[cite]Posted By: Bennyhill[/cite]Does anyone know how keeping the backers a secret i.e Leeds, Notts County us etc etc plays with the FA regarding conflict of interests, i.e if our backers actually owned another club in England.
The authorities have to know exactly who "owns" the club and "runs" the club... who "funds" it is another matter
[cite]Posted By: Bennyhill[/cite]Does anyone know how keeping the backers a secret i.e Leeds, Notts County us etc etc plays with the FA regarding conflict of interests, i.e if our backers actually owned another club in England.
The authorities have to know exactly who "owns" the club and "runs" the club... who "funds" it is another matter
Surely there has to be a paper trail of some sort that would eventually "out" hidden money ?
They are not going to come out and say we're representing X and Y from Outer Mongolia who are mad football nuts and are willing to sepnd almost anything on achieving their dream of running a successful Premier League club - are they now!
If they did that, transfer prices would rocket for us beyond belief! I think their initial attitude was positive, yet cautious - the right way to be. Let's see how January's transfer window turns out before anybody gets nervous!
Totally agree with you.
There already some on here and elsewhere have already made their minds up and not giving these new owners a chance. Before we start coming to conclusions this is bad for the club and nothing is really going to change lets see what happens first.
I am prepared to back the new owners and see what they can do. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they are going to be bad for us and there is no evidence that they will be good for us.
Prague Addick (not sure how to copy a quote from another page) -
That's exactly my point - Parky will be in a position where he will feel he has to walk because he is no longer in control. Maybe i have clouded vision as i just can't see Parky getting us promoted. I would guess the new mob would feel the same if they've been watching our football over any period of time. So, they can't really come in and sack a manager in third spot as they would be making a rod for their own backs and it may also cost a bit. These guys have no relationship with parky, they won't feel any problem with forcing him out even if publicly they are backing him. The point is, if they feel, like me, Parky is not the man then they aint going to keep him on just coz he's a nice hard working bloke. Maybe they rate him, in which case fair enough but i wouldn't be surprised to see something happen when they 'sit down' next week and it could be more than bringing in another slow forward, defender or non footballing midfielder. That may be harsh and may be comnplete nonsense on my part but thats the way i see it.
Aren't we all jumping to some conclusions here? Isn't the new board made up of Jiminez, Slater, Kavanagh, Varney and Murray - isn't it just as simple as those 5 now own Charlton, each with a varying percentage of the ownership? Why must there be somebody in the background. Between those 5 they would probably have the dosh and enough know how to take us forward wouldn't they?
also interesting to note that the share price of Richard Murray's company, Invesco, which i believe is his 'vehicle' for funding Charlton, have doubled in the last few days. I'm not a financial wizzard but others may be able to analyse that?
I've read through most of these posts and the stuff on the OS and I can't see any justification for the thread heading. We know who the new owners are - Slater and Jiminez. At least that's what the OS says, and it has way more credibility than any of the speculative posts about silent partners etc. I know nothing about Slater's wealth but I've seen nothing to suggest he lacks the resources to take over a third-tier club with ambitions to reach the second tier.
Slater/Jiminez plan to repeat the slow but steady and well-managed progress of the early '90's. If they do that then I for one will be more than happy, even if it doesn't include the bonus of a few years in the premiership.
They aren't Charlton people which I suppose could be a worry - I can't see them sinking money into the club long term in the way Richard Murray has - but at this point their interests and Charlton's are aligned so for the time being anyway it's all good.
And, thank God, this calls time on any new 'take over' threads. For that alone I am grateful.
They are not going to come out and say we're representing X and Y from Outer Mongolia who are mad football nuts and are willing to sepnd almost anything on achieving their dream of running a successful Premier League club - are they now!
If they did that, transfer prices would rocket for us beyond belief! I think their initial attitude was positive, yet cautious - the right way to be. Let's see how January's transfer window turns out before anybody gets nervous!
Totally agree with you.
There already some on here and elsewhere have already made their minds up and not giving these new owners a chance. Before we start coming to conclusions this is bad for the club and nothing is really going to change lets see what happens first.
I am prepared to back the new owners and see what they can do. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they are going to be bad for us and there is no evidence that they will be good for us.
I think the proof of their intentions are already starting to be seen (ie keeping Parky when it would be very easy and cheap to sack him and not involving Wise in an official capacity when it would be very simple to do so).
I would much rather know who the backers/owners behind MS and TJ are (if there are any. IMHO there are but even that isn't 100% clear) but let's at least give them the chance to show what they are going to do in this transfer window and the next.
