Had a chat with a friend of mine last week who is a lawyer specialising in company law.
He said that it is fairly easy to hide who owns a football club with offshore arrangements etc. He also said, although some of this could be lost in translation since it was like having a conversation with a Klingon, that a company can have 'A' and 'B' shares; in terms of a companys ownership and decision making it's the 'A' shares that actually count. So Slater and Jiminez could simply have the majority holding of 'A' shares. However....'B' shares can, and often are, valued at a higher price than the 'A' shares. In theory an 'A' share could signify that say 30 pence was invested by its owner, whilst say, £500 could have been used to purchase a 'B' share. So....the unknown percentage of Charltons ownership could represent a disproportionately high amount of actual monetary investment. At least that was my interpretation of the conversation, so apologies if I've got that wrong.
1 who owns the club? If they wish to remain anonymous can the board confirm that if they were known they would be seen as fit and proper by any reasonable fan?
2 what is the planned budget and investment on and off the pitch?
3 what's the business plan and what will be seen as success?
4. Will the academy be funded and developed?
5. What are the plans for the Valley or another stadium?
Via a property developer contact of mine, I was given a name of a very wealthy investor who apparently backs / has backed TJ in property ventures. I have no reason to question what he tells me. I have no idea if there is any connection with financing for Charlton.
I would though just add another question;
7. Are there any plans for ground sharing at any point in the future.
I'm grateful for a lot of thoughtful posts here. Good list of questions, Henry, though I doubt we can demand an answer to no 6.
I'm still tending towards the idea that others are involved. Thats because we know substantial debts have to be taken off RM's shoulders, and I tend to feel too that from what we know neither Slater nor Jiminez are rich enough to risk that kind of money. Further, we know that Jiminez great skill is to network and bring people on board. I think he did that in the case of the flash golf course.
Wonky brain time again. I really don't understand how they expect to make a profit. We are currently losing money and to get out of L1 we will need probably 3 more players. If we get into the Champ., there's precious little financial reward and we will need expensive new players to get us promoted back to the PL. Add in debt, the cost of sacking Parky and co., CP's appointment etc. and that's quite a bit of spending before/if we hit the bigger money. Where's the profit in it? Surely, if it had been so straightforward, others would have been fighting to buy us?
6. What is the exit strategy? - I am sure you won't get an answer but I would be astonished if it wasn't the floating of or the sale of the club at a much higher value that they bought it. That is likely to be getting the club re-established in the Premier League.
I don't have the knowledge to add anything to this interesting thread but if we were to take a sideways look at the possibilities of a dream scenario then what about this.
Suppose X has a lot of money, has embarked on a major, long term football project and as part of that project would like to own a successful Premier League club. Now they could take the 'traditional route' ala Chelski and Man City but X wants to be different. X wants to be seen as helping the less well off. X wants to own a PL club that X started to back when they were much less successful, say in League 1.
Now just suppose, to make the strategy less risky, X 'backed' several clubs through different individuals or consortia on the basis that, once a 'winner' was identified, the other clubs received notice that funding would soon cease. Obviously, the identity of X would have to remain secret until X's previously long term backing of the winning club could be announced. The losers would probably never know the real situation and how close they came to winning the jackpot.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Wonky brain time again. I really don't understand how they expect to make a profit. We are currently losing money and to get out of L1 we will need probably 3 more players. If we get into the Champ., there's precious little financial reward and we will need expensive new players to get us promoted back to the PL. Add in debt, the cost of sacking Parky and co., CP's appointment etc. and that's quite a bit of spending before/if we hit the bigger money. Where's the profit in it? Surely, if it had been so straightforward, others would have been fighting to buy us?
The profit comes in the sale of the club when we are back in the premiership to a silly rich buyer looking for an ego trip and willing to pay over the odds and not in it to make money.
In Chekhovs the Cherry Orchard, when Lopakhin finally buys the Cherry Orchard he virtually shouts the news from the rooftops. Lopakhin is proud, and he wants the world to know what he has acquired.
If I owned Charlton Athletic I would be proud and glory in it.
So my question is why would a mystery 'X' person want to keep their identity secret?
Here are some suggestions:
1, They are really Simon Jordan
2, They already own one of the other league clubs.
