John Textor

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

John Textor

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Mr Palaceman 12 Aug 21 12.59pm
Originally posted by PatrickA As I said, many will see it as postive. But then don't complain if a Super League eventually becomes established, if games are moved to America or Asia and 3pm Saturday games become a rarity owing to global media demands. It's correct to say Americans are protective of their investments, but there is , or may will be, a price to pay in the long term. The economics are well understood but to lose the feeling of being a community club would be a real shame. It's understood that many won't care if we claw a mid table finish each season. To potentially lose the soul of the club to achieve such an objective could be a heavy price to pay. I accept this may be a minority view but this is supposed to be a forum for debate. Personally, I don't think any of that can happen. Were we not one of the most vocal clubs in opposition to any idea of a super league, despite our owners. I could see us getting more exposure in the States and a few pre-season tours. I remember, when CPFC 2010 took over, it was clear that they did it just to save the club. The other thing that was clear was that they would not sell the club to a foreign investor that did not have the best interests of the club at heart, they said it and as far as I can see, 11 years on, they lived up to that. On losing the soul of the club, I don't think that anyone would be a fan or supporter and not be concerned about that. It is always a worry for a club like ours in the top flight. However, what I would say is, that it is the supporters that make this a "Community Club" not the owners. We have a long history and recently, we owe a lot to that protest outside Lloyds. Things like that set a tone and we we're also lucky enough to have fans with cash to save the club and since then we have kept who we are as a club together. We hope whoever owns the club, they get what we are about and love the club, not just run it as a commercial entity but the financial reality to being in the Premier League is foreign ownership. It's a global brand and as such, would not exist without global money. We can only hope, we get it right as a club, so it is a worry. I would always rather be the club we are than stay in the Premiership but I think on that scale, we are doing more than alright. Long may that continue.... "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr Palaceman

12 Aug 21 12.59pm

Originally posted by PatrickA

As I said, many will see it as postive.
But then don't complain if a Super League eventually becomes established, if games are moved to America or Asia and 3pm Saturday games become a rarity owing to global media demands.
It's correct to say Americans are protective of their investments, but there is , or may will be, a price to pay in the long term.
The economics are well understood but to lose the feeling of being a community club would be a real shame.
It's understood that many won't care if we claw a mid table finish each season.
To potentially lose the soul of the club to achieve such an objective could be a heavy price to pay.
I accept this may be a minority view but this is supposed to be a forum for debate.

Personally, I don't think any of that can happen. Were we not one of the most vocal clubs in opposition to any idea of a super league, despite our owners.

I could see us getting more exposure in the States and a few pre-season tours.

I remember, when CPFC 2010 took over, it was clear that they did it just to save the club. The other thing that was clear was that they would not sell the club to a foreign investor that did not have the best interests of the club at heart, they said it and as far as I can see, 11 years on, they lived up to that.

On losing the soul of the club, I don't think that anyone would be a fan or supporter and not be concerned about that. It is always a worry for a club like ours in the top flight.

However, what I would say is, that it is the supporters that make this a "Community Club" not the owners. We have a long history and recently, we owe a lot to that protest outside Lloyds. Things like that set a tone and we we're also lucky enough to have fans with cash to save the club and since then we have kept who we are as a club together.

We hope whoever owns the club, they get what we are about and love the club, not just run it as a commercial entity but the financial reality to being in the Premier League is foreign ownership. It's a global brand and as such, would not exist without global money.

We can only hope, we get it right as a club, so it is a worry. I would always rather be the club we are than stay in the Premiership but I think on that scale, we are doing more than alright.

Long may that continue....

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 Aug 21 1.06pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle I don't think that it works that way as you can't issue shares to the major shareholders without offering them to the smaller shareholders too Therefore you think % shareholding from all the shareholders will go to the new shareholder and the main 4 will hold less than 18% each? Thinking on this I thought maybe they’d want 3 to equal 51% to make decisions easier, although legally up to now all 3 had to agree. Those 3 totalled 54%. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 12 Aug 21 1.06pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I don't think that it works that way as you can't issue shares to the major shareholders without offering them to the smaller shareholders too

Therefore you think % shareholding from all the shareholders will go to the new shareholder and the main 4 will hold less than 18% each? Thinking on this I thought maybe they’d want 3 to equal 51% to make decisions easier, although legally up to now all 3 had to agree. Those 3 totalled 54%.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 12 Aug 21 1.14pm
With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 12 Aug 21 1.14pm

With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

doombear Too far from Selhurst Park 12 Aug 21 1.43pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that. Who is saying Textor has 18%? This is surely new money to buy new shares not existing shares, therefore all existing shareholders will have had their holding reduced as a percentage of the whole. It's a question of what are the new percentage holdings of the 4 directors?
Alert a moderator to this post

doombear

Too far from Selhurst Park 12 Aug 21 1.43pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that.

Who is saying Textor has 18%? This is surely new money to buy new shares not existing shares, therefore all existing shareholders will have had their holding reduced as a percentage of the whole. It's a question of what are the new percentage holdings of the 4 directors?