I'm happy they are here as the previous position was high risk and unsustainable long term without promotion. I still have questions but for the time being they have, for what little it is worth, my support.
[cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]Aren't we all jumping to some conclusions here? Isn't the new board made up of Jiminez, Slater, Kavanagh, Varney and Murray - isn't it just as simple as those 5 now own Charlton, each with a varying percentage of the ownership? Why must there be somebody in the background.
You got there before me. I see no reason why we shouldn't take this deal at face value.
[cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]Aren't we all jumping to some conclusions here? Isn't the new board made up of Jiminez, Slater, Kavanagh, Varney and Murray - isn't it just as simple as those 5 now own Charlton, each with a varying percentage of the ownership? Why must there be somebody in the background. Between those 5 they would probably have the dosh and enough know how to take us forward wouldn't they?
Kav is an employee and will be laughing to himself when he reads that he would somehow be able to buy the Club. Varney isn't that wealthy either. Murray is rich but if he had that much he wouldn't have need to sell in the first place.
The clue is that Varney spoke of an "investor group" and "so many third parties involved" and Slater then spoke of the "owners" in the third person.
Our takeover seems to have slipped quietly under the radar of the media in the sense that is has been reported as a footnote in effect. I suspect that this fits in with the strategy of the new owners as it won't scare the horses and lead to inflated transfer demands etc.
We are going to find out a lot about the nature of this takeover in the next couple of weeks now that the transfer window is open again. This will also give us a hint as to whether external backers are involved. Interesting times.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]The clue is that Varney spoke of an "investor group" and "so many third parties involved" and Slater then spoke of the "owners" in the third person.[/quote]
Kav is an employee and will be laughing to himself when he reads that he would somehow be able to buy the Club. Varney isn't that wealthy either. Murray is rich but if he had that much he wouldn't have need to sell in the first place.
The clue is that Varney spoke of an "investor group" and "so many third parties involved" and Slater then spoke of the "owners" in the third person.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The clue is that Varney spoke of an "investor group" and "so many third parties involved" and Slater then spoke of the "owners" in the third person.
It isn't much of a clue though is it? A group just needs to be more than one person, and/or the company set up to take ownership, and the third person quote looks like a figure of speech to me. Against that, the OS refers to 'ownership' switching to Slater and Jiminez. Pretty clear-cut I think. Why would anyone plant vague 'clues' anyway, if they don't want people to know who the real owners are?
[cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]Aren't we all jumping to some conclusions here? Isn't the new board made up of Jiminez, Slater, Kavanagh, Varney and Murray - isn't it just as simple as those 5 now own Charlton, each with a varying percentage of the ownership? Why must there be somebody in the background. Between those 5 they would probably have the dosh and enough know how to take us forward wouldn't they?
Kav is an employee and will be laughing to himself when he reads that he would somehow be able to buy the Club. Varney isn't that wealthy either. Murray is rich but if he had that much he wouldn't have need to sell in the first place.
The clue is that Varney spoke of an "investor group" and "so many third parties involved" and Slater then spoke of the "owners" in the third person.
Ok thanks. That's good coz i'm certainly ready for lift off in a big way. The richer and more powerful the owner, the better. If somebody wants to use us as their play thing to win trophies then great.
[cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]also interesting to note that the share price of Richard Murray's company, Invesco, which i believe is his 'vehicle' for funding Charlton, have doubled in the last few days. I'm not a financial wizzard but others may be able to analyse that?
Quite simply, he no longer has to fund Charlton, which is good news for Invesco shares.
[cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]also interesting to note that the share price of Richard Murray's company, Invesco, which i believe is his 'vehicle' for funding Charlton, have doubled in the last few days. I'm not a financial wizzard but others may be able to analyse that?
Quite simply, he no longer has to fund Charlton, which is good news for Invesco shares.
I think you'll find that Invesco is a huge international fund management company, worth billions of dollars, and has nothing to do with Avesco which is the company that RM founded and still owns a minority chunk of, worth somewhat less.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The clue is that Varney spoke of an "investor group" and "so many third parties involved" and Slater then spoke of the "owners" in the third person.
It isn't much of a clue though is it? A group just needs to be more than one person, and/or the company set up to take ownership, and the third person quote looks like a figure of speech to me. Against that, the OS refers to 'ownership' switching to Slater and Jiminez. Pretty clear-cut I think. Why would anyone plant vague 'clues' anyway, if they don't want people to know who the real owners are?
You could well be right. We shall see.
