IPO stands for Initial Public Offering - in other words turning the club back into a publicly listed company. Déjà vu for all of us who invested (and later lost) our money last time.
Is it not the AFC ltd that's the IPO rather than the club?
Just a thought. Would it not be worth CAST contacting the AFC people via Henslow and offering to put forward a "fan's view" on Charlton. Would give the opportunity to stress the importance of the club to the fanbase, the history, the Valley and to emphasize to them that - done properly - many fans would be likely to return on a regular basis.
We (CASTrust) have sent them a brief message to this effect - no response yet as far as I am aware.
It worries me that this lot could be loads of different investers all with their own ideas. Right now there's nothing about them that makes me have any more faith than I do in Roland and Katie.
Don't think that's how it works to be honest. The consortium put forward their blueprint to attract investors and if people decide to invest their money they do so without having any hands on involvement in the project. They either have faith that the opportunity offered will be worth them putting in money or they don't.
Doubt that very much. If they have put millions in they will want a say in how it is spent and where.
I bow to your better knowledge but your supposed model would be in practical terms unworkable wouldn't it.
Investors buy into the business plan and invest on the basis that they think it's a good plan or not. You look at the assembled team to lead the opportunity and make your decision to part with the cash or not.
Expecting X amount of investors to have hands on input all with differing views would be chaos.
I'm sure the investment is tied to various targets and has checks and balances in place but I doubt the investors have too much of a say.
It worries me that this lot could be loads of different investers all with their own ideas. Right now there's nothing about them that makes me have any more faith than I do in Roland and Katie.
Don't think that's how it works to be honest. The consortium put forward their blueprint to attract investors and if people decide to invest their money they do so without having any hands on involvement in the project. They either have faith that the opportunity offered will be worth them putting in money or they don't.
Doubt that very much. If they have put millions in they will want a say in how it is spent and where.
I bow to your better knowledge but your supposed model would be in practical terms unworkable wouldn't it.
Investors buy into the business plan and invest on the basis that they think it's a good plan or not. You look at the assembled team to lead the opportunity and make your decision to part with the cash or not.
Expecting X amount of investors to have hands on input all with differing views would be chaos.
I'm sure the investment is tied to various targets and has checks and balances in place but I doubt the investors have too much of a say.
I too tend to agree with you... I think the AFC model would be something similar to how MS/TJ ran. I just suppose like normal investments, the more money someone invests the better say they have- so I gather that under the premise of investing with AFC they would go along with the advisors etc but if things turn bad they would rightly question what's happenened To their money
It worries me that this lot could be loads of different investers all with their own ideas. Right now there's nothing about them that makes me have any more faith than I do in Roland and Katie.
Don't think that's how it works to be honest. The consortium put forward their blueprint to attract investors and if people decide to invest their money they do so without having any hands on involvement in the project. They either have faith that the opportunity offered will be worth them putting in money or they don't.
Doubt that very much. If they have put millions in they will want a say in how it is spent and where.
I bow to your better knowledge but your supposed model would be in practical terms unworkable wouldn't it.
Investors buy into the business plan and invest on the basis that they think it's a good plan or not. You look at the assembled team to lead the opportunity and make your decision to part with the cash or not.
Expecting X amount of investors to have hands on input all with differing views would be chaos.
I'm sure the investment is tied to various targets and has checks and balances in place but I doubt the investors have too much of a say.
That's no doubt what the AFC people hope. In reality big money means big influence. Especially if things are going wrong or if they are asked for more money.
What is a new manager is needed or a Lookman type sale on the cards? If you had 5m in the club would you not a least expect to voice an opinion. I think most entrepreneurs would just like most fans on here have a view.
IPO stands for Initial Public Offering - in other words turning the club back into a publicly listed company. Déjà vu for all of us who invested (and later lost) our money last time.
Is it not the AFC ltd that's the IPO rather than the club?
