I've been watching the weeks events on here unravel and getting more and more wound up in the process.
What a bunch of drama queens you lot are, reveling in the drama and sucking up as much of it as you can and then basking in it.
Between us we know nothing. The new board will never reveal anything of interest because they are business men, it's the first rule.
The club is heading in the right direction and in the best interest of said club. I'm not going to contridict myself and say a source says, but those who follow a friend of mine @mikejwhite on twitter may appreciate the meaning of a good source and not hot air which seems to be blowing everywhere at the moment.
Hi, as said the other day i think we are over analizing things a touch, take what i say with a pinch of salt ( because it is second hand info, but my source ( friend who knows someone shall i say ) told me when we was first taken over that there was middle eastern backers involved in charlton, if they want to remain anonymous then TJ has to respect that request especially if it could jeapardise a future 100 % takeover. I still am a little concerned of course because of the well respected posters on here and their info, but the fact remains is that there has been ( so far ) no quick fire sales of our best players and we have actually strengthen the team by spending a reported 500,000 pounds! I think the frustrating thing for some is that we have'nt as of yet gone out and spent fortunes on so called premier class players, who with thier wages got us in the mess we found ourselves these last few seasons, lets not get burnt twice.
1) The club reportedly had cashflow problems 2) Peter Varney has left the board 3) Alex Newall has left the board 4) We've invested significantly in academy backroom staff 5) We're starting a u21s team 6) The chairman says we're finding it difficult to sign our targets as we are a fish swimming in a bigger pond than last season 7) The club doesn't seem to have cashflow problems any more 8) We bought a decent right back and signed a promising striker 9) We didn't sell Leon Clarke to Oldham 10) TJ has acquired19.8 % shares in CAFC holdings from the Mysterons
There's a lot more to be happy about on that list than to be concerned about.
Hi, as said the other day i think we are over analizing things a touch, take what i say with a pinch of salt ( because it is second hand info, but my source ( friend who knows someone shall i say ) told me when we was first taken over that there was middle eastern backers involved in charlton, if they want to remain anonymous then TJ has to respect that request especially if it could jeapardise a future 100 % takeover. I still am a little concerned of course because of the well respected posters on here and their info, but the fact remains is that there has been ( so far ) no quick fire sales of our best players and we have actually strengthen the team by spending a reported 500,000 pounds! I think the frustrating thing for some is that we have'nt as of yet gone out and spent fortunes on so called premier class players, who with thier wages got us in the mess we found ourselves these last few seasons, lets not get burnt twice.
£500,000! Is that true? I would be surprised if it was more than a 10th of that figure.
Not quite sure why the vitriol or the references to ITK come from but it sounds more and more shooting the messenger.
I had actually said that todays news could be good news and in the short term I certainly think it is for what that is worth.
But at the same time the news could also be bad news or, as I said, a legitamate cause for concern.
That's concern, not panic, not wrist slitting but concern. If nothing else I'm concerned about how the club chooses to communicate changes at the top but that is by the by.
But when people say I don't know anything more than anyone else on here they are dead right. I summarised what others were saying as others were asking for a summary of what was being said over 100 of posts so I did that. Further evidence has come into the public domain that points towards the information given by the famous five being at least partially correct. IMHO
So not ITK, not panicing and not scaremongering either. I am a fan hoping for the best but aware that things could be far from that.
it isn't so unbelievable that people still don't want to believe the club is still in as much trouble as it was being made out.
And that is what caused my reaction. Not that people should believe as course everyone can believe what they like but that some just don't want to.
I still think that on balance today's news is good news, although I'm not 100% sure on that long term. We shall see.
I take Brunello's point on cash flow problems in any business (tell me about it) and especially for one that has less income yet has to make it's largest purchases at the same time like a football club.
Yet the rumours, and they are just that, can not, IMHO, just be dismissed either. Unfortunately CAFC comms strategy doesn't help. I wonder what happened to the PR guru who was on the main table at the takeover? Gone the same way as Vetere and Newell perhaps.
Fellow lifers, I know that it is difficult to get clarity from the fog of an ownership arrangement which is deliberately structured to protect peoples identities.
What I do know is that some of those (I won't name them) who have been posting on here that they have sources within the club, know personally some of the people at the very top. I have no doubt that something has gone on to disturb the original plans.
What has never been clear, and still isn't, is how this is all going to pan out.
My view is this.
