The reason we wont build stand/spend on transfers

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

dreamwaverider Online London 25 May 23 6.59am
We have a complex share and management structure that I’m not sure any outsider really understands. Our shareholders clearly have no interest in publicly sharing the detail. However, SP has successfullly maintained a very good position in the league for his tenure and continues to do so. However it works , it does. With Hodgson back any Palace fan has got to be happy not only at our results but also our football.
Alert a moderator to this post

dreamwaverider Online

London 25 May 23 6.59am

Send a Private Message to dreamwaverider

We have a complex share and management structure that I’m not sure any outsider really understands.
Our shareholders clearly have no interest in publicly sharing the detail.
However, SP has successfullly maintained a very good position in the league for his tenure and continues to do so. However it works , it does.
With Hodgson back any Palace fan has got to be happy not only at our results but also our football.

Alert a moderator to this post

palace99 New Mills 30 May 23 12.29pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle It isn't quite that simple as the shareholders have to agree to issue new shares and some / all may not wish to see their shareholding diluted Surely it is pretty obvious that the existing shareholders (or a majority) need to agree to new external investment/investors. Does that really need spelling out? As Textor joined the board/became a shareholder 2 years ago by buying c20% of the club via the issue of new shares, this is less of an issue for Palace as this has already recently happened. If Textor wanted to put more money into the club, and let's face it the other owners seem unwilling to do so, they can replicate this process. In terms of shareholder dilution, i think you miss the point as on day 1 the value of your shareholding is unchanged. If i had 25% of shares of a company valued at £400m and someone wanted to buy in and own 20% for £100m (i.e. via the issue of new shares and not buying them off existing shareholders) then my shareholding drops to 20% but the value of the company is now £500m (the initial £400m plus the £100m now in the bank). So my 20% is worth £100m. That is essentially what Textor did in 2021.
Alert a moderator to this post

palace99

New Mills 30 May 23 12.29pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

It isn't quite that simple as the shareholders have to agree to issue new shares and some / all may not wish to see their shareholding diluted

Surely it is pretty obvious that the existing shareholders (or a majority) need to agree to new external investment/investors. Does that really need spelling out?
As Textor joined the board/became a shareholder 2 years ago by buying c20% of the club via the issue of new shares, this is less of an issue for Palace as this has already recently happened. If Textor wanted to put more money into the club, and let's face it the other owners seem unwilling to do so, they can replicate this process.

In terms of shareholder dilution, i think you miss the point as on day 1 the value of your shareholding is unchanged. If i had 25% of shares of a company valued at £400m and someone wanted to buy in and own 20% for £100m (i.e. via the issue of new shares and not buying them off existing shareholders) then my shareholding drops to 20% but the value of the company is now £500m (the initial £400m plus the £100m now in the bank). So my 20% is worth £100m.
That is essentially what Textor did in 2021.

Alert a moderator to this post

CpfcWeTrust1 30 May 23 1.21pm
Just to add to everyone else's commentary on the diatribe(obviously pointed and misplaced at SP.) of input about the stand situation. Simon Jordan has mentioned a variety of times how much of complicated situation (to put it nicely) it is/was, to try and expand Selhurst. I would've thought it was also part of talks when the shareholders became shareholders. In the recent interview with G.Neville, Parish states he has a good relationship with the American duo and how fanatical they are about football. I doubt the pocket change (for them) is the stumbling block when it comes to expansion and adding to their investment.
Alert a moderator to this post

CpfcWeTrust1

30 May 23 1.21pm

Just to add to everyone else's commentary on the diatribe(obviously pointed and misplaced at SP.) of input about the stand situation. Simon Jordan has mentioned a variety of times how much of complicated situation (to put it nicely) it is/was, to try and expand Selhurst.

I would've thought it was also part of talks when the shareholders became shareholders. In the recent interview with G.Neville, Parish states he has a good relationship with the American duo and how fanatical they are about football. I doubt the pocket change (for them) is the stumbling block when it comes to expansion and adding to their investment.

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 30 May 23 2.47pm
Originally posted by palace99 As Textor joined the board/became a shareholder 2 years ago by buying c20% of the club via the issue of new shares, this is less of an issue for Palace as this has already recently happened. If Textor wanted to put more money into the club, and let's face it the other owners seem unwilling to do so, they can replicate this process. According to The Guardian Textor's company now owns 40% of Palace whilst Parish's shareholding has been reduced to just 10% According to rumours Textor wants funds injected into Palace in proportion to their shareholdings and Parish is the problem as he doesn't have the wealth to fund his share to the level that it needs. Of course rumours are not always true
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

30 May 23 2.47pm

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by palace99

As Textor joined the board/became a shareholder 2 years ago by buying c20% of the club via the issue of new shares, this is less of an issue for Palace as this has already recently happened. If Textor wanted to put more money into the club, and let's face it the other owners seem unwilling to do so, they can replicate this process.

According to The Guardian Textor's company now owns 40% of Palace whilst Parish's shareholding has been reduced to just 10%

According to rumours Textor wants funds injected into Palace in proportion to their shareholdings and Parish is the problem as he doesn't have the wealth to fund his share to the level that it needs. Of course rumours are not always true

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The reason we wont build stand/spend on transfers

Site Map

Sponsors