I expect you're right @sammy391 but in substance it would be the same thing as the club (hopefully including the Valley) would presumably be AFC's main asset and operating activity.
The Australian Football Consortium Ltd is an unlisted public company that has been established to acquire an underperforming English football team and elevate it to the English Premier League.
How we will achieve it
Australian Football Consortium Ltd brings together elite practices found in Australia's world-leading sporting codes and teams, including specialties in player performance, culture development, team management, supporter engagement, stadium operations and match day experience. Driven by an expert advisory team, Australian Football Consortium Ltd will implement:
A high-performance, cohesive team culture A strong Club brand in both the UK and Australia Australian best-in-class sport psychology and science Investment in the Club's training academy and facilities Management techniques designed to maximise performance Investment overview
In 2016 Australian Football Consortium Ltd commissioned Deloitte Football Business Group in Manchester, UK to undertake a feasibility study.
Australian Football Consortium Ltd is now conducting a confidential capital raise and is seeking investors to contribute a total A$55m in return for a shareholding in Australian Football Consortium Ltd.
Attractive returns on investment are expected to result from promotion to the Premier League where the earnings profile of clubs increases dramatically as a result of lucrative media rights arrangements. Upon achieving Australian Football Consortium Ltd's vision of promoting the Club to the Premier League, all investors will share in the value created. It is envisaged that liquidity will be provided through an IPO at that stage.
Process
Australian Football Consortium Ltd is in final negotiations with the current owner of the Club and is seeking commitments from cornerstone investors during March 2017. Henslow Pty Ltd is managing Australian Football Consortium Ltd's capital raise process and interested parties are encouraged to contact Chris Tait regarding the opportunity.
Chris Tait Principal Henslow +61 438 862 355 ctait@henslow.com
I really don't understand where the £55M comes from. Anyone looking to attract that kind of high risk investment based on eventual promotion to the PL would, to me, seem way off the mark, unless the plan ws to seek further investment if and when in the PL (sorry @Scoham - I don't know what an IPO is).
Firstly, the Championship is probably a much harder league than the PL: look at the likes of Derby, Norwich, Wolves... it seems to me that to get to the top 3 and, therfore, the PL, you need a fair chunk of money, a very good closely knit squad (à la Bournemouth, or us under Curbs), a good manager and, an enormous slice of luck.
£55M to me, and assuming £30M+ is used up buying the brand (with, or without The Valley), doesn't add up. In any event, £55M is way too much to spend for a L1 club that's 16th in the table and in freefall. We're not Man City (who had 40k+ for their home games in L1 fifteen years ago); we're not Newcastle or Sunderland: we're a club - a product (I hate that term) - and in London there's too much competition: a day out in Bluewater is, apparently, becoming as popular as going to see a match at The Valley: if not a non-league game or rugby or cricket or West Ham.
Go back to the Championship and look at the former PL clubs festering there - Villa, Leeds, Forest, Cardiff: all with crackpot owners or no financial stability. My fear is that, with this Australian connection, there won't be any stability: either because the numbers have to add up, or there'll be too much interference with the manager/playing staff.
But, back to the £55M... less £30M for the buyout... maybe @AFKABartram or @Airman Brown can give some ball park figures of what it actually costs to climb from L1 to (and stay) in the PL? Transfers & player wages combined. I've no idea about player wages (particularly now with all the Sky money), but my guess for transfers would be £2-3M to buy yourself out (bearing in mind FFP) of L1, £20M to win the Chmpionship and then, well, the first season in the PL: the sky's the limit!!!
Finally, in response to @MuttleyCAFC - a good post, but I don't get your reference to the Chinese connection: they've got their own PL now and, apaert from over inflating the price of our footballers, I can't see them rushing to The Valley.
Sorry - I know this is supposed to be a 'fact' not 'speculation' thread, but that £55M seems a very strange figure to me and, if I were a would-be investor - very dodgy investment.