3, They support another club and secretly mean to close us down.
4, They are keeping their ownership a secret from a disapproving spouse.
5, They are Lord Lucan.
6, They are a massive Cocaine money laundering gang who want a cover for their dealings.
7, They are aliens from another planet who don't yet want the general population to know they have landed.
Are there any other reasons for secrecy I haven't thought of?
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]The profit comes in the sale of the club when we are back in the premiership to a silly rich buyer looking for an ego trip and willing to pay over the odds and not in it to make money.
Yep. Buying a football club is risky. Buying a club who are performing way below their natural level - top half of Championship/bottom half of Premier League, if you have enough money and the right strategy and you have some luck, the risks may be manageable and rewards could be significant.
Unlike genuine fans like RM and the previous Board where there would have been an element of a dream involved in helping to own/run the club you support, the new owners/investors will primarily be motivated by the idea of making a turn four, five, six years on.
Football though does have a habit of stirring the emotions and forging bonds which go beyond the pure economics. Here's hoping that with CP in charge and the club pulling together, that might work its magic on S and J!
It seems that British Virgin Islands Business Companies (BVI BC) have a number of key features. Two important ones from our perspective are;
1) Confidentiality – with a BVI BC, details of the company’s beneficial owners, directors and shareholders are NOT part of public record, i.e. secrecy is assured if required. There is no need to say who the shareholders are, i.e. the announcement made on the Club’s website was optional not necessary.
2) A BVI BC requires a minimum of only one owner, one shareholder, and one director. All of them can be one and the same person. If Slater and Jimenez do not really own their respective 23% and 28% of the equity of CAFC Holdings there is no need to say that they do. There would certainly be no need to say that the balance of 49% was held by a number of other shareholders, none of whom held more than 10%. Simply TMI.
What this means is that if a very wealthy individual wanted to own Baton 2010, i.e. the Club, outright whilst retaining strict privacy he/she could easily do so through a BVI BC, i.e. CAFC Holdings Ltd. There would be no need for multiple share classes, convertible bonds or any other fancy shareholder agreements. There would be one shareholder and we simply wouldn’t know who it was.
In which case, why did the Club bother to make public the respective shareholdings in Baton and CAFC as reported by Imnot Athletic at the start of this thread? There are only two possibilities. The first is to deliberately mislead. I’d rather not believe that, but in any event were that the objective why not just keep quiet? The second is because the Club wants people to know who the owners are, i.e. a consortium led by Slater/Jimenez, and to make it clear that there is no mystery backer.
We’re all guessing obviously, but sometimes the simple explanation is the right one. If the plan is to “burn” say £20m over the next 4-5 years with the goal of promotion to the Premier League then Slater is in for just over £4m, Jimenez £5m and Murray £2m with a number of smaller investors contributing the balance. Both Slater and Jimenez have been operating outside of the mainstream business world so it’s very hard to know what they might be worth. Maybe they’ve been lucky and think they can afford to speculate that kind of money?
[cite]Posted By: Mundell Fleming[/cite]If the plan is to “burn” £20m over the next 4-5 years with the goal of promotion to the Premier League then Slater is in for just over £4m, Jimenez £5m and Murray £2m with a number of smaller investors contributing the balance.
MF, do you really think at either Slater or Jimenez have £9M between them to "burn"? If they were millionaires but not seriously wealthy, that would be a pretty big ask for "non fans"? You or I who might have some millions squirrelled away might be prepared to do it because we wanted the kudos and the excitement of buying a big slice of our own club. I doubt that they would have enough spare risk capital not to worry if it all goes tits. It seems too risky to me.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]MF, do you really think at either Slater or Jimenez have £9M between them to "burn"? If they were millionaires but not seriously wealthy, that would be a pretty big ask for "non fans"? You or I who might have some millions squirrelled away might be prepared to do it because we wanted the kudos and the excitement of buying a big slice of our own club. I doubt that they would have enough spare risk capital not to worry if it all goes tits. It seems too risky to me.
I share your doubts Bing. In particular if Jimenez is so loaded i can't understand his Newcastle adventure. There he appears not to have had any stake, and seems to have been ejected by Ashley with the "leaving to pursue other interests" slight. If you are seriously wealthy I dont think you allow yourself to be humiliated like that.
