You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Are we in financial trouble
February 20 2019 7.42pm

Are we in financial trouble

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

This forum is sponsored by

Football Index

Sponsor a forum or Advertise on the HOL!

 

View bexleydave's Profile bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 23 Jan 19 8.44am Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

You know this how? Have you evidence from the company accounts? What about the buy in money when they became shareholders? Is that still ringfenced then? Or is it not ringfenced and never existed?

The two US investors purchased shares, at their then valuation, from the existing shareholders thus significantly reducing the holdings of three of the original owners and also reducing Parish's holding.

The so-called ringfenced £100m US investment, for a new stand, was indicated at the time to be an additional investment and that would appear to still be a possibility as Parish recently said that relegation (should it happen) would not affect the proposed works. These monies will not appear in the accounts until required as no investor leaves that sort of cash sitting around doing nothing.

Edited by bexleydave (23 Jan 2019 8.45am)

 


Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Willo's Profile Willo Flag 23 Jan 19 8.56am Send a Private Message to Willo Add Willo as a friend

Originally posted by bexleydave

The two US investors purchased shares, at their then valuation, from the existing shareholders thus significantly reducing the holdings of three of the original owners and also reducing Parish's holding.

The so-called ringfenced £100m US investment, for a new stand, was indicated at the time to be an additional investment and that would appear to still be a possibility as Parish recently said that relegation (should it happen) would not affect the proposed works. These monies will not appear in the accounts until required as no investor leaves that sort of cash sitting around doing nothing.

Edited by bexleydave (23 Jan 2019 8.45am)

My understanding is that Parish's shareholding went down from 25% to 18%.The other three reduced their shareholding from 25% down to 10%.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 Jan 19 9.15am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by bexleydave

The two US investors purchased shares, at their then valuation, from the existing shareholders thus significantly reducing the holdings of three of the original owners and also reducing Parish's holding.

The so-called ringfenced £100m US investment, for a new stand, was indicated at the time to be an additional investment and that would appear to still be a possibility as Parish recently said that relegation (should it happen) would not affect the proposed works. These monies will not appear in the accounts until required as no investor leaves that sort of cash sitting around doing nothing.

Edited by bexleydave (23 Jan 2019 8.45am)

Yes I know. Iím relating this money to Orpingtoneavleís claim the club are being charged interest:-

ĎThe money put into the club by the American investors comes with interest payments. This debt needs to be serviced and sucks money out of the club.í

Iím unsure how seriously to take this comment. If heís talking about the buy in money I take it 1% seriously. Is he talking about the recent transfer money Parish claims the Americans paid for?

There looks like there could be more reasons why a sale is desired and maybe all the US investment ever did and ever will do is keep us desirable as a Prem club. Maybe theyíve kept us up and Parish in the green in millions, but their shared tenure wonít be judged until they sell up because this is clearly the best itís going to be. Some might say itís the best itís ever been but the problem is that following relegation the situation and future could be very bleak. Weíre hanging on by a thread really and some major changes in transfer scouting and strategy are critical.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jeeagles's Profile jeeagles Flag 23 Jan 19 9.19am Send a Private Message to jeeagles Add jeeagles as a friend

What's the combined amount of minutes that Sorloth, Mutch, KaiKai, Williams, and Puncheon have spent on the pitch this season?

Soaure and Reidewald are in a similar position.

With the exception of KaiKai, the other players are all likely to be on decent wages and never used. It's the correct business decision to cut ineffective high earners, then to look to spend that money better elsewhere.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 Jan 19 9.28am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by bexleydave

The two US investors purchased shares, at their then valuation, from the existing shareholders thus significantly reducing the holdings of three of the original owners and also reducing Parish's holding.

The so-called ringfenced £100m US investment, for a new stand, was indicated at the time to be an additional investment and that would appear to still be a possibility as Parish recently said that relegation (should it happen) would not affect the proposed works. These monies will not appear in the accounts until required as no investor leaves that sort of cash sitting around doing nothing.

Edited by bexleydave (23 Jan 2019 8.45am)

Actually Iím not sure thatís correct. One of 2010 took the money and reduced his shareholding. Parish and 2 others I think didnít take any money at the time of this deal. My understanding, from memory so it might be hazy, is that the £100 mil buy in was the purchase of the shares but the money (kept in a bank account) was ringfenced for the stadium. When the stadium is built then the value of the club would rise to something like £200 million. Do you remember the discussion over how Parish appeared immediately worse off because his shareholding went from 33% to 18% with no financial gain? It was because when the stand is finished and with higher revenue his monetary ownership would be much more. There was no financial gain at the time apart from one of 2010 who took the money and reduced his shareholding to a smaller amount around 3% I think.