Well the 55mn is Aus Dollars, not pounds. That's about £33mn at current exchange rates. An insufficient amount of money to, first, buy the club (with ground) and, second, build a squad for promotion through the leagues. Particularly taking into account the paucity of adequate playing talent in the existing squad. Then there's a contribution to paying off existing charges on the ground and continuing with phase 28 or whatever we're up to now, of the training ground upgrade. For the purposes of my own sanity, I've ignored the Staprix loans as they would have to be written off by Roland?
Surely, it can only mean then, if this a genuine and serious attempt to acquire the club, that they already have some significant resources in place and are looking for a top-up to give some stability and pay day-to-day running costs?
Or looking to get some big players involved now for when they'll be needed when and if circumstances get close to their main objective?
In a way,kind of what the spivs should have done when they started their tenure.
As a financial advisor I look at it like this. AFC are like a VCT (Venture Capital Trust) or an EIS (Enterprise Initiative Scheme) - you draft up a prospectus where you lay out your objectives & ask potential investors to invest - usually there are minimums, which in this case could be £500,000 -£1m. The investor have no say in how the "investment" is run or to its terms & conditions. VCT & EIS have some very good tax breaks & is why high net worth individuals invest, eg 30% tax relief.
I see thee current play as that they have sounded out certain individuals or have had interest from prospective investors & now that negotiations with RD have progressed to a point where AFC are now calling in the money. They may raise £30m or £50m. The main stumbling block could be if they only raise £20m & hence why the Valley may not be part of the package (at this time).
As a financial advisor I look at it like this. AFC are like a VCT (Venture Capital Trust) or an EIS (Enterprise Initiative Scheme) - you draft up a prospectus where you lay out your objectives & ask potential investors to invest - usually there are minimums, which in this case could be £500,000 -£1m. The investor have no say in how the "investment" is run or to its terms & conditions. VCT & EIS have some very good tax breaks & is why high net worth individuals invest, eg 30% tax relief.
I see thee current play as that they have sounded out certain individuals or have had interest from prospective investors & now that negotiations with RD have progressed to a point where AFC are now calling in the money. They may raise £30m or £50m. The main stumbling block could be if they only raise £20m & hence why the Valley may not be part of the package (at this time).
As an ex-city worker I fully agree @golfaddick, the devil will be in the detail which none of us are party to, that's of course if this rumour is correct. If they raise more than they originally asked for then The Valley could well be purchased at the time of the takeover, or as I've said previously, terms negotiated on it to purchase for a set price at a given time in the future. Should AFC have a successful first season and we get promoted they can go back and see, based on success, if they can raise more from current or new investors, that may then want a slice of the action. Did I read somewhere that @queensland_addick is hoping to meet someone this week in Oz who knew/knows about this AFC bid?
As a financial advisor I look at it like this. AFC are like a VCT (Venture Capital Trust) or an EIS (Enterprise Initiative Scheme) - you draft up a prospectus where you lay out your objectives & ask potential investors to invest - usually there are minimums, which in this case could be £500,000 -£1m. The investor have no say in how the "investment" is run or to its terms & conditions. VCT & EIS have some very good tax breaks & is why high net worth individuals invest, eg 30% tax relief.
I see thee current play as that they have sounded out certain individuals or have had interest from prospective investors & now that negotiations with RD have progressed to a point where AFC are now calling in the money. They may raise £30m or £50m. The main stumbling block could be if they only raise £20m & hence why the Valley may not be part of the package (at this time).
Are there examples of a group like this being the sole (so to speak) owners of a football club? There seems to be a lot of talk about "raising funds,' which I know is a part of the process at this stage, but worries me that what if we do not have initial success and require more funds than are initially raised? Will this group be able to secure those? Will investors want to see immediate ROI? The only way I see that happening is a return to the Premier League, which I think is, at best, 3-4 years away. At best. And there is no guarantee of this, of course.
Also, not owning The Valley is incredibly concerning, as far as I'm concerned. Even at a "knockdown" price of 20m, I don't really see the value of the club as being that high (given we're still hemorrhaging money and have long term debts that I believe are structured around success) without The Valley.