[cite]Posted By: Hex[/cite]I don't have the knowledge to add anything to this interesting thread but if we were to take a sideways look at the possibilities of a dream scenario then what about this.
Suppose X has a lot of money, has embarked on a major, long term football project and as part of that project would like to own a successful Premier League club. Now they could take the 'traditional route' ala Chelski and Man City but X wants to be different. X wants to be seen as helping the less well off. X wants to own a PL club that X started to back when they were much less successful, say in League 1.
Now just suppose, to make the strategy less risky, X 'backed' several clubs through different individuals or consortia on the basis that, once a 'winner' was identified, the other clubs received notice that funding would soon cease. Obviously, the identity of X would have to remain secret until X's previously long term backing of the winning club could be announced. The losers would probably never know the real situation and how close they came to winning the jackpot.
A fairy tale, I know but ......
A last thought, suppose X began with Q ?
I certainly hope that's just a fairy story Hex. I think it is, as the two parts that I've highlighted seem to contradict each other in terms of aims.
I realise that the question of 'who' is important, but I'm much intrigued as to 'why'.( Understanding why may help to reveal who.) I still can't see where the guaranteed big money lies, it's quite a big chance to take - essentially gambling on getting back to the Prem without spending too much in the hope that they then trip over a mega rich meglalomaniac who loves football. I really don't buy into it. So I will pose an alternate hypothesis if I may? I'll be extremely happy to have my cynicism shot down in flames.
Where - The Greenwich peninsula.
Why - Thames Gateway project and population potential to fill a 40,000 seater stadium.
What - Biggest ever UK development project.
When - Planned over a total period of 40 years, so no immediate rush, but will need to get the plans in.
How- Need to regrow lil' ole Charlton first so keep the punters sweet by returning a son to his native soil. Build up a demand for the product then relocate it to better facilities with ensured growth potential utilising the Plastic Premiership Card Holders.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]I realise that the question of 'who' is important, but I'm much intrigued as to 'why'.( Understandingwhymay help to revealwho.) I still can't see where the guaranteed big money lies, it's quite a big chance to take - essentially gambling on getting back to the Prem without spending too much in the hope that they then trip over a mega rich meglalomaniac who loves football. I really don't buy into it. So I will pose an alternate hypothesis if I may? I'll be extremely happy to have my cynicism shot down in flames.
Where - The Greenwich peninsula.
Why - Thames Gateway project and population potential to fill a 40,000 seater stadium.
What - Biggest ever UK development project.
When - Planned over a total period of 40 years, so no immediate rush, but will need to get the plans in.
How- Need to regrow lil' ole Charlton first so keep the punters sweet by returning a son to his native soil. Build up a demand for the product then relocate it to better facilities with ensured growth potential utilising the Plastic Premiership Card Holders.
This is the conspiracy that makes most sense to me because this was always that Peter Varney was going to grow the club during the premiership years.
My theory is that Slater and Jimenez have made very little investment and bought into CAFC for a nominal sum in the same way that Ken Bates bought Chelsea all of those years ago and an unidentified individual/consortium are underwriting the debt. I would think that the strategy is to try and grow the club organically over the next few years by keeping a very low profile and using Jimenez's contacts to bring in quality loan signings from here and abroad whilst keeping the costs down. This all points to being a low risk investment. If Richard Murray's happy with this investment then that's good enough for me.
Posted By: HexI don't have the knowledge to add anything to this interesting thread but if we were to take a sideways look at the possibilities of a dream scenario then what about this.
Suppose X has a lot of money, has embarked on a major, long term football project and as part of that project would like to own a successful Premier League club. Now they could take the 'traditional route' ala Chelski and Man City but X wants to be different. X wants to be seen as helping the less well off. X wants to own a PL club that X started to back when they were much less successful, say in League 1.
Now just suppose, to make the strategy less risky, X 'backed' several clubs through different individuals or consortia on the basis that, once a 'winner' was identified, the other clubs received notice that funding would soon cease. Obviously, the identity of X would have to remain secret until X's previously long term backing of the winning club could be announced. The losers would probably never know the real situation and how close they came to winning the jackpot.
A fairy tale, I know but ......
A last thought, suppose X began with Q ?