My wish is that someone else buys them out because the current strategies are there for the long term and the stadium plans and maybe council agreement are just there as part of the sale. We could try pushing this council agreement but it appears weíre content to go quiet on the whole thing.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View bicycle repair man's Profile bicycle repair man 23 Jan 19 10.50am Send a Private Message to bicycle repair man Add bicycle repair man as a friend

The wage we pay Dougie seems a waste of money.
Great footballer but awful scout.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View KAOS's Profile KAOS Flag India 23 Jan 19 10.59am Send a Private Message to KAOS Add KAOS as a friend

Originally posted by Gribbo

Lack of ambition. Happy to just stay up each year. We will get caught out one year, like Stoke, West Brom, Sunderland or Villa. Happy to go back to the Championship - Saturday afternoon football, no tourist fans, academy players coming through, no s*** refs with big team bias and we will start playing football again instead of defending deep and hoping to nick one on the break. We have scored more goals at the Etihad and Anfield than we have at home all season. Looks like Parish agrees that we will be better off out of the Prem.

Yep - my sentiments too.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View premier fan's Profile premier fan Flag BR4 23 Jan 19 11.14am Send a Private Message to premier fan Add premier fan as a friend

Originally posted by bicycle repair man

The wage we pay Dougie seems a waste of money.
Great footballer but awful scout.

Is he still on the payroll? If he was involved in the Sorloth deal he should have been sacked a while back.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View steven_t92's Profile steven_t92 Flag Orpington 23 Jan 19 12.06pm Send a Private Message to steven_t92 Add steven_t92 as a friend

We're just getting rid of the dead wood that doesn't even get on the bench, I'd expect youngsters to be given a spot on the bench if a few injuries happen as that's the way it's meant to be. Kai kai and Williams aren't youngsters anymore, they failed to make the grade so have been moved on so they can enjoy football rather than hate it with us where they don't fit in as well.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View bexleydave's Profile bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 23 Jan 19 12.24pm Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Actually Iím not sure thatís correct. One of 2010 took the money and reduced his shareholding. Parish and 2 others I think didnít take any money at the time of this deal. My understanding, from memory so it might be hazy, is that the £100 mil buy in was the purchase of the shares but the money (kept in a bank account) was ringfenced for the stadium. When the stadium is built then the value of the club would rise to something like £200 million. Do you remember the discussion over how Parish appeared immediately worse off because his shareholding went from 33% to 18% with no financial gain? It was because when the stand is finished and with higher revenue his monetary ownership would be much more. There was no financial gain at the time apart from one of 2010 who took the money and reduced his shareholding to a smaller amount around 3% I think.

My wish is that someone else buys them out because the current strategies are there for the long term and the stadium plans and maybe council agreement are just there as part of the sale. We could try pushing this council agreement but it appears weíre content to go quiet on the whole thing.

As has already been pointed out on other threads, the accounts have been discussed to death. Suffice to say that, when the club was purchased in 2010, each of the owners had a 25% share.

Subsequent to the US investment, the company accounts showed the ownership figures to be Steve Parish 18%, Steve Browett 5%, Jeremy Hosking 5% and Martin Long 2.5% with the remainder being owned by Palace Holdco LP (a limited partnership registered in Delaware) 67.5% and Palace Parallel LLC (a company also registered in Delaware) 1.5%.

As Delaware companies do not have to reveal their owners the exact ownership of the club is unknown but Steve Parish has confirmed that Harris and Blitzer had an 18% share each to match his own.

 


Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Aray's Profile Aray Flag London 23 Jan 19 12.55pm Send a Private Message to Aray Add Aray as a friend

Originally posted by orpingtoneagle

The money put into the club by the American investors comes with interest payments. This debt needs to be serviced and sucks money out of the club.

SP has his new stadium dream, that costs money.

The club's opaque structure means that just where all this money goes is virtually impossible to track but it sure does look as if our aspirations are yet again to survive by the skin of our teeth and it is expected the current squad can do that.

Are we really expected to believe that our dedicated scouting team led by Dougie are saying there is not a striker anywhere that fits the bill?

I had the distinct impression at the time - and not just from what I read in the press - that the yanks' investment was equity - not debt. Are you certain it is debt?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Aray's Profile Aray Flag London 23 Jan 19 12.57pm Send a Private Message to Aray Add Aray as a friend

Originally posted by bexleydave

As has already been pointed out on other threads, the accounts have been discussed to death. Suffice to say that, when the club was purchased in 2010, each of the owners had a 25% share.

Subsequent to the US investment, the company accounts showed the ownership figures to be Steve Parish 18%, Steve Browett 5%, Jeremy Hosking 5% and Martin Long 2.5% with the remainder being owned by Palace Holdco LP (a limited partnership registered in Delaware) 67.5% and Palace Parallel LLC (a company also registered in Delaware) 1.5%.

As Delaware companies do not have to reveal their owners the exact ownership of the club is unknown but Steve Parish has confirmed that Harris and Blitzer had an 18% share each to match his own.

I believe they may have syndicated some of their stake. Two Americans (bankers) I know were approached shortly after the original 4 reduced their stake.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Are we in financial trouble