The original structure was
a) TJ has his backers and they owned 28% of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton b) MS has his backers and they owned 23% of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton c) minority shareholders owned 48% in total of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton d) RM owns 10% of Baton e) Baton owns 100% of CAFC
Now we have
a) TJ has his backers and they own 47.6% of CAFC Holdings which owns 90% of Baton b) MS has his backers and they own 23% of CAFC Holdings which owns 90% of Baton c) minority shareholders own 29.4% in total of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton d) RM owns 10% of Baton e) Baton owns 100% of CAFC
I believe that what has happened here is that b) and c) have the same backer - Cash. I believe that Cash has either
1. sold all his stake partly to TJ (an extra 19.6%) and the rest to somebody else who now controls MS, or 2. has sold just the 19.6% to TJ and retained his stake fronted by MS
The most likely scenario is 2.
The alternative is that Cash also backed TJ's stake and TJ has found another backer who has funded his increased stake. I don't think this is likely.
Is this all good or bad - well time will tell. I suspect on balance its a lot better than it was last week before TJ/his backer increased their stake.
Fellow lifers, I know that it is difficult to get clarity from the fog of an ownership arrangement which is deliberately structured to protect peoples identities.
What I do know is that some of those (I won't name them) who have been posting on here that they have sources within the club, know personally some of the people at the very top. I have no doubt that something has gone on to disturb the original plans.
What has never been clear, and still isn't, is how this is all going to pan out.
My view is this.
The original structure was
a) TJ has his backers and they owned 28% of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton b) MS has his backers and they owned 23% of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton c) minority shareholders owned 48% in total of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton d) RM owns 10% of Baton e) Baton owns 100% of CAFC
Now we have
a) TJ has his backers and they own 47.6% of CAFC Holdings which owns 90% of Baton b) MS has his backers and they owned 23% of CAFC Holdings which own 90% of Baton c) minority shareholders own 29.4% in total of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton d) RM owns 10% of Baton e) Baton owns 100% of CAFC
I believe that what has happened here is that b) and c) have the same backer - Cash. I believe that Cash has either
1. sold all his stake partly to TJ (an extra 19.6%) and the rest to somebody else who now controls MS, or 2. has sold just the 19.6% to TJ and retained his stake fronted by MS
The most likely scenario is 2.
The alternative is that Cash also backed TJ's stake and TJ has found another backer who has funded his increased stake. I don't think this is likely.
Is this all good or bad - well time will tell. I suspect on balance its a lot better than it was last week before TJ/his backer increased their stake.
What a mess - and here we are again peering into the fog and trying to guess who might be either owners or funding the owners.
But how do we know that Michael Slater and TJ are being funded by different people? Or that they are using a combination of their money and borrowed money?
It could be that TJ has liquidated some assets elsewhere and pumped that into his owmership - perhaps buying Alex Newall's 9.8%?
I did wonder a couple of weeks back whether Newall was still owner of this stake and at the time when he left the board whether he also sold his stake.
I did ask if Fanny or someone could ask a question to this effect at the Fan's Forum meeting, I don't know if this question was asked and/or whether there was an answer.
In the meantime anaysing the goings on in the Chinese Communist party politburo is currently easier to follow.
The Club has been experiencing a very serious cash flow problem. Of that I'm sure, but I have no idea why or whether the issue, whatever is was, has now been resolved. However, based on what we've learnt today I'd postulate that something along the following lines may have transpired or been part of the picture.
1. At the end of last season the Board sat down to decide on the budget for the forthcoming season. In essence, this would have been about how big an operating loss was appropriate, say £5m, £10m, who knows. It would have depended how aggressive the Board wanted to be; go for promotion or simply hang in there. Broadly speaking, whatever that projected loss each shareholder would have been required to invest their pro-rata contribution, ie. Richard Murray at 10% and each of the owners of CAFCH at 90% of their holding in that entity.
2. It's easy to see how a disagreement might have arisen. If, for sake of argument, the loss was projected to be £10m (as per most teams in the Championship!) it may be that some investors simply disagreed and refused to contribute their share. This would have been a huge problem. With the Banks very unlikely to provide any form of bridging, the Club would have been unable to raise any cash without some kind of reorganisation of the share ownership. Suppose it was quickly agreed that Jimenez would acquire the shares of the investors who had got cold feet, they'd then need to agree the price. In reality, shares in CAFCH are probably worth nothing, but the sellers would have had a strong bargaining position - the Club was heading for real trouble if the logjam was not resolved. That may not have been an easy negotiation.