The statements weren't, IMHO, planted as clues in some Di Vinci Code exercise. Just statements that lead me to believe that there is more to this than just MS and TJ.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]why would murray sell if he didn't know who the buyer was going to be?[/quote]
A loss making club, the best deal on the table, ability to exit before he burns any more cash. I like what Murray has done for the club, but it's been quite clear for the last couple of years that he wants out. This deal does keep on board and I presume he's still going to have a fair amount of influence - and be involved, but he won't be pulling the strings. Maybe his retention was part of the deal - that the new owners wanted to keep him around for the next year or two. Although Jimenez has been involved in football he hasn't been on the management end of operations, Slater from his CV is a football fan, has run companies/been on boards but has never run a club either. If there is a third party involved then I'd take it as a sign that they are non-football experts by retaining Murray and getting Varney on the board as well.
A lot of businessmen have great experience in their particular industry/field of expertise only to buy a football club and get fleeced.
I used to work for Invesco, my share options are looking good. As someone else said Avesco is the name of the Company. You wouldnt believe how many times Invesco has been mixed up with Avesco.
Why would anyone plant vague 'clues' anyway, if they don't want people to know who the real owners are?
There's one way to find out - ask them. If they stall, fudge around and avoid the question then you can draw your own conclusion. If they are tell us what the ownership structure is in plain English then fine. Most likely they simply haven't been asked these questions.
I note that Slater is on CL tonight, who is going to interview him? Whoever it is can you be polite, but insistent over the question of ownership and also ask if they are the sole beneficiary owners what the deal is - whether the club was bought with cash, or if there are any loans or mortgage interest payments against the purchase that we might find ourselves having to fork out for. Man U/Liverpool both have or had in the latter's case, payment in kind loans attached to the purchase of the clubs. These are often at excruciatingly high rates of interest and in Liverpool's case nearly brought the club to the point of receivership. Needless to say I very much this form of loan isn't being used to buy the club. But if we don't ask the right questions...we might never find out.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Bennyhill[/cite]Does anyone know how keeping the backers a secret i.e Leeds, Notts County us etc etc plays with the FA regarding conflict of interests, i.e if our backers actually owned another club in England.[/quote]
The authorities have to know exactly who "owns" the club and "runs" the club... who "funds" it is another matter[/quote]
Can't imagine that is true. Fit and Proper persons test must surely be as much about Money Laundering as the people themselves and hence I would imagine the FA would have an absolute requirement to know where the funding is coming from. The problem is with Offsore Companies there is very little way of proving you have been given all the answers. The shares of the Offshore company may all be owned by Jimenez which is what the official website implies, however it only needs a Declaration of Trust between Jiminez and someone else to mean the Ultimate Beneficial Owner is someone else...if Jiminez decides not to disclose this to anyone then I am not sure what the FA could do to investigate further (although no doubt if there was such a document and it was discovered we would be in serious do-do).
That's my understanding anyway...but I am by no means an expert in these matters
Comments
The authorities have to know exactly who "owns" the club and "runs" the club... who "funds" it is another matter
Surely there has to be a paper trail of some sort that would eventually "out" hidden money ?
Totally agree with you.
There already some on here and elsewhere have already made their minds up and not giving these new owners a chance. Before we start coming to conclusions this is bad for the club and nothing is really going to change lets see what happens first.
I am prepared to back the new owners and see what they can do. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they are going to be bad for us and there is no evidence that they will be good for us.
That's exactly my point - Parky will be in a position where he will feel he has to walk because he is no longer in control. Maybe i have clouded vision as i just can't see Parky getting us promoted. I would guess the new mob would feel the same if they've been watching our football over any period of time. So, they can't really come in and sack a manager in third spot as they would be making a rod for their own backs and it may also cost a bit. These guys have no relationship with parky, they won't feel any problem with forcing him out even if publicly they are backing him. The point is, if they feel, like me, Parky is not the man then they aint going to keep him on just coz he's a nice hard working bloke. Maybe they rate him, in which case fair enough but i wouldn't be surprised to see something happen when they 'sit down' next week and it could be more than bringing in another slow forward, defender or non footballing midfielder. That may be harsh and may be comnplete nonsense on my part but thats the way i see it.
Slater/Jiminez plan to repeat the slow but steady and well-managed progress of the early '90's. If they do that then I for one will be more than happy, even if it doesn't include the bonus of a few years in the premiership.
They aren't Charlton people which I suppose could be a worry - I can't see them sinking money into the club long term in the way Richard Murray has - but at this point their interests and Charlton's are aligned so for the time being anyway it's all good.
And, thank God, this calls time on any new 'take over' threads. For that alone I am grateful.
