THIS IS PURE SPECULATION

seth plum

One thing that has not been dicussed much recently is the notion that what is going on at our club is a kind of internal power struggle. Snippets of comments regarding the shifts of power and influence at boardroom/shareholder level, especially brought under the spotlight because it is said that an ex-employee Peter Varney is putting together a consortium, make me wonder if perhaps looking within is a more fruitful enterprise, than looking without for the eventual change we sort of expect.
Few doubt that Peter Varney is a 'Charlton man', and his departure certainly caused many eyebrows to be lifted, if he is effectively on the fringe of things attempting to bring about change, I wonder if his departure was because the balance of power within the club was something he felt very uncomfortable about.
I have no idea if there is mileage in running the club down in order for people involved with Charlton who were previously fringe players to get the club more cheaply...either individually or as a group. It is possible that any change will not involve any outside or fresh investment, but be more in the nature of 'I'll take it off your hands if you like' with an idea of trying to repair things afterwards.
This is pure speculation on my part, ideally Bill Gates or somebody would ride to the rescue with Zillions of pounds, however it is probably more realistic to think that there will be no magic fix, but some kind of attempt to rebuild this storm damaged enterprise.
Additionally, whatever the future holds I believe that players soon return for pre-season (Thursday), and presently we are without a manager, the first priority is surely to sort out who is in charge of the football team.

McLovin

I don't think we are without a manager.

Intersting speculation though.

Brunello

Interesting but i cannot believe the club would or could be run down on purpose as you infer. All members of the board have seven figure sums injected and it wouldnt make sense.

And of course, we do have a manager......& CEO

McLovin

[cite]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]All members of the board have seven figure sums injected and it wouldnt make sense.

I don't think they do...

Brunello

[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]

[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]All members of the board have seven figure sums injected and it wouldnt make sense.

I don't think they do...

Sorry. All bar one

Oggy Red

[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]

[cite]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]All members of the board have seven figure sums injected and it wouldnt make sense.

I don't think they do...

That's right, not all directors do.

Some have relatively small sums invested and a only a low percentage of shares - compared to the major shareholders like Murray, for example.

I seem to remember seeing something published a few months ago, showing individual director's involvement - but can't recall the source.

Brunello

I was of course referring to the PLC Board as I assumed was the original post as they are the ones who make the decisions.

seth plum

If I were an aspirational Charlton investor, but with limited funds, it would be easier to assume power if the club were in the third division rather than in the premier league. I take your point about the club being run down, however if you're a director who has taken a massive financial hit, you might relinquish what you have left in a 'whats the point of throwing good money after bad' scenario. Cut your losses and get out. I imagine that was the situation when Glickstein sold out to Mark Hulyer.

Brunello

[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]If I were an aspirational Charlton investor, but with limited funds, it would be easier to assume power if the club were in the third division rather than in the premier league. I take your point about the club being run down, however if you're a director who has taken a massive financial hit, you might relinquish what you have left in a 'whats the point of throwing good money after bad' scenario. Cut your losses and get out. I imagine that was the situation when Glickstein sold out to Mark Hulyer.

I concur as I think that is nearer the mark

seth plum

I say we are without a manager because it is not 'official' (as in announced by the OS), the last we were told officially was that PP was in charge until the end of the season. Some say that installing PP long term would have heralded a collapse in season ticket renewals.

Scoham

[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]I seem to remember seeing something published a few months ago, showing individual director's involvement - but can't recall the source.

You might mean the annual report from the OS, here. Can't remember what exactly is in it so you might have meant something else.

seth plum

I'm thinking out loud, I am ashamed to say I can't make head nor tail of the annual report despite being a shareholder, hence my posts being speculation. It would probably take a very astute delver to extrapolate from the annual report, and I don't have those kind of skills.

Scoham

Directors and their interests
The directors at 30 June 2008 and their interests in the share capital of the Company were as follows:

D G Chappell 6,836,564
G B C Franklin 2,555,044
M I Grade 3,938
Sir M Hatter 2,168,973
R A Murray 15,799,197
M A Simons 3,573,114
M C Stevens 2,264,737
D C Sumners 3,359,792
R C Whitehand 6,967,686

There it is, how many shares board members had 30th June last year.

Addickted

[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]

Directors and their interests
The directors at 30 June 2008 and their interests in the share capital of the Company were as follows:

D G Chappell 6,836,564
G B C Franklin 2,555,044
M I Grade 3,938
Sir M Hatter 2,168,973
R A Murray 15,799,197
M A Simons 3,573,114
M C Stevens 2,264,737
D C Sumners 3,359,792
R C Whitehand 6,967,686

There it is, how many shares board members had 30th June last year.

That has changed significantly over the past 12 months with further investment from the major players and with Murray's two children being significant 'benefactors'.

seth plum

OK, interesting list....my untutored conclusion is that for Mr Chappell to have become the number one with his 6.8 mill shares he would have needed, say, the support of Mr Whitehand and Mr Sumners to outvote Mr Murray; and Mr Simons, Mr Franklin, Mr Stevens, and Sir M Hatter would have been variables in all that...or maybe perm some other combination. The club is not a one man band type of organisation like Chelsea or Crystal Palace and therefore would be more prone to internal power struggles than those two aforementioned clubs. Additionally, in order to broker an agreement for some kind of takeover one would have to be juggling many different interested parties all at the same time. Our structure may be too cumbersome to make any changes possible, and also possibly full of factions that play off against each other. It is equally possible that all the Directors are singing from the same hymnsheet, personally I have my doubts about that.