3. The implication of what we now know is that Richard Murray contributed his share (10%) as did Michael Slater (.9*23) and other remaining minority shareholders, but with Jimenez contributing significantly more (ie .9*47.6). What we don't know, of course, is whether the equity issued, hence cash raised and now available is sufficient to cover the entire season (before the same drama plays out again next summer) or is simply sufficient to tide the Club over till say Christmas pending further investment. Neither do we know who might now be behind Jimenez and Slater. It's a mess, but today has to be good news. Optimistically, the immediate issue may have been resolved, but unless promotion to the Premiership is achieved we'll remain on the edge.
4. Zabeel is buying nobody. It's bust.
5. We should now watch the relationship between Jimenez and Chris Powell. Jimenez fancies himself as a football man and if he has just invested a shed load of his own money (if...) then it's unlikely he'll be happy to give Powell free rein. Would you if it was your money? Conflict has to be a possibility and perhaps that's been a part of the dynamic behind the scenes.
I'm not so sure there was/is a huge cash flow problem. If there was then what area do you think would suffer almost immediately? Players wages ! Probably the biggest outgoing of any football club. If our players were not being paid then,in todays social media driven world, you would have heard about it. Believe me.
time will tell if TJ the good guy or the bad guy ?
I don't wish to appoint myself Jiminez's ''vicar on earth'' (or at least on CL!) in the way HI once was to Richard Murray (which he did with unimpeachable integity, I hasten to add). I really don't know the bloke in any meaningful sense. But from my very limited acquaintance, I'd say good guy without question. Which isn't to say he won't screw up, as RM did ultimately. But that's life and that's football.
I'm not so sure there was/is a huge cash flow problem. If there was then what area do you think would suffer almost immediately? Players wages ! Probably the biggest outgoing of any football club. If our players were not being paid then,in todays social media driven world, you would have heard about it. Believe me.
Carly, you don't know that there wasn't a problem with wages, that has now been resolved.
The Club has been experiencing a very serious cash flow problem. Of that I'm sure, but I have no idea why or whether the issue, whatever is was, has now been resolved. However, based on what we've learnt today I'd postulate that something along the following lines may have transpired or been part of the picture.
1. At the end of last season the Board sat down to decide on the budget for the forthcoming season. In essence, this would have been about how big an operating loss was appropriate, say £5m, £10m, who knows. It would have depended how aggressive the Board wanted to be; go for promotion or simply hang in there. Broadly speaking, whatever that projected loss each shareholder would have been required to invest their pro-rata contribution, ie. Richard Murray at 10% and each of the owners of CAFCH at 90% of their holding in that entity.
2. It's easy to see how a disagreement might have arisen. If, for sake of argument, the loss was projected to be £10m (as per most teams in the Championship!) it may be that some investors simply disagreed and refused to contribute their share. This would have been a huge problem. With the Banks very unlikely to provide any form of bridging, the Club would have been unable to raise any cash without some kind of reorganisation of the share ownership. Suppose it was quickly agreed that Jimenez would acquire the shares of the investors who had got cold feet, they'd then need to agree the price. In reality, shares in CAFCH are probably worth nothing, but the sellers would have had a strong bargaining position - the Club was heading for real trouble if the logjam was not resolved. That may not have been an easy negotiation.
3. The implication of what we now know is that Richard Murray contributed his share (10%) as did Michael Slater (.9*23) and other remaining minority shareholders, but with Jimenez contributing significantly more (ie .9*47.6). What we don't know, of course, is whether the equity issued, hence cash raised and now available is sufficient to cover the entire season (before the same drama plays out again next summer) or is simply sufficient to tide the Club over till say Christmas pending further investment. Neither do we know who might now be behind Jimenez and Slater. It's a mess, but today has to be good news. Optimistically, the immediate issue may have been resolved, but unless promotion to the Premiership is achieved we'll remain on the edge.
4. Zabeel is buying nobody. It's bust.
5. We should now watch the relationship between Jimenez and Chris Powell. Jimenez fancies himself as a football man and if he has just invested a shed load of his own money (if...) then it's unlikely he'll be happy to give Powell free rein. Would you if it was your money? Conflict has to be a possibility and perhaps that's been a part of the dynamic behind the scenes.
This is the best summary yet I reckon. Still means we don't know who owns what & who really are the moneymen. Zabeel may be bust, but that can be resolved overnight by their owners if they desired.
