This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The reason we wont build stand/spend on transfers
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Holton thunderbolt  24 May 23 3.08pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
SP owns 20per cent of shares of a company owned in majority by 3 billionaire Americans and/or their trusts.in any normal company if there is investment required all shareholders put it in in proportion to their shareholding. Therefor if £100million is now required for the stand,and£100m for players transfers etc,SP would have to put in £40m . It was also I understand as previously reported that the original £60 m paid by Harris/Blitzer to SP and the other shareholders 11 or 12 years ago was to be put into the club when the stand was built,albeit probably by way of a loan. Although it appears SP has been paid £3.5 m per annum in wages and bonus for staying up he would still have to find the £40 mill or any other sum required to fund Palace over and above the tv and place money-most of which goes on high wages and running costs.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| m/k mick milton keynes 24 May 23 3.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Holton thunderbolt
SP owns 20per cent of shares of a company owned in majority by 3 billionaire Americans and/or their trusts.in any normal company if there is investment required all shareholders put it in in proportion to their shareholding. Therefor if £100million is now required for the stand,and£100m for players transfers etc,SP would have to put in £40m . It was also I understand as previously reported that the original £60 m paid by Harris/Blitzer to SP and the other shareholders 11 or 12 years ago was to be put into the club when the stand was built,albeit probably by way of a loan. Although it appears SP has been paid £3.5 m per annum in wages and bonus for staying up he would still have to find the £40 mill or any other sum required to fund Palace over and above the tv and place money-most of which goes on high wages and running costs. What a load of tosh,
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 24 May 23 3.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Holton thunderbolt
It also has been rumoured that the ground is now owned by the shareholders personally “to protect the club”. Not only have I not seen any such rumours but it isn't born out by the latest accounts of CPFC Selhurst Ltd
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
taylors lovechild  24 May 23 3.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
You have posted four messages. The first three were to slag off Parish and were posted three years ago. You now return to start it up again. Are you related to the American investors in some way? I haven't seen anyone slagging off the Americans for ages. To be honest it's easy to forget they even have any involvement. Personally I have no big desire for us to shake things up in terms of ownership. We're probably the longest tenured small club in the PL now and haven't been close to relegation for years. We have three England internationals and a first-rate academy. A supporter who is the chairman, a supporter who is the manager and no declarations of financial impropriety. Maybe everything will fall apart, but right now I'm happy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| MrRobbo Chaldon 24 May 23 3.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Holton thunderbolt
SP owns 20per cent of shares of a company owned in majority by 3 billionaire Americans and/or their trusts.in any normal company if there is investment required all shareholders put it in in proportion to their shareholding. Therefor if £100million is now required for the stand,and£100m for players transfers etc,SP would have to put in £40m . It was also I understand as previously reported that the original £60 m paid by Harris/Blitzer to SP and the other shareholders 11 or 12 years ago was to be put into the club when the stand was built,albeit probably by way of a loan. Although it appears SP has been paid £3.5 m per annum in wages and bonus for staying up he would still have to find the £40 mill or any other sum required to fund Palace over and above the tv and place money-most of which goes on high wages and running costs. Paragraphs please, that's giving me a headache
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Lanzo-Ad  Lanzarote 24 May 23 3.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Holton thunderbolt
SP owns 20per cent of shares of a company owned in majority by 3 billionaire Americans and/or their trusts.in any normal company if there is investment required all shareholders put it in in proportion to their shareholding. Therefor if £100million is now required for the stand,and£100m for players transfers etc,SP would have to put in £40m . It was also I understand as previously reported that the original £60 m paid by Harris/Blitzer to SP and the other shareholders 11 or 12 years ago was to be put into the club when the stand was built,albeit probably by way of a loan. Although it appears SP has been paid £3.5 m per annum in wages and bonus for staying up he would still have to find the £40 mill or any other sum required to fund Palace over and above the tv and place money-most of which goes on high wages and running costs. Are you Simon Jordan
“That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| palace99 New Mills 24 May 23 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Holton thunderbolt
SP owns 20per cent of shares of a company owned in majority by 3 billionaire Americans and/or their trusts.in any normal company if there is investment required all shareholders put it in in proportion to their shareholding. Therefor if £100million is now required for the stand,and£100m for players transfers etc,SP would have to put in £40m . It was also I understand as previously reported that the original £60 m paid by Harris/Blitzer to SP and the other shareholders 11 or 12 years ago was to be put into the club when the stand was built,albeit probably by way of a loan. Although it appears SP has been paid £3.5 m per annum in wages and bonus for staying up he would still have to find the £40 mill or any other sum required to fund Palace over and above the tv and place money-most of which goes on high wages and running costs. Some fair points, some inaccuracies. SP never received a salary as chairman until the Americans came in and they felt he should be paid a fair wage for his role. I do feel his salary is a bit too high, however, i think it was less £2m in the last accounts and about £800k the year before. The issue about the owners jointly having to fund any investment ignores 2 points. Textor came in and injected c£100m into the club. He did this by buying 'new' shares. So if one owner has more money this is an easy way around the issue. It means the others own as lesser % of the club, but the overall club value should go up by the investment amount.