I didnt say that their excuse that it would affect their control was legitimate was true. This is what I was referring to MANY pages ago when I said the reasoning Barca themselves were putting out were ridiculous.
I was quoting Barca outlets, which is what Niemanns likes, even though he must realize by now anything Barca or Barca adjacent I’d probably misleading at best.
They don’t want to pull this lever because it is a horrible financial decision that might be something they can’t just “overcome”.
When they hit the record for income at 1 billion and something in a year in 18/19, it was in large part because their BLM revenue grew by 63 mil just in one year. That’s a massive amount of income to give up over multiple years in exchange for a 200 mil loan.
They would owe the group 49.5 percent of that 280 million Spotify deal wouldnt they?
Now the Barca article said that if they gave up 49.5% of BLM rights they could even end up with people being assigned to their boards outside of the membership. If that were true it would obviously be even worse. But I don’t see why it would have to be structured that way…. Unless a 50+ stake plus the other debt would risk leaving the m exposed to someone buying up member shares. But that’s a whole different deep dive.
The more important thing to take away is that they know the 49.5 “lever” is a bad deal. But nobody I can find have offered them a 25% stake lever as an alternative. It is different enough that the members would have to re vote on it, surely? And no guarantee on a buyer.