I certainly hope that's just a fairy story Hex. I think it is, as the two parts that I've highlighted seem to contradict each other in terms of aims.
No contradiction really. X would want to wait so that they can be seen as successfully backing a small guy - the failures would never be known.
We don't know that RM is happy, we only know that financially he had to sell as his options had run out. Plus there would be no need for The Academy as David Beckham's will be next door.
I think the idea that Peter Varney always aimed to move us from the Valley is a bit off.
While there were stories of moves to Kent and the Peninsula and a lot of time and effort also went into developing the Valley and getting the planning permission for the rest of the East and the Jimmy South Stand.
Some times you need alternatives to focus the minds of decision makers.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]I think the idea that Peter Varney always aimed to move us from the Valley is a bit off.
While there were stories of moves to Kent and the Peninsula and a lot of time and effort also went into developing the Valley and getting the planning permission for the rest of the East and the Jimmy South Stand.
Some times you need alternatives to focus the minds of decision makers.
Peter has a huge love of our club and understands that part of the glue that binds us all together is the bond we all feel about going back to our spiritual home.
I remember initiatives to promote the club within the Thames Gateway area. There are a huge amount of chimney pots south and east of the central London area. The largest clubs draw the core support from outside our area. There isn't a large South/South London/Medway/Kent Club. The potential is huge - massive.
When we were in the Premier League the plans were to penetrate this fan base/market. After all we had Target 40,000. That wasn't going to happen just by inviting a mate along and laying on a few more Rickshaws.
The wheel fell off big time when we were relegated but I am sure the plans are still in place.
If we do make it back to the Premier League, then all these plans and targets will need to be invoked. It seems to me that any serious ambition for our club will be to eclipse the successes of the past. Why, because actually for business people, the past ended in failure. I am sure that the new owners won't have bought into the club for it to fail.
My view then is that the plan is for the club to be back in the Premier League, as the largest club south and east of the Thames, will a stadium that holds 40,000 plus spectators and an established club in the top division. That way they will go beyond the successes of the past to the place that the club was aiming for before it all went Pete Tong.
Does that plan envisage the Valley as a 40,000 plus stadium, well yes I believe it does. Any alternative is not going to be acceptable to the current fan base. Can or should we rule it out for ever? No I don't think we should and nor will a progressive, forward thinking Board.
I guess the snag is the 40k limit, if the Valley were able to cope with 60-80k one day that would be different, but I doubt it ever could due to modern developments, short of knocking down all the surrounding houses, building a branch of the tube or mainline sidings etc
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I guess the snag is the 40k limit, if the Valley were able to cope with 60-80k one day that would be different, but I doubt it ever could due to modern developments, short of knocking down all the surrounding houses, building a branch of the tube or mainline sidings etc
When and if a 40k capacity is a problem then we should look to move to another site IMHO. Doubt that will be an issue for a year or so : - )
Personally I haven't got a problem with another site. All depends what and where.
Comments
He said that it is fairly easy to hide who owns a football club with offshore arrangements etc. He also said, although some of this could be lost in translation since it was like having a conversation with a Klingon, that a company can have 'A' and 'B' shares; in terms of a companys ownership and decision making it's the 'A' shares that actually count. So Slater and Jiminez could simply have the majority holding of 'A' shares. However....'B' shares can, and often are, valued at a higher price than the 'A' shares. In theory an 'A' share could signify that say 30 pence was invested by its owner, whilst say, £500 could have been used to purchase a 'B' share. So....the unknown percentage of Charltons ownership could represent a disproportionately high amount of actual monetary investment. At least that was my interpretation of the conversation, so apologies if I've got that wrong.
2 what is the planned budget and investment on and off the pitch?
3 what's the business plan and what will be seen as success?
4. Will the academy be funded and developed?
5. What are the plans for the Valley or another stadium?
6 what's the exit strategy?
I would though just add another question;
7. Are there any plans for ground sharing at any point in the future.
I'm still tending towards the idea that others are involved. Thats because we know substantial debts have to be taken off RM's shoulders, and I tend to feel too that from what we know neither Slater nor Jiminez are rich enough to risk that kind of money. Further, we know that Jiminez great skill is to network and bring people on board. I think he did that in the case of the flash golf course.