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Holton thunderbolt 24 May 23 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I have no specific knowledge of “the Americans” other than various press reports and the original comments they were bottom of the pay league for players in the NBA club they owned. I did not appoint them,SP did so presumably he sorted out during due diligence a proper working relationship-as well as his Chairmanship upfront. My comments were really in answer to the number of posts about why the stand hasn’t been built and why no right back,striker signings etc etc and the manager situation -whereby most potential managers other than Roy/Paddy will want some sort of serious spend on players. There are many practical reasons the stand has been delayed-106 agreement,the houses over the back,most of all Sainsbury’s owning of the “ransom “ strip- but nothing that money relatively small in comparison to transfer and loan fees-and the cost of the stand- couldn’t sort. I said many years ago the stand would not be built with the current shareholding situ and fear unfortunately there will be no real change in years to come. SP has undoubtedly done a great job rescuing Palace from the receivers,acquiring the ground ,staying up for 10 years and building the academy. He has also in monetary terms and shares he owns etc been remunerated well personally-it is a matter of individual opinions whether that is fair reward or not. If the club is to get to the next level and stay there (if the shareholders and supporters really want to)in both league position and ground terms -the tv funding alone is not enough. My overall point is-Whilst Notts F and Chelsea have proven throwing money at multiple transfers doesn’t necessarily work-capital expenditure building the stand and a prudent but real transfer budget could work and would probably be within the reach and relatively small beer for our billionaire shareholders-if SP would do his proportion as a 20% shareholder.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 24 May 23 5.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Holton thunderbolt
I have no specific knowledge of “the Americans” other than various press reports and the original comments they were bottom of the pay league for players in the NBA club they owned. I did not appoint them,SP did so presumably he sorted out during due diligence a proper working relationship-as well as his Chairmanship upfront. My comments were really in answer to the number of posts about why the stand hasn’t been built and why no right back,striker signings etc etc and the manager situation -whereby most potential managers other than Roy/Paddy will want some sort of serious spend on players. There are many practical reasons the stand has been delayed-106 agreement,the houses over the back,most of all Sainsbury’s owning of the “ransom “ strip- but nothing that money relatively small in comparison to transfer and loan fees-and the cost of the stand- couldn’t sort. I said many years ago the stand would not be built with the current shareholding situ and fear unfortunately there will be no real change in years to come. SP has undoubtedly done a great job rescuing Palace from the receivers,acquiring the ground ,staying up for 10 years and building the academy. He has also in monetary terms and shares he owns etc been remunerated well personally-it is a matter of individual opinions whether that is fair reward or not. If the club is to get to the next level and stay there (if the shareholders and supporters really want to)in both league position and ground terms -the tv funding alone is not enough. My overall point is-Whilst Notts F and Chelsea have proven throwing money at multiple transfers doesn’t necessarily work-capital expenditure building the stand and a prudent but real transfer budget could work and would probably be within the reach and relatively small beer for our billionaire shareholders-if SP would do his proportion as a 20% shareholder. Currently, the stand build is due to commence in May 2024 according to The Athletic. I'm sure you must know that you cannot just spend money on transfers unless you make that money from football related revenue streams.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 24 May 23 5.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
As far as I was aware we have significant loans to service. Shareholder and bank loans. That's the issue, not Parish.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 25 May 23 6.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace99
The issue about the owners jointly having to fund any investment ignores 2 points. Textor came in and injected c£100m into the club. He did this by buying 'new' shares. So if one owner has more money this is an easy way around the issue. It means the others own as lesser % of the club, but the overall club value should go up by the investment amount. 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
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| robdave2k 25 May 23 6.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Holton thunderbolt
SP owns 20per cent of shares of a company owned in majority by 3 billionaire Americans and/or their trusts.in any normal company if there is investment required all shareholders put it in in proportion to their shareholding. Therefor if £100million is now required for the stand,and£100m for players transfers etc,SP would have to put in £40m . It was also I understand as previously reported that the original £60 m paid by Harris/Blitzer to SP and the other shareholders 11 or 12 years ago was to be put into the club when the stand was built,albeit probably by way of a loan. Although it appears SP has been paid £3.5 m per annum in wages and bonus for staying up he would still have to find the £40 mill or any other sum required to fund Palace over and above the tv and place money-most of which goes on high wages and running costs. What a beautifully constructed post, full of well reasoned argument. Shame it’s a pile of utter horses***. Rumoured it’s now owned by shareholders - think Land Registry, Companies House, the company bankers, insurance company may all have something to say about it. And as for investment, I’m going to guess you don’t run your own company!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.