I'm not so sure there was/is a huge cash flow problem. If there was then what area do you think would suffer almost immediately? Players wages ! Probably the biggest outgoing of any football club. If our players were not being paid then,in todays social media driven world, you would have heard about it. Believe me.
Carly, you don't know that there wasn't a problem with wages, that has now been resolved.
Maybe. But my point being it is unlikely to have got that far. We would have heard something.Asking a footballer to keep schtum is like asking Vanessa Feltz to keep away from the biscuit tin.
I'm not so sure there was/is a huge cash flow problem. If there was then what area do you think would suffer almost immediately? Players wages ! Probably the biggest outgoing of any football club. If our players were not being paid then,in todays social media driven world, you would have heard about it. Believe me.
Carly, you don't know that there wasn't a problem with wages, that has now been resolved.
Maybe. But my point being it is unlikely to have got that far. We would have heard something.Asking a footballer to keep schtum is like asking Vanessa Feltz to keep away from the biscuit tin.
Some people may have heard something. People said things without going into as much detail as they could have.
I'm not so sure there was/is a huge cash flow problem. If there was then what area do you think would suffer almost immediately? Players wages ! Probably the biggest outgoing of any football club. If our players were not being paid then,in todays social media driven world, you would have heard about it. Believe me.
Carly, you don't know that there wasn't a problem with wages, that has now been resolved.
Maybe. But my point being it is unlikely to have got that far. We would have heard something.Asking a footballer to keep schtum is like asking Vanessa Feltz to keep away from the biscuit tin.
Some people may have heard something. People said things without going into as much detail as they could have.
I heard that the producer of her BBC London show said that she did.
After all the talk of "Z" I was bored so did some digging from back then and I found this quote
"People were talking about foreign ownership ... every other day we spent time denying this club and that club and it became out of control. We are used to doing things relatively under the radar and our focus became having to keep an eye on what was being written in the media."
Comments
What a bunch of drama queens you lot are, reveling in the drama and sucking up as much of it as you can and then basking in it.
Between us we know nothing. The new board will never reveal anything of interest because they are business men, it's the first rule.
The club is heading in the right direction and in the best interest of said club. I'm not going to contridict myself and say a source says, but those who follow a friend of mine @mikejwhite on twitter may appreciate the meaning of a good source and not hot air which seems to be blowing everywhere at the moment.
Opaque transparency for sure, you hope something, or somebody is there, but you cannot work out what is ..............
I still am a little concerned of course because of the well respected posters on here and their info, but the fact remains is that there has been ( so far ) no quick fire sales of our best players and we have actually strengthen the team by spending a reported 500,000 pounds! I think the frustrating thing for some is that we have'nt as of yet gone out and spent fortunes on so called premier class players, who with thier wages got us in the mess we found ourselves these last few seasons, lets not get burnt twice.
1) The club reportedly had cashflow problems
2) Peter Varney has left the board
3) Alex Newall has left the board
4) We've invested significantly in academy backroom staff
5) We're starting a u21s team
6) The chairman says we're finding it difficult to sign our targets as we are a fish swimming in a bigger pond than last season
7) The club doesn't seem to have cashflow problems any more
8) We bought a decent right back and signed a promising striker
9) We didn't sell Leon Clarke to Oldham
10) TJ has acquired19.8 % shares in CAFC holdings from the Mysterons
There's a lot more to be happy about on that list than to be concerned about.
I still think that on balance today's news is good news, although I'm not 100% sure on that long term. We shall see.
I take Brunello's point on cash flow problems in any business (tell me about it) and especially for one that has less income yet has to make it's largest purchases at the same time like a football club.
Yet the rumours, and they are just that, can not, IMHO, just be dismissed either. Unfortunately CAFC comms strategy doesn't help. I wonder what happened to the PR guru who was on the main table at the takeover? Gone the same way as Vetere and Newell perhaps.
What I do know is that some of those (I won't name them) who have been posting on here that they have sources within the club, know personally some of the people at the very top. I have no doubt that something has gone on to disturb the original plans.
What has never been clear, and still isn't, is how this is all going to pan out.
My view is this.
