I suspect there isn't a big owner behind all this, or certainly not a significant one. This will be borne out on whether we ever really splash cash should the need arise, I am nailing my colours to the mask on this one - happy to be proved wrong though
Most of us think there is money behind Jiminez and Slater - NYA may have identified where that money is coming from but I doubt the wider conclusions are any more than speculation.
So he either knows the guy, in which case its a leak of information, or he doesnt know Cash in which case someones wishes dont enter into it.
Either name names or stop alluding
I think it perfectly reasonable for a discussion about an individual if your knowledge of him/her brings something to the discussion without naming the individual. I think the point of the article was to explain what he thinks will be the outcome. In order to do that he had to suggest that he knew a little able the 'funder' and the potential replacement manager. Disclosing those names actually adds little to his analysis. I guess you have to trust his judgement (which I do as it happens) to believe his conclusions without knowing the names of those involved. You would also have to know something about the 'funder' yourself to be able to draw conclusions of your own, and if you know him then you might be even more insightful, but as it stands I'm inclined to assume that the research NYA has done has given him more insight than I would have if he'd just named him.
Mutley, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Richard Murray suggested that the backers may well come forward in the Premier League. I actually think that if you have even the smallest interest in football ( and a lot of money), being entertained as a Director in the Halls of Power at Anfield, Old Trafford etc is a good return for the investment.
surely the evidence so far (prudence) is all you need to look at the outcome, or rather the intended outcome, value for money with potential returns on getting to the premiership (minus the loans that will then have to be repaid) hardly rocket science is it. To me this all points to the big owner things as being incorrect or just irrelevant
Can't buy into the replacement manager theory bit though. If Powell does a good job - and I think he is going to have to hit the ground running next season - I'm sure he will be our manager for the forseeable future.
Why would Poyet need the chance to save face ? Hardly as if he'd be leaving a top four PL team to come to us is it? Would understand if we were talking about Fergie or Wenger.
All those convinced its Poyet might recal the press conference when they played us. Poyet said he wouldn't want to manage the club his son played at as he gives him a hard enough time as it is and it would probably put him off football altogether if he had to have his Dad breathing day his neck at every training session.
one thing puzzles me about a funder (perhaps I'm being stupid) but how does he get the money he's put in plus any profit back if he doesn't own the club, other share holders will have a substantial claim on that shirley?
I can't remember exactly, but Peanuts Molloy explained this months ago. It's something along the lines of that you can be a minority shareholder "the funder", but if you have convertible shares or loans ,you have the right to convert them to ordinary shares at a future date, whereby you will automatically become the majority shareholder.
(As the search facility isn't working I can't be bothered to trawl, what he said previously).
Christ, when I read the blog on the train this morning, my view was it was a lot of words used to say what is pretty much common knowledge, and my mind hasn't changed
Christ, when I read the blog on the train this morning, my view was it was a lot of words used to say what is pretty much common knowledge, and my mind hasn't changed
Have to agree. As NYA has said that much of it is speculation but not which bits it adds little.
So Jimenez thinks he can buy and sell players better than anyone else in this league and the one above. That's it? The big plan?
If the writer really does know something interesting and new then he hasn't said it in this article, which is mostly re-hashed bollox off of this site.
It annoys the shit out of me , there's no need to post it, it brings nothing to the table .
it puts shit in peoples mind that doesn't need to be there, it is full of look what I know which is either loads or a load of bollox,
Write what you want but this club won't move forward if that is true we need to be together and stable and if that's the way we are acting, I wish powelly to leave because that's a load of shit and a shit way to run a club
I know it grates with you NLA as it does me.But we all need to be aware that these people are not in this for the long haul.
It is,as New York Addick summises,an experiment in the hope to make some money. I don't doubt that they would like to do what is best for the club, but i'm afraid if things don't go as planned they will drop us like a very hot potato.
And how often do things go as planned in the world of football?
........ More worrying I think is how often do things go as planned in the world of Charlton Athletic!!
I have had contact with someone on staff at the club. Article makes sense after what they told me, namely - 1 Transfers are not identified by Powell. He is more of a yes man and a coach. 2 identity of owners is kept very secret so that only a handful of people at the club now(of which my source is not one). Wiggins seems to fit the identikit of a player when a 4 fold profit could be made....
Buying a football club is like going to the dogs. Anything can happen and you usually lose your shirt. Lets hope our owners can pick the right numbers but getting even good players to play in the third tier will not be easy. Surely Jiminez knows that?
Some of the negativity around this Blog surprises me a little. I guess that how much it adds depends on how much you knew to start with and, perhaps, on how carefully you have read it. For me a number of interesting points emerge;<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The ownership structure is something of a puzzle. The blog suggests that Tony Jimenez and Michael Slater control CAFCH, but benefit from what I assume must be a private arrangement with someone much wealthier. On the surface that may not tell us much, but it implies a pre-existing relationship and a high level of trust. I’d say that’s relevant.