Suppose X has a lot of money, has embarked on a major, long term football project and as part of that project would like to own a successful Premier League club. Now they could take the 'traditional route' ala Chelski and Man City but X wants to be different. X wants to be seen as helping the less well off. X wants to own a PL club that X started to back when they were much less successful, say in League 1.
Now just suppose, to make the strategy less risky, X 'backed' several clubs through different individuals or consortia on the basis that, once a 'winner' was identified, the other clubs received notice that funding would soon cease. Obviously, the identity of X would have to remain secret until X's previously long term backing of the winning club could be announced. The losers would probably never know the real situation and how close they came to winning the jackpot.
A fairy tale, I know but ......
A last thought, suppose X began with Q ?
The profit comes in the sale of the club when we are back in the premiership to a silly rich buyer looking for an ego trip and willing to pay over the odds and not in it to make money.
If I owned Charlton Athletic I would be proud and glory in it.
So my question is why would a mystery 'X' person want to keep their identity secret?
Here are some suggestions:
1, They are really Simon Jordan
2, They already own one of the other league clubs.
3, They support another club and secretly mean to close us down.
4, They are keeping their ownership a secret from a disapproving spouse.
5, They are Lord Lucan.
6, They are a massive Cocaine money laundering gang who want a cover for their dealings.
7, They are aliens from another planet who don't yet want the general population to know they have landed.
Are there any other reasons for secrecy I haven't thought of?
That's it! How did you know?
Yep. Buying a football club is risky. Buying a club who are performing way below their natural level - top half of Championship/bottom half of Premier League, if you have enough money and the right strategy and you have some luck, the risks may be manageable and rewards could be significant.
Unlike genuine fans like RM and the previous Board where there would have been an element of a dream involved in helping to own/run the club you support, the new owners/investors will primarily be motivated by the idea of making a turn four, five, six years on.
Football though does have a habit of stirring the emotions and forging bonds which go beyond the pure economics. Here's hoping that with CP in charge and the club pulling together, that might work its magic on S and J!
That could tie in with the Sebastien Sainsbury link .................
The Queen! So when can we start calling ourselves Royal Charlton Athletic?
Dun dun dunnnn
It seems that British Virgin Islands Business Companies (BVI BC) have a number of key features. Two important ones from our perspective are;
1) Confidentiality – with a BVI BC, details of the company’s beneficial owners, directors and shareholders are NOT part of public record, i.e. secrecy is assured if required. There is no need to say who the shareholders are, i.e. the announcement made on the Club’s website was optional not necessary.
2) A BVI BC requires a minimum of only one owner, one shareholder, and one director. All of them can be one and the same person. If Slater and Jimenez do not really own their respective 23% and 28% of the equity of CAFC Holdings there is no need to say that they do. There would certainly be no need to say that the balance of 49% was held by a number of other shareholders, none of whom held more than 10%. Simply TMI.
What this means is that if a very wealthy individual wanted to own Baton 2010, i.e. the Club, outright whilst retaining strict privacy he/she could easily do so through a BVI BC, i.e. CAFC Holdings Ltd. There would be no need for multiple share classes, convertible bonds or any other fancy shareholder agreements. There would be one shareholder and we simply wouldn’t know who it was.
In which case, why did the Club bother to make public the respective shareholdings in Baton and CAFC as reported by Imnot Athletic at the start of this thread? There are only two possibilities. The first is to deliberately mislead. I’d rather not believe that, but in any event were that the objective why not just keep quiet? The second is because the Club wants people to know who the owners are, i.e. a consortium led by Slater/Jimenez, and to make it clear that there is no mystery backer.
We’re all guessing obviously, but sometimes the simple explanation is the right one. If the plan is to “burn” say £20m over the next 4-5 years with the goal of promotion to the Premier League then Slater is in for just over £4m, Jimenez £5m and Murray £2m with a number of smaller investors contributing the balance. Both Slater and Jimenez have been operating outside of the mainstream business world so it’s very hard to know what they might be worth. Maybe they’ve been lucky and think they can afford to speculate that kind of money?
MF, do you really think at either Slater or Jimenez have £9M between them to "burn"? If they were millionaires but not seriously wealthy, that would be a pretty big ask for "non fans"? You or I who might have some millions squirrelled away might be prepared to do it because we wanted the kudos and the excitement of buying a big slice of our own club. I doubt that they would have enough spare risk capital not to worry if it all goes tits. It seems too risky to me.
