I wasn't too hung up on the PSC per se but it got me wondering if the 'fifth' investor somehow put money into the club via them?
I know I'm probably straying well into conspiracy theory territory which isn't a place I'd want to be but what would happen if say Bolton Nuts Ltd bought the 750,000 shares from FV Ltd for say £5m, then sold them back for 1p?
Crazy I know but wouldn't that pump money into the club for them to spend without showing as a loan or a secured creditor on the books and still allow the 750,000 to be cancelled easily, still showing as owned by FV Ltd?
Where I'm going with this is that on the 29th October it seems the government paid £5m (maybe even £5.5m including accrued interest) for 400,000 shares - and that simply doesn't stack up to the amounts paid on the Statement of Capital form.
The form states this -
The breakdown of the 'sums' shown on the second filing of a Statement of Capital dated the 29th October are...
607,623 @ 8.48476 = £ 5,155,535
117,857 @ 8.48476 = £ 999,988
1,399,566 @ 6.7878 = £ 9,499,974
2,125,046 shares being bought - yes?
But these are 'new' shares being allocated (are they not?) and as far as we know FV Ltd still held 750,000 on that day too!
Maybe in fact 2,875,046 shares on that date were traded/purchased - or at least the 750,000 shares held the right to purchase it's allotment of the newly issued 2,125,046 - and only after that happened the 750,000 (plus what ever their allotment was) were sold on and therefore allowed to be cancelled?
Looking at it the other way around IF the governments £5m really did only buy only 400,000 shares and a further 1,725,046 were 'bought' at the same price that day to Sharon et al, then they would have needed to stump up something like £21m between them and that would have meant that the majority of that would have been in cash (the total allotment would have been worth about £26m (gov £5m + Sharon et al £21m) and only a total of £12.5m (3m + £4.5m + £5m) of loans were set aside as shown on the form to fund it - therefore leaving about £13.5m required in cash?
Maybe, if these things can happen(?) and based on the government paying £5m for 400,000 shares, then the value of the 750,000 shares would have amounted to about £9.5m (say £12m including its share allocation due to it) and forgone and cancelled as part of the transactions?
If FV got a windfall of say £5m from somewhere - remember the Bolton Nuts Ltd buy and sell back of the shares - then that would balance...maybe???
The bottom line to me is that the 750,000 shares are there for a reason and that I reckon the £8 and £6 values shown on the form are genuine buy in amounts - and if so why is the government only holding 400,000 at the price for a £5m stake?
My thinking is that the 750,000 shares existing at the start of the day and had been cancelled at the end of the same day - so has this FV Ltd holding (and allocation due to it) played a part in all this somehow and has impacted on why the government holds just 400,000 shares for its £5m loan to shares?
Right now after reading all that, forget about the 'fifth' investor or Bolton Nuts Ltd's £5m and concentrate on these 750,000 shares.
Fwiw James held 500,000 shares and Luckock 250,000 shares before the allocation (or 750,000 between the two of them - same amount as the FV Ltd holding).
Shares allotted to James and Luckock were...
James 500,000 to 882,189 = 382,189
Luckock 250,000 to 455,266 = 205,266
...or in other words just short of 600,000 which more or less presumably would be the same total allocated to FV Ltd?
FV Ltd would therefore own the rights to 1,350,000 shares (750k + 600k)
1,350,000 at £8.4848 = £11.m
I'm wondering if something was 'manufactured' around this?
We know the original 750,000 were cancelled (worth about £6.3m at £8.50 per share) but the allocated 600,000 more still exist (the total of shares in existence after the 750,000 were cancelled must include them to balance with the capital statement form total showing at that time - 4,125,046 shares).
A reduction in total shares of 750,000 would make the remaining shares more valuable and I wonder if something happening like this would somehow explain why the gov only got 400,000 shares instead of what should have been 600,000 shares at a value of £8.50 per share?
I'm a long way out of my depth now but I think I've got my line of thinking across - hope so anyway - and maybe someone can run with it or alternatively tell me where I've gone horribly wrong!