Next is for me the key point. Some might have been assuming that a wealthy individual had decided, for whatever reason [though that was also a puzzle], to buy a football club and that Jimenez and Slater were the front for this individual. That assumption may not have been wrong, but what is being suggested is subtlety yet significantly different. If indeed Tony Jimenez is the real leader here, if he is the one with a clear vision and a passion for the “project” then this is an important insight especially since in turn this implies that the strategy is likely to be much more “skill based” than “money” based, requiring a focus on finding value for money players, ideally young ones, and developing them. This could be fun to watch, but it will require patience from the fans and good judgement from Jimenez and Jeff Vetere. This is very different to what has happened at Southampton under the ownership of the Liebherr family, for example. This may have been becoming obvious anyway, but the blog suggests a context which I find helpful.
It is also possible, if I’ve read carefully enough between the lines, that the so-called funder is supporting Tony Jimenez the individual as much if not more so than the “project” itself. This is relevant and might mean, for example, that the financial imperatives are a touch less “hard-edged” than otherwise they might be and that’s also potentially important obviously even if it only buys time.
If the hypothesis is right, Tony Jimenez is the key man and, of course, we therefore all need him to deliver. Michael Slater’s role, I think the post implies, is to “mind the shop”. Maybe this was obvious to everybody, but for me the argument helps to make it clear.
The comments about Chris Powell are controversial and may have upset some, but are they so wide of the mark? I had wondered, for example, whether Darren Ferguson had been approached for the vacant Manager’s job in January and, if not why not. After all, wouldn’t we have expected new owners with money and ambition to go for an experienced man? Like it or not, the suggestion that the owners wanted the right man, who may not have been available, but also wanted to avoid a manager who would be “too strong” makes sense. If Tony Jimenez plans, along with Jeff Vetere, to manage the squad, he needs a manager who will accept that not fight it. I hope Chris Powell makes it, and he certainly has my support, but I’m afraid that I find the suggestion that he is not in control entirely plausible.
By the way, I do think there is a chance that we’ll all live happily ever after and a chance is all we can ever expect.
the suggestion that the owners wanted the right man, who may not have been available, but also wanted to avoid a manager who would be “too strong” makes sense. If Tony Jimenez plans, along with Jeff Vetere, to manage the squad, he needs a manager who will accept that not fight it. I hope Chris Powell makes it, and he certainly has my support, but I’m afraid that I find the suggestion that he is not in control entirely plausible.
The failed Newcastle model that Keegan so objected to !
I'm a tourist here, but since much of the negative reaction to the blog post is inexplicably personal and biting, I'll register that like Mundell Fleming, I found NYA's analysis useful. The piece is, like nearly everything produced on that blog, measured, reasoned, and skillfully articulated. It is also on a personal (very well read and well respected formerly overseas) blog; the "look at what I know" characterization implies a level of self-promotion thoroughly absent from previous work.
Assume that NYA's conjecture is all true: what does this really mean for Powell? I've got no CL badge and there are a lot brighter lights commenting here, but isn't Powell being given a chance to manage under reasonable circumstances? He's not been saddled with players brought in at the capricious whim of management that knows little about football, CAFC is not a club where he will be forced to sell valuable team members in January, and, although he is described as a stand-in, should he succeed with the squad he's given, credit will be given to Powell.
Separately, I think it is madness to expect to be able to earn money in arbitrage on football players. NYA's description is quite different from what Billy Beane was doing with Oakland as set out in Lewis' "Moneyball." In baseball, the goal is to identify and pay players that have performance abilities that are undervalued because of the stupidity ingrained in traditional approaches to the sport. By devaluing certain accomplishments (stolen bases) and emphasizing other attributes (plate discipline), one team could outperform another team despite substantial disparities in resources. With football players, what we're talking about is not, as a starting point, on-field performance but the perceived value of the contract rights to that player. The transfer market is impacted by a large number of factors that have little to do with objective attributes, making a financial plan built on moving players on much more akin to going to the dog track than uncovering under-appreciated assets.
Comments
But I've always thought that Poyet will one day be our manager, if Brighton weren't in such a good position in January he might've even joined us....
Most of us think there is money behind Jiminez and Slater - NYA may have identified where that money is coming from but I doubt the wider conclusions are any more than speculation.
So he either knows the guy, in which case its a leak of information, or he doesnt know Cash in which case someones wishes dont enter into it.
Either name names or stop alluding
I think it perfectly reasonable for a discussion about an individual if your knowledge of him/her brings something to the discussion without naming the individual. I think the point of the article was to explain what he thinks will be the outcome. In order to do that he had to suggest that he knew a little able the 'funder' and the potential replacement manager. Disclosing those names actually adds little to his analysis. I guess you have to trust his judgement (which I do as it happens) to believe his conclusions without knowing the names of those involved. You would also have to know something about the 'funder' yourself to be able to draw conclusions of your own, and if you know him then you might be even more insightful, but as it stands I'm inclined to assume that the research NYA has done has given him more insight than I would have if he'd just named him.
Mutley, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Richard Murray suggested that the backers may well come forward in the Premier League. I actually think that if you have even the smallest interest in football ( and a lot of money), being entertained as a Director in the Halls of Power at Anfield, Old Trafford etc is a good return for the investment.