I share your doubts Bing. In particular if Jimenez is so loaded i can't understand his Newcastle adventure. There he appears not to have had any stake, and seems to have been ejected by Ashley with the "leaving to pursue other interests" slight. If you are seriously wealthy I dont think you allow yourself to be humiliated like that.
Where - The Greenwich peninsula.
Why - Thames Gateway project and population potential to fill a 40,000 seater stadium.
What - Biggest ever UK development project.
When - Planned over a total period of 40 years, so no immediate rush, but will need to get the plans in.
How- Need to regrow lil' ole Charlton first so keep the punters sweet by returning a son to his native soil. Build up a demand for the product then relocate it to better facilities with ensured growth potential utilising the Plastic Premiership Card Holders.
This is the conspiracy that makes most sense to me because this was always that Peter Varney was going to grow the club during the premiership years.
My theory is that Slater and Jimenez have made very little investment and bought into CAFC for a nominal sum in the same way that Ken Bates bought Chelsea all of those years ago and an unidentified individual/consortium are underwriting the debt. I would think that the strategy is to try and grow the club organically over the next few years by keeping a very low profile and using Jimenez's contacts to bring in quality loan signings from here and abroad whilst keeping the costs down. This all points to being a low risk investment. If Richard Murray's happy with this investment then that's good enough for me.
Suppose X has a lot of money, has embarked on a major, long term football project and as part of that project would like to own a successful Premier League club. Now they could take the 'traditional route' ala Chelski and Man City but X wants to be different. X wants to be seen as helping the less well off. X wants to own a PL club that X started to back when they were much less successful, say in League 1.
Now just suppose, to make the strategy less risky, X 'backed' several clubs through different individuals or consortia on the basis that, once a 'winner' was identified, the other clubs received notice that funding would soon cease. Obviously, the identity of X would have to remain secret until X's previously long term backing of the winning club could be announced. The losers would probably never know the real situation and how close they came to winning the jackpot.
A fairy tale, I know but ......
A last thought, suppose X began with Q ?
I certainly hope that's just a fairy story Hex. I think it is, as the two parts that I've highlighted seem to contradict each other in terms of aims.
No contradiction really. X would want to wait so that they can be seen as successfully backing a small guy - the failures would never be known.
While there were stories of moves to Kent and the Peninsula and a lot of time and effort also went into developing the Valley and getting the planning permission for the rest of the East and the Jimmy South Stand.
Some times you need alternatives to focus the minds of decision makers.
Peter has a huge love of our club and understands that part of the glue that binds us all together is the bond we all feel about going back to our spiritual home.
I remember initiatives to promote the club within the Thames Gateway area. There are a huge amount of chimney pots south and east of the central London area. The largest clubs draw the core support from outside our area. There isn't a large South/South London/Medway/Kent Club. The potential is huge - massive.
When we were in the Premier League the plans were to penetrate this fan base/market. After all we had Target 40,000. That wasn't going to happen just by inviting a mate along and laying on a few more Rickshaws.
The wheel fell off big time when we were relegated but I am sure the plans are still in place.
If we do make it back to the Premier League, then all these plans and targets will need to be invoked. It seems to me that any serious ambition for our club will be to eclipse the successes of the past. Why, because actually for business people, the past ended in failure. I am sure that the new owners won't have bought into the club for it to fail.
My view then is that the plan is for the club to be back in the Premier League, as the largest club south and east of the Thames, will a stadium that holds 40,000 plus spectators and an established club in the top division. That way they will go beyond the successes of the past to the place that the club was aiming for before it all went Pete Tong.
Does that plan envisage the Valley as a 40,000 plus stadium, well yes I believe it does. Any alternative is not going to be acceptable to the current fan base. Can or should we rule it out for ever? No I don't think we should and nor will a progressive, forward thinking Board.
When and if a 40k capacity is a problem then we should look to move to another site IMHO. Doubt that will be an issue for a year or so : - )
Personally I haven't got a problem with another site. All depends what and where.
A certain lifer used to work for Olswang. Can't he ring a few old mates and get the info.