Specifically on Omar Mir: "There’s no company he founded or owned, no business sale, and nothing pointing to personal wealth anywhere near £87m. Private wealth is often invisible online, so that isn’t proof of anything. But it does mean members are relying entirely on Sheridans’ confidential source-of-wealth checks."

It suggested valid questions might include: How much will SSC have paid when it reaches 90%? Is any of it escrowed or guaranteed? Does a default after reaching 90% mean any forfeiture or discount? Do SSC’s economic rights extend to the stadium’s value through the new holding company? Is there a cap on wage commitments that run beyond the funded years?

It's a complex deal - I never do this but I did ask Claude AI for its analysis, especially on the economic rights stuff. Partial response as follows if in any way useful: "Day to day, the economic rights barely matter. A League One club pays no dividends and spends every pound it has. They matter at three moments: a sale, a buyout after a default, or an insolvency. At each one, SSC would take about 90%. The pack doesn’t say how the remaining 10% is split between the Trust and the other shareholders. The bigger effect is on leverage. The Trust holds the vetoes, but SSC holds the chequebook and runs the department that sets the wage bill. After a few seasons the club’s costs will be built around SSC’s money. Saying no to SSC on anything contested then carries an unspoken risk that the funding stops. The default ladder hands football control back, but not the money, and the pack admits the club could be left with wages it can’t afford. An investor holding 90% of an asset it can’t control or easily sell also has a lasting reason to push for a sale or looser rules. First refusal is weak protection when the Trust has no cash. The pack admits the Trust can’t find £6.5m to take the stadium directly. In the best-known cases where an outsider held most of the money but a minority of the votes, the relationship broke down. AFCW’s terms are much better drafted than eg 1860’s or Hertha’s: there’s a default ladder, a buyer veto and the EFL funding agreement. But the underlying tension is the same."

I've voted. Hoping we spaff the £87million on a new striker in January

From a procedural perspective, was the vote on the 50.1% about control or ownership? I suspect most people didn't consider they could mean different things or just cared about somebody else funding their hobby but I don't recall anywhere it saying we would allow the sale of 90% of the club. It feels like we have been deceived to get to this position, deliberately or otherwise. HoldCo will be the parent company and that includes the ground. HoldCo owns the ground through TWIOF but has restrictions put on it (which I would like to understand the mechanism of how this is proposed).

Scotty: I don't think you're right saying that we, not SSC, own the stadium. HoldCo owns the stadium (via TWIOF). And SSC have (eventually) a 90% share in HoldCo. So, for example, if the stadium were sold (which it won't be, and SSC can't make happen, but just suppose) and the were money paid out as a dividend, SSC would get 90% of the value.

OI: The document says "Every shareholder swaps their PLC shares for shares in the new company."

Good work 6mdm

I've done a bot of reading of that document now. I wish they gave this new holding company a name, even if it is just HoldCo, so it is clear what is being bought. The documents starts talking about shares in AFCW PLC but SSC are buying shares in HoldCo and their shareholding in HoldCo will grow (hence the financial value they own), so whatever shareholding the DT have in AFCW PLC becomes irrelevant.

My standard day is 7-7 , but Thursdays is 7-11.

Just popping in.  My take but not claiming it is correct.  SSC purchase 34% at 16M which is generous and probably double the worth based on historical purchases.  They add 71M capital over following 4 years.  We have to use 40M for non football costs.  Extremes here but.  Increase capacity to 18k.  Ground then worth 50M.  We, not SSC own that including three new stands.  New training ground.  Less clear but we can own that.  Say 25M.  Revenue increases to 25M and we are in Championship.  Value placed on that revenue could be 75M.  Simple total value of club is 150M.  SSC can look to sell at 135M on that valuation.  They make a huge profit if achieved.  Meanwhile we have a 50M 18K stadium.  A 25K training facility.  So 75K of the 150K value is with us.  And we can generate 25K annual revenue off it.  And likely have at Cat 2 Academy by then increasing our potential income further.  Without selling SSC get less than a million back through management fees over 5 years.

16 hours? No thanks apart from election days. I'm happy with my 6 hour shifts. No rent, no mortgage and an offspring contributing to the bills.

Perfect timing Leigh!

It is clear that the shareholdings are not explained properly in any detail. I certainly would have thought a share swap from the plc to the holding company would have been mentioned in the pack. Leaving plc shareholdings as is and doing any tricky stuff in the holding company looks way cleaner to me. You really don't want 2 or even 3 classes of share in the holding company.

Aideen, I've just got back from work and spotted your post.

Swapping shares does not trigger a tax liability either if it is purely a corporate restructure, which this is. I hope the club don't do anything that could cause somebody an issue by messing about with shares.

Excellent, thank you

Maybe that could be a sticky please?

DD - that makes more sense. So they own 90% of the club (and the new class of shares) but the DT control 50.01% of it. It looks like all existing shareholders are going to go through a share swap, so they will exchange their existing AFCW PLC shares for shares in the is new holding company. Apparently, share reorganisations / swaps and dividends do not disturb a previously valid negligible value claim in AFCW PLC against income (the only thing is the base cost for tax purposes of these new shares would be £nil for CGT if they subsequently managed to sell them). HMRC would not have much grounds to challenge a negligible value claim made 8 years ago and the current proposal would not lend itself to the double-dipping of losses so nothing to be gained now either.

I have to say, that bit of the presentation pack isn't very clearly explained. Also, it could be more clearly explained that AFCW PLC and TWIOF will both be 100% subsidiaries of the new holding company. I wonder if board representation will be the same at holding company and AFCW PLC level (and TWIOF, for that matter, albeit I suspect TWIOF board meetings happen rarely).

Bournemouth beating AC Milan 3-0 isn’t a scoreline I expected to see…

I think their shareholding ramps up from the initial 34% over time. Eventually, their shareholding represents 90% of the shares in the club, so they have a 90% economic interest. If they sell their shares, then they're selling shares representing 90% of the value of the club (but not control). That's my interpretation anyway.

Yeah Im really suprised Nkeng hasn’t even played a minute. Odd! We can buy him back soon !

Ah it was Charlton where Nkeng went and he’s not played a minute of first team football.

They were the Abbey National back then.