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 Aug 21 1.47pm
Mods, Please merge threads. We’re about to have the same conversation in 2 threads. Midlands usually does this pretty swiftly. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 12 Aug 21 1.47pm

Mods, Please merge threads. We’re about to have the same conversation in 2 threads.

Midlands usually does this pretty swiftly.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

nead1 12 Aug 21 2.23pm
The Guardian report on this indicated "close to 18%" and seemed to be suggesting he was pretty much an equal partner along with the other 3. If the £90m figure is correct, I would have thought he would want to be treated as an equal partner for that kind of investment.
Alert a moderator to this post

nead1

12 Aug 21 2.23pm

The Guardian report on this indicated "close to 18%" and seemed to be suggesting he was pretty much an equal partner along with the other 3. If the £90m figure is correct, I would have thought he would want to be treated as an equal partner for that kind of investment.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hudsoneagle 12 Aug 21 3.03pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that. I would think he has to buy some of the debt as well? And perhaps match some of the funds paid in by other owners.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hudsoneagle

12 Aug 21 3.03pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that.

I would think he has to buy some of the debt as well? And perhaps match some of the funds paid in by other owners.

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 12 Aug 21 3.18pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that. His investment will be a mixture of equity and loans and not just shares
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

12 Aug 21 3.18pm

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by ASCPFC

With Textor's 18% valued at 87.5 mil, that means somebody reckons the club's worth 450 mil or more. There's no way it's worth that.

His investment will be a mixture of equity and loans and not just shares

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 12 Aug 21 3.19pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Mods, Please merge threads. We’re about to have the same conversation in 2 threads. Midlands usually does this pretty swiftly. you mean did this as I stepped down from moderating over a year ago
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

12 Aug 21 3.19pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Mods, Please merge threads. We’re about to have the same conversation in 2 threads.

Midlands usually does this pretty swiftly.

you mean did this as I stepped down from moderating over a year ago

Alert a moderator to this post

Omph Liverpool 12 Aug 21 5.11pm
Originally posted by Hudsoneagle I would think he has to buy some of the debt as well? And perhaps match some of the funds paid in by other owners. Good point Without doing any sums I suspect we may then be already relatively close to the limit on new funds available for transfers if a certain amount has been set aside for the stand. If we were indeed lowballing Blackburn for Armstrong at 12 million perhaps that is more or less what is left in the immediate kitty. Edited by Omph (12 Aug 2021 5.12pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Omph

Liverpool 12 Aug 21 5.11pm

Originally posted by Hudsoneagle

I would think he has to buy some of the debt as well? And perhaps match some of the funds paid in by other owners.

Good point

Without doing any sums I suspect we may then be already relatively close to the limit on new funds available for transfers if a certain amount has been set aside for the stand.

If we were indeed lowballing Blackburn for Armstrong at 12 million perhaps that is more or less what is left in the immediate kitty.

Edited by Omph (12 Aug 2021 5.12pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

MR100% 12 Aug 21 6.04pm
just to help with some numbers ANNUAL TOTAL WAGE BILL FOR Wickham £3,360,000 Cahill £6,480.000 Sakho £6,240,000 Dann £3,840,000 Van Aanholt £5,280,000 Hennessey £3,360,000 so just on those players, the club will have saved circa £28,560,00 a year in wages,If you look at the players that have come in it appears that their contracts have a higher element of pay linked to performances and appearances
Alert a moderator to this post

MR100%

12 Aug 21 6.04pm

just to help with some numbers

ANNUAL TOTAL WAGE BILL FOR

Wickham £3,360,000
Cahill £6,480.000
Sakho £6,240,000
Dann £3,840,000
Van Aanholt £5,280,000
Hennessey £3,360,000

so just on those players, the club will have saved circa £28,560,00 a year in wages,If you look at the players that have come in it appears that their contracts have a higher element of pay linked to performances and appearances

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 Aug 21 6.59pm
Originally posted by MR100% just to help with some numbers ANNUAL TOTAL WAGE BILL FOR Wickham £3,360,000 Cahill £6,480.000 Sakho £6,240,000 Dann £3,840,000 Van Aanholt £5,280,000 Hennessey £3,360,000 so just on those players, the club will have saved circa £28,560,00 a year in wages,If you look at the players that have come in it appears that their contracts have a higher element of pay linked to performances and appearances Hungry rather than fat and lazy. Oh and unfit, or never fit. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 12 Aug 21 6.59pm

Originally posted by MR100%

just to help with some numbers

ANNUAL TOTAL WAGE BILL FOR

Wickham £3,360,000
Cahill £6,480.000
Sakho £6,240,000
Dann £3,840,000
Van Aanholt £5,280,000
Hennessey £3,360,000

so just on those players, the club will have saved circa £28,560,00 a year in wages,If you look at the players that have come in it appears that their contracts have a higher element of pay linked to performances and appearances

Hungry rather than fat and lazy. Oh and unfit, or never fit.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

John Textor

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors