This is meant purely as an information gathering thread, not a dig or an instigation of a right / wrong debate.
I'm purely interested in what other UK clubs have what i would term a confused ownership structure, ie. where it is difficult to ascertain exactly where the funding / power of the club comes from.
As well as Charlton, i can think of three other examples:
Leeds - Leeds were owned by Forward Sports Limited, administered in Switzerland and registered in Cayman Islands (sound familiar?), who did not have to supply identities because they all allegedly held less than 10%. Bates as Chairman had no holding in the club, and the CEO did not know who the owners were. When the House of Commons Select Committee started digging last year, it was mysteriously 'sold' to Bates within days. Some remain unclear whether it is actually Bates funding it though. Very interesting BBC article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15241344,
Coventry - Owned by four companies, with ultimate control with a hedge fund called SISU. Coventry's Chief Exec, Tim Fisher (who has previous Charlton connections) tries to explain at the start of 2012 here (
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/coventry-city-fc/coventry-city-fc-news/2012/01/26/who-owns-coventry-city-fc-92746-30203587/), but does not appease supporters "So we STILL don't know who owns CCFC - as we don't know who runs the cayman island company. All this shows is that they have gone through a lot of hoops to insulate themselves from Coventry city. But at least there is partial transparency from SISU - something that has been singularly lacking from them over their time here."
Portsmouth - Bought in June 2011 by Convers Sports Initiatives (CSI), with only one member of the consortium known (Vladimir Antonov). CSI went into admin in Nov 11, as assets of Antonov and his partners were frozen). Pompey went into admin in Feb 12, owing £58m, including £38m to UHY Hacker Young, and £10.5m to CSI.
Are there any other clubs that others are aware of which have what i would term a confused ownership structure / difficulty in knowing who the main funder is / are ?
Comments
It is really hard to understand why anybody would want to buy a football club.........and remain anonymous. The saving grace for Charlton is that the owners, whoever they may be, are not putting debt into the football club - not least because there's no chance that either of the banks involved (RBS and HSBC) would lend the club the money. If Jimenez is borrowing money (against real estate assets say) so that he can keep his project going then that's his problem not ours.
One final thought, whatever the ultimate objectives of the owners might be their medium term objectives simply have to be aligned with those of the fans - there is simply no way it makes any sense to keep burning cash (and lots of it) unless there is an expectation of success on the pitch and that means promotion to the Premier League - the club is likely to contine to lose money playing at Championship level. Indeed, it may be that Jimenez's recognition of this fact encouraged him to aim to "push on" this coming season and that the consequent increased cash deficit scared off the "the funder".
Talks between the consortium, believed to comprise of Middle East-based investors, and owner and chairman Ken Bates have broken down
Leeds may have had an upturn of late, but with Ken Bates I think I would be very concerned.
I have a photo of one of my sons as the official mascott for the Charlton Leeds game with Rio Ferdinand as there captain, seems a lifetime ago now.
We all know about Portsmouth, all there fall from grace , makes us all thank god at least we have come out of the nose dive of recent years, and the need for a close partnership with transparent ownership seems to be an essential requirement in accountable corporate governance. I cannot understand how the FA/ football league allow this situation to continue, simply because it has done in the past.
You either didn't read the start of the thread, or are opting to ignore "This is meant purely as an information gathering thread, not a dig or an instigation of a right / wrong debate."
- Lack of confidence in the ultimate outcome; meaning you can get away if it goes belly up and suffer no loss of your reputation
-
- Just a private nature; Someone like Kevin Cash (Whether or not he financed us - he's a great example of someone with money who enjoys his privacy; and why shouldn't he?)
- Multiple financiers; one financier may want privacy? Or is it easier by having money going into some form of 'proxy' prior to the club?
I think that giving your name out and allowing it to be public knowledge actually has a few disadvantages - not just privacy related. It can put the spotlight on you if things aren't going very well (i.e. Blackburn/Venky), open your finances to scrutiny (not that there may be anything dodgy going on, but
The obvious disadvantage is apparent here at Charlton though; lack of transparency with the fans. Charlton have been blessed with quite an old fashioned board in the past - a board that consulted with fans and involved them. However, with that set to change I can see the need for something like CAST. (Something I'd actually like to get involved with, but with a lack of Tuesday evenings recently and being unknown on this forum I'm not sure how well that would go!)
Lack of transparency can, rightfully or wrongfully, lead to a lack of trust - which in turn tends to put the rumour mill in to full-scale production! Despite success (Champions of League 1) in our case, there is always going to be the question of - 'What if they pull out? Have they pulled out?'; even if we found/find/have found new backers - I don't see these questions not resurfacing even if things seem stable. (Admittedly in our case, we have the very reliable Airman Brown keeping us informed where possible)
Being open though, I think, has a huge statement of intent attached to it. 'I've bought this club. I'm putting money into it. I'm putting my name on it.'; hardly the actions of a man unsure of his investment! However, as Blackburn have demonstrated this doesn't actually transfer into the dream coming true! Blackburn are also a good example of a company where everything has also been transparent. Perhaps it's worth looking at these types of situations to. What about clubs where financial backers and buyers have come along, put their name out and been hailed as saviours, only for disaster to occur there?
At the end of the day I personally reckon any of the clubs listed could have had public backers/buyers and the outcome would've been the same. I feel perhaps I've stated the obvious, but something worth noting.
It's not the Charlton Life Trust but for ALL fans that are interested. This is just one communication outlet.
Welcome by the way.
Certainly not a hint of this last season with MS & TJ doing exactly what it said on the tin.
Certainly not a hint of this last season with MS & TJ doing exactly what it said on the tin.
I disagree that there are only three scenarios. I think there is a fourth - that someone buys a club, with a view to investing some money, taking the club up a notch or two and then selling on for more than they have spent. It's what investors in businesses do all the time.
I think that was the more likely "plan", at least at the start.
Bangkok Dave, not really sure why you automatically see this as some form of 'anti' thread. I'm not making any judgements at all, i'm trying to establish facts, and have
wastedspent a bit of time trying to do some research.I'm simply interested in what over clubs in English football have a similar ownership / funding structure to ours, and whether there is anything, positively or negatively we can learn from that. I struggled to find similar examples, other than Leeds over the last 5-6 years and Coventry, and am asking if anyone knows of any others.
I would not put Liverpool in that bracket. Fenway Sports Group is also a consortium of investors, but it is very clear who the main backer in the consortium is (John Henry, which gives accountability), plus all over members of Fenway are listed, and they have previous with ownership of sporting franchises in the US.
I might be reading it incorrectly, but you seem to think it is wrong for supporters to want to understand more about the ownership / funding of the club, that it automatically appears to be some form of a negative campaign ? I don't understand why.
From the BBC article linked above, with regards to the findings of the Government Select Committee published last year: "In its report, delivered in July, the select committee called for more transparency in football, so that supporters, who pledge their loyalty to their clubs for life, at the very least know who owns their clubs, and to whom they are giving their money. Of Leeds' ownership during six years, via a company registered in a tax haven administered in Switzerland, the committee said: "There is no more blatant an example of lack of transparency."
So is wanting to understand these things wrong ?
1) Love of the club
2) Tax reason
3) Flushing of dirty money
4) Business reason (madly think they can make a profit)
5) Ego