets that the 34% share that as up until now, didn't have a fiscal value as such, but figures on a page to assert a value too. A bit like the original shares in 2002, where it was stated these have no repayment value and were in effect, donations into a black hole.

If the plc is worth 100 million, then SSC have the rights to 90% of it so can sell those rights, with our approval, for a notional 90 million though they might actually get more or less. I'm still confused by shareholdings in the holding company and the plc. The only clear fact seems to be SSC owning 34% of the shares in the holding company.

No apology necessary! And to answer your question valuing football clubs is a bit smoke and mirrors there are lots of different ways to do it, none are standard. and in the end clubs are valued on what someone is willing to pay for them.

Huddersfield - I imagine it will be whatever someone else would be willing to pay if SSC wanted to sell up.