That is right, however they marketed the Class A holding as representing 10% of the club when they were initially floated.
In the meantime, the shares appear to have just been hanging around for a sale, they appear to hold no other value.
Also if your sell something as holding a particular value ie 10%, etc. why would that value decline compared to other shares which hold no other quality than they held in 2012 when the shares were floated?
The only conclusion I can make is that they were never worth 10% of the firm when they were sold. The actual value should have been much less, misrepresentation?
The only time you profit on those shares is on a sale and here the class A owners are being denied a profit because the majoiry shareholder and the same bunch that control the board are choosing what is better for them? Seems to be no clear division between their duty as board members and their own interest as shareholders.