The original structure was
a) TJ has his backers and they owned 28% of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton
b) MS has his backers and they owned 23% of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton
c) minority shareholders owned 48% in total of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton
d) RM owns 10% of Baton
e) Baton owns 100% of CAFC
Now we have
a) TJ has his backers and they own 47.6% of CAFC Holdings which owns 90% of Baton
b) MS has his backers and they own 23% of CAFC Holdings which owns 90% of Baton
c) minority shareholders own 29.4% in total of CAFC Holdings which owned 90% of Baton
d) RM owns 10% of Baton
e) Baton owns 100% of CAFC
I believe that what has happened here is that b) and c) have the same backer - Cash. I believe that Cash has either
1. sold all his stake partly to TJ (an extra 19.6%) and the rest to somebody else who now controls MS, or
2. has sold just the 19.6% to TJ and retained his stake fronted by MS
The most likely scenario is 2.
The alternative is that Cash also backed TJ's stake and TJ has found another backer who has funded his increased stake. I don't think this is likely.
Is this all good or bad - well time will tell. I suspect on balance its a lot better than it was last week before TJ/his backer increased their stake.
What a mess - and here we are again peering into the fog and trying to guess who might be either owners or funding the owners.
But how do we know that Michael Slater and TJ are being funded by different people? Or that they are using a combination of their money and borrowed money?
It could be that TJ has liquidated some assets elsewhere and pumped that into his owmership - perhaps buying Alex Newall's 9.8%?
I did wonder a couple of weeks back whether Newall was still owner of this stake and at the time when he left the board whether he also sold his stake.
I did ask if Fanny or someone could ask a question to this effect at the Fan's Forum meeting, I don't know if this question was asked and/or whether there was an answer.
In the meantime anaysing the goings on in the Chinese Communist party politburo is currently easier to follow.
1. At the end of last season the Board sat down to decide on the budget for the forthcoming season. In essence, this would have been about how big an operating loss was appropriate, say £5m, £10m, who knows. It would have depended how aggressive the Board wanted to be; go for promotion or simply hang in there. Broadly speaking, whatever that projected loss each shareholder would have been required to invest their pro-rata contribution, ie. Richard Murray at 10% and each of the owners of CAFCH at 90% of their holding in that entity.
2. It's easy to see how a disagreement might have arisen. If, for sake of argument, the loss was projected to be £10m (as per most teams in the Championship!) it may be that some investors simply disagreed and refused to contribute their share. This would have been a huge problem. With the Banks very unlikely to provide any form of bridging, the Club would have been unable to raise any cash without some kind of reorganisation of the share ownership. Suppose it was quickly agreed that Jimenez would acquire the shares of the investors who had got cold feet, they'd then need to agree the price. In reality, shares in CAFCH are probably worth nothing, but the sellers would have had a strong bargaining position - the Club was heading for real trouble if the logjam was not resolved. That may not have been an easy negotiation.
3. The implication of what we now know is that Richard Murray contributed his share (10%) as did Michael Slater (.9*23) and other remaining minority shareholders, but with Jimenez contributing significantly more (ie .9*47.6). What we don't know, of course, is whether the equity issued, hence cash raised and now available is sufficient to cover the entire season (before the same drama plays out again next summer) or is simply sufficient to tide the Club over till say Christmas pending further investment. Neither do we know who might now be behind Jimenez and Slater. It's a mess, but today has to be good news. Optimistically, the immediate issue may have been resolved, but unless promotion to the Premiership is achieved we'll remain on the edge.
4. Zabeel is buying nobody. It's bust.
5. We should now watch the relationship between Jimenez and Chris Powell. Jimenez fancies himself as a football man and if he has just invested a shed load of his own money (if...) then it's unlikely he'll be happy to give Powell free rein. Would you if it was your money? Conflict has to be a possibility and perhaps that's been a part of the dynamic behind the scenes.
Players wages !
Probably the biggest outgoing of any football club. If our players were not being paid then,in todays social media driven world, you would have heard about it. Believe me.
I don't wish to appoint myself Jiminez's ''vicar on earth'' (or at least on CL!) in the way HI once was to Richard Murray (which he did with unimpeachable integity, I hasten to add). I really don't know the bloke in any meaningful sense. But from my very limited acquaintance, I'd say good guy without question. Which isn't to say he won't screw up, as RM did ultimately. But that's life and that's football.
That is very reassuring. Thank you.
Zabeel may be bust, but that can be resolved overnight by their owners if they desired.
I heard that the producer of her BBC London show said that she did.
And also will there be some money available for transfers , or are we still in the doo doo?
"People were talking about foreign ownership ... every other day we spent time denying this club and that club and it became out of control. We are used to doing things relatively under the radar and our focus became having to keep an eye on what was being written in the media."
Quite interesting!
arabianbusiness.com/zabeel-charlton-deal-opened-up-pandora-s-box--83568.html