Baby Poyet will be sold to Arsenal for "up to £2 million" as soon as he's 18.
It's the Charlton way, you know.
Then the way is clear for Daddy Poyet, providing he hasn't just got Brighton promoted to the Premiershit.
I was thrown by the repetition of KHA's points that you made.
Will study my atlas more carefully in future - sorry!
I can't remember exactly, but Peanuts Molloy explained this months ago. It's something along the lines of that you can be a minority shareholder "the funder", but if you have convertible shares or loans ,you have the right to convert them to ordinary shares at a future date, whereby you will automatically become the majority shareholder.
(As the search facility isn't working I can't be bothered to trawl, what he said previously).
it puts shit in peoples mind that doesn't need to be there, it is full of look what I know which is either loads or a load of bollox,
Write what you want but this club won't move forward if that is true we need to be together and stable and if that's the way we are acting, I wish powelly to leave because that's a load of shit and a shit way to run a club
In the current economic realities facing English football there are only three ways a football club can make a profit .
Get to the Premiership and stay there for a number of seasons.
Property speculation involving home ground.
The third option has become the fashion worldwide.I hope it will never come near our beloved Valley.
1 Transfers are not identified by Powell. He is more of a yes man and a coach.
2 identity of owners is kept very secret so that only a handful of people at the club now(of which my source is not one).
Wiggins seems to fit the identikit of a player when a 4 fold profit could be made....
Some of the negativity around this Blog surprises me a little. I guess that how much it adds depends on how much you knew to start with and, perhaps, on how carefully you have read it. For me a number of interesting points emerge;<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The ownership structure is something of a puzzle. The blog suggests that Tony Jimenez and Michael Slater control CAFCH, but benefit from what I assume must be a private arrangement with someone much wealthier. On the surface that may not tell us much, but it implies a pre-existing relationship and a high level of trust. I’d say that’s relevant.
Next is for me the key point. Some might have been assuming that a wealthy individual had decided, for whatever reason [though that was also a puzzle], to buy a football club and that Jimenez and Slater were the front for this individual. That assumption may not have been wrong, but what is being suggested is subtlety yet significantly different. If indeed Tony Jimenez is the real leader here, if he is the one with a clear vision and a passion for the “project” then this is an important insight especially since in turn this implies that the strategy is likely to be much more “skill based” than “money” based, requiring a focus on finding value for money players, ideally young ones, and developing them. This could be fun to watch, but it will require patience from the fans and good judgement from Jimenez and Jeff Vetere. This is very different to what has happened at Southampton under the ownership of the Liebherr family, for example. This may have been becoming obvious anyway, but the blog suggests a context which I find helpful.
It is also possible, if I’ve read carefully enough between the lines, that the so-called funder is supporting Tony Jimenez the individual as much if not more so than the “project” itself. This is relevant and might mean, for example, that the financial imperatives are a touch less “hard-edged” than otherwise they might be and that’s also potentially important obviously even if it only buys time.
If the hypothesis is right, Tony Jimenez is the key man and, of course, we therefore all need him to deliver. Michael Slater’s role, I think the post implies, is to “mind the shop”. Maybe this was obvious to everybody, but for me the argument helps to make it clear.
The comments about Chris Powell are controversial and may have upset some, but are they so wide of the mark? I had wondered, for example, whether Darren Ferguson had been approached for the vacant Manager’s job in January and, if not why not. After all, wouldn’t we have expected new owners with money and ambition to go for an experienced man? Like it or not, the suggestion that the owners wanted the right man, who may not have been available, but also wanted to avoid a manager who would be “too strong” makes sense. If Tony Jimenez plans, along with Jeff Vetere, to manage the squad, he needs a manager who will accept that not fight it. I hope Chris Powell makes it, and he certainly has my support, but I’m afraid that I find the suggestion that he is not in control entirely plausible.
By the way, I do think there is a chance that we’ll all live happily ever after and a chance is all we can ever expect.
The failed Newcastle model that Keegan so objected to !
Good luck Powelly.
Assume that NYA's conjecture is all true: what does this really mean for Powell? I've got no CL badge and there are a lot brighter lights commenting here, but isn't Powell being given a chance to manage under reasonable circumstances? He's not been saddled with players brought in at the capricious whim of management that knows little about football, CAFC is not a club where he will be forced to sell valuable team members in January, and, although he is described as a stand-in, should he succeed with the squad he's given, credit will be given to Powell.
Separately, I think it is madness to expect to be able to earn money in arbitrage on football players. NYA's description is quite different from what Billy Beane was doing with Oakland as set out in Lewis' "Moneyball." In baseball, the goal is to identify and pay players that have performance abilities that are undervalued because of the stupidity ingrained in traditional approaches to the sport. By devaluing certain accomplishments (stolen bases) and emphasizing other attributes (plate discipline), one team could outperform another team despite substantial disparities in resources. With football players, what we're talking about is not, as a starting point, on-field performance but the perceived value of the contract rights to that player. The transfer market is impacted by a large number of factors that have little to do with objective attributes, making a financial plan built on moving players on much more akin to going to the dog track than uncovering under-appreciated assets.