From the Guardian website, getting more and more worried about this pair...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jan/05/charlton-athletic-owners?
Charlton Athletic's new owners are decisive: they sacked the manager Phil Parkinson yesterday within 24 hours of taking control. What else do we know about them?
Well, Charlton's website yesterday described Tony Jimenez and Michael Slater respectively as "an international property developer" and "a lawyer and businessman". The pair hold their interest in Charlton through CAFC Holdings Limited, "a company managed and controlled in Switzerland", though its registration is held in the offshore tax haven of the British Virgin Islands.
Charlton's chairman, Slater, as the club's website explains, began work as a solicitor. Indeed, a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in August 2007, although clearing him of the primary allegations, found "the way in which [Slater] conducted himself could well be detrimental to the good reputation of the solicitors' profession as a whole". A spokesman for Slater said yesterday: "Allegations were made and these were 100% rejected by the SDT."
As for Jimenez, the former vice‑president (player recruitment) at Newcastle United, Digger hopes his international property development interests have more life to them than those UK businesses on whose board he has served. Of the 17 UK companies where has been a director, 16 have been dissolved. The 17th is also set to be, either this month or next. "Tony has been a successful businessman in international property over the last 20 years," the spokesman added.
0
Comments
Agree, nowt of any actual substance at all.
Exactly, NYA, but there are plenty of folk on here who want to believe that this is the start of the great new beginning "because Peter Varney says so" - when the truth is that it is already looking very, very shaky.
If the new owners don't bring in a top manager (relatively speaking) and spend money in the January window then we will know that the Emperor truly has no clothes after all.
If there really is some serious middle-eastern money behind these deal then why would they need these two herberts to front the deal for them? Why not bring in their own man?
"Herberts"?! Why on earth are they described as this?
How?...because we sacked our clueless manager?
My fear that 'beggars can't be choosers' is seemingly coming to fruition and I don't like it at all.
My God NYA, I think that you and I must have been separated at birth, that is exactly what I have been thinking today as well.
Still, all the Parky Haters will find out if the new owners are quite as good as they seem in due course, I don't think that sacking the entire management team in the first week is a great start, but maybe that's just me.
I laughed my bollocks off when the Indians sacked Allardyce at Blackburn, it doesn't seem quite so funny now.
This is a joke, right?
Yup, in the course of 2 days I've gone from feeling good about this deal to being quite concerned ... and I am normally a very optimistic person ... time will tell and hopefully I will be proved completely wrong ... on the positive side, if something had to be done, then now is probably the right time as there is still half a season left ... but have they made the right decisions?
The rest of this month will go a long way to either allaying my concerns or making me even more wary.
Same as me Stonemuse, as soon as I saw the name "Jiminez" I was suspicious and nothing since has allayed my fears.
One saved his team from relegation from the Premiership and established them as a mid table side the other got his side relegated from the Championship during the worst record in history as Charlton manager and then with the most expensive squad in the division below, couldn't get us promoted??!
They are not comparable in that sense, its just that the sacking of Allardyce by the new Indian owners showed how totally clueless they were about English football and how well and truly fecked Blackburn were by the deal.
Parkinson, quite obviously, does not have Allardyce's managerial record but his sacking and the gradual uncovering of the new owners actual records is showing that our new owners are likely to prove as disastrous as Blackburn's.
"Indians sacking Allardyce at Blackburn" and "Slater sacking Parkinson at Charlton" are, I would suggest, chalk and cheese situations
If Murray had had deeper pockets then Parkinson would have been on his way ages ago
Don't worry, someone will find it - and a lot more besides no doubt.
Richard Murray, Martin Simons, Mike Stevens, Michael Grade, David Sumners....
Still believe in Fairy Tales, do we?
The Guardian story is just the first of many that will emerge about the intentions and background of our new "owners" as more details emerge about them and press interest grows.
Lazy journalism, eh? I don't think that putting in cold, hard print two very provable FACTS about their business histories - both of which would be libellous if they were untrue - is "lazy journalism" by any means.
You believe what you want to believe, I'll believe what I see in front of me.
The decision on Parkinson is in no way like big Sam.
Regardless of what may or may not be coming our way with the new incumbents, the decision to change the team management has foundation on performances of the whole season. Early fortunate results have been hiding the fact things have not been right and since November the results have finally reflected the poor overall performances.
According to some people , we're owned by a couple of very dodgy ''herberts'' , the club's future has been written off as ''already looking very very shaky'' and the bloke who might be the new manager (although he might not) is ''vermin''.
The sale is only 80 hours old and so far the new owners have shown commendably serious intent and ambition by getting rid of a manager who most accepted was not going to get us promoted and was only in the job at all because he was the cheap option when Murray ran out of money.
After several seasons of being a joke club, the rebuilding of Charlton starts here. Why not join in, instead of standing on the sidelines hurling abuse at those trying to turn the club around ? And it's ludicrous to dismiss those of us who see the change of ownership as a golden opportunity as ''Parky haters''. Chirst, there was even someone on here last night claiming Slater and Jiminez were motivated by ''spite'' towards Parkinson!
Time some people took a reality check. In six months from now we would have faced going into administration. Perhaps we are not totally out of the woods yet. But under new leadership, on and off the field, at least we're now going to have a fighting chance!
The same happens in film production - each film is produced and owned by an SPV (special purpose vehicle), formed for that specific film. That way again, each film is treated separately, because again, in film production, something can go wrong and only that film suffers.
Nothing dangerous or nasty about it - very prudent and it's just the norm!
The decisions are a matter of public record, the SDT being required by law to publish them.
Here's the website with decisions since the end of 2005 on it. The Slater decision is under May 2007 for some reason.
http://www.sra.org.uk/SDT/
I've only had a quick look through but it seems that Slater was cleared reasonably comprehensively by the Tribunal albeit that he was not entirely professional.
Don't like Jiminez's history of being involved in liquidated companies although there may be a reasonable explanation for it.
I did some digging as 'Oggy' states, and came to a bit of a stone wall trying to get some background information.
I am not surprissed by the comments, of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in August 2007, they can be very pious and pompous, probably did not think he was 'one of them', to say that the legal profession is a closed shop is a bit like the mafia saying that they are a family business, true, but a little far from the essence of the truth!.....
I thought that 'our Micheal' had retired according to the website of his former company!.
But truth be told directors of most football clubs have often dabbled in business affairs that some might find 'awkward' in certain company, in later years to explain.
The day's of the benevolent chairman, pouring in his hard earned cash from the 'tripe mills' are long gone!.
Dare we cast our minds back to former individuals, aka: as Wiki puts it....... A change in management and shortly after a change in club ownership[13] led to severe problems, such as the reckless signing of former European Footballer of the Year Allan Simonsen, and the club looked like it would go out of business.[14]....... so get worried if we put in for a bid for Beckham, Messi, or such like.
Modern day football because of the financial commitment will have to have some strange bedfellows, in essence we have had an incrediably generous benefactor in Chairman Murray, and the other directors, I hope people appreciate the financial commitment they made. As they say we will have to see what the future holds......
In the meantime, we can put our differences to one side and celebrate - I am already on the champagne - England's wonderful display in Sydney today. Cook, Bell and Prior were unbelievable and if we can get another 50-60 runs tomorrow morning then we could well have three innings victories in an Ashes series to celebrate.
That really would be something.