I think the proof of their intentions are already starting to be seen (ie keeping Parky when it would be very easy and cheap to sack him and not involving Wise in an official capacity when it would be very simple to do so).
I would much rather know who the backers/owners behind MS and TJ are (if there are any. IMHO there are but even that isn't 100% clear) but let's at least give them the chance to show what they are going to do in this transfer window and the next.
I'm happy they are here as the previous position was high risk and unsustainable long term without promotion. I still have questions but for the time being they have, for what little it is worth, my support.
You got there before me. I see no reason why we shouldn't take this deal at face value.
Kav is an employee and will be laughing to himself when he reads that he would somehow be able to buy the Club. Varney isn't that wealthy either. Murray is rich but if he had that much he wouldn't have need to sell in the first place.
The clue is that Varney spoke of an "investor group" and "so many third parties involved" and Slater then spoke of the "owners" in the third person.
We are going to find out a lot about the nature of this takeover in the next couple of weeks now that the transfer window is open again. This will also give us a hint as to whether external backers are involved. Interesting times.
Spot on Henry,my interpretation too
It isn't much of a clue though is it? A group just needs to be more than one person, and/or the company set up to take ownership, and the third person quote looks like a figure of speech to me. Against that, the OS refers to 'ownership' switching to Slater and Jiminez. Pretty clear-cut I think. Why would anyone plant vague 'clues' anyway, if they don't want people to know who the real owners are?
Ok thanks. That's good coz i'm certainly ready for lift off in a big way. The richer and more powerful the owner, the better. If somebody wants to use us as their play thing to win trophies then great.
Quite simply, he no longer has to fund Charlton, which is good news for Invesco shares.
I think you'll find that Invesco is a huge international fund management company, worth billions of dollars, and has nothing to do with Avesco which is the company that RM founded and still owns a minority chunk of, worth somewhat less.
You could well be right. We shall see.
The statements weren't, IMHO, planted as clues in some Di Vinci Code exercise. Just statements that lead me to believe that there is more to this than just MS and TJ.
A loss making club, the best deal on the table, ability to exit before he burns any more cash. I like what Murray has done for the club, but it's been quite clear for the last couple of years that he wants out. This deal does keep on board and I presume he's still going to have a fair amount of influence - and be involved, but he won't be pulling the strings. Maybe his retention was part of the deal - that the new owners wanted to keep him around for the next year or two. Although Jimenez has been involved in football he hasn't been on the management end of operations, Slater from his CV is a football fan, has run companies/been on boards but has never run a club either. If there is a third party involved then I'd take it as a sign that they are non-football experts by retaining Murray and getting Varney on the board as well.
A lot of businessmen have great experience in their particular industry/field of expertise only to buy a football club and get fleeced.
There's one way to find out - ask them. If they stall, fudge around and avoid the question then you can draw your own conclusion. If they are tell us what the ownership structure is in plain English then fine. Most likely they simply haven't been asked these questions.
I note that Slater is on CL tonight, who is going to interview him? Whoever it is can you be polite, but insistent over the question of ownership and also ask if they are the sole beneficiary owners what the deal is - whether the club was bought with cash, or if there are any loans or mortgage interest payments against the purchase that we might find ourselves having to fork out for. Man U/Liverpool both have or had in the latter's case, payment in kind loans attached to the purchase of the clubs. These are often at excruciatingly high rates of interest and in Liverpool's case nearly brought the club to the point of receivership. Needless to say I very much this form of loan isn't being used to buy the club. But if we don't ask the right questions...we might never find out.
Still no excuse for the question not to have been asked though...
Indeed. Let us know what answers you get.
Still not got this quote thing right yet have we : - )
The authorities have to know exactly who "owns" the club and "runs" the club... who "funds" it is another matter[/quote]
Can't imagine that is true. Fit and Proper persons test must surely be as much about Money Laundering as the people themselves and hence I would imagine the FA would have an absolute requirement to know where the funding is coming from. The problem is with Offsore Companies there is very little way of proving you have been given all the answers. The shares of the Offshore company may all be owned by Jimenez which is what the official website implies, however it only needs a Declaration of Trust between Jiminez and someone else to mean the Ultimate Beneficial Owner is someone else...if Jiminez decides not to disclose this to anyone then I am not sure what the FA could do to investigate further (although no doubt if there was such a document and it was discovered we would be in serious do-do).
That's my understanding anyway...but I am by no means an expert in these matters
Is that on the radio or the Charlton Website...?
Charlton Live via the computer @ 7pm on Sundays (Charlton Player).
Just don't ask about the Gary Sargeant jingle.....