I know soccer is growing in Australia, and they relatively recently overhauled their youth system to be more in line with the Dutch approach, but from what I understand their clubs don't make money. And, domestically at least, they don't seem to be churning out footballers in high demand across Europe.
I know our information is limited, but to me, there are just as many questions, if not more, here than there are answers. And there are a lot of gaps. To be honest, this feels a bit like a marketing campaign (again, in the stage of raising funds it can be to a degree) as it does a group prepared to go in and run the day-to-day of a football club.
It might have been said before, but might they be working on the assumption that it won't cost much you get out of League 1 and that more money can be raised later?
It might have been said before, but might they be working on the assumption that it won't cost much you get out of League 1 and that more money can be raised later?
That assumption fell down with Jimenez & Slater. Though, Allegedly it was rumoured that Tone's actions, contributed greatly to the withdrawal of Cash's cash. Everything about AFC's interest & everyone's discussion of the potential investment is pure speculation. Schwarz's latest comments only push it further down that track.
At least Duchatelet is looking to sell. Hopefully, whoever buys has the funds to takeover all of the operation & sufficient funding to invest & push the team forward.
It might have been said before, but might they be working on the assumption that it won't cost much you get out of League 1 and that more money can be raised later?
I don't know how much the Chris Powell promotion squad cost to assemble, but I recall that it was largely funded by the sale of Carl Jenkinson, so I'm guessing 3-4 million. When RD rolled up, we were probably 3 good signings away from promotion to the Prem, so another couple of million may have been enough. So back then 5-6 million would have been enough to take you from League One to the Premiership, not guaranteed of course, but close.
IPO stands for Initial Public Offering - in other words turning the club back into a publicly listed company. Déjà vu for all of us who invested (and later lost) our money last time.
I didn't ever think of it as an investment or that I'd ever want to get my money back at any time. Still got the original share certificate in a frame and that's priceless, as was the thought at the time that I 'owned' a piece of the club.
IPO stands for Initial Public Offering - in other words turning the club back into a publicly listed company. Déjà vu for all of us who invested (and later lost) our money last time.
I don't I ever thought of it as an investment or that I'd ever want to get my money back at any time. Still got the original share certificate in a frame and that's priceless, as was the thought at the time that I 'owned' a piece of the club.
Still got mine as well, never thought about framing it ! Also my Ronnie Moore certificate. Here's a thought, if the minimum investment was 500,000 pounds, that would only be 50 pounds by 10,000 fans. I think that would be easily achievable in order to own a stake in our own club. Not too much to lose either!
It might have been said before, but might they be working on the assumption that it won't cost much you get out of League 1 and that more money can be raised later?
I don't know how much the Chris Powell promotion squad cost to assemble, but I recall that it was largely funded by the sale of Carl Jenkinson, so I'm guessing 3-4 million. When RD rolled up, we were probably 3 good signings away from promotion to the Prem, so another couple of million may have been enough. So back then 5-6 million would have been enough to take you from League One to the Premiership, not guaranteed of course, but close.
The team battling relegation? I'd say 2-3 forward, 1-2 wingers/creative players, and at least one central defender. And that's assuming that Cousins, Poyet, and Jacko were good enough for a Championship promotion push, which I'm not certain they were.
Don't think the Powell squad actually cost that much, it was more down to the planning that went into building that squad. Great article and interview with Powell in the latest VOTV on that very subject.
Don't think the Powell squad actually cost that much, it was more down to the planning that went into building that squad. Great article and interview with Powell in the latest VOTV on that very subject.
I know that Schwarzer's first game in England was at the Valley. (Or at least his first away game for Bradford.) That's the sum of my knowledge of the Australian Consortium.
Don't think the Powell squad actually cost that much, it was more down to the planning that went into building that squad. Great article and interview with Powell in the latest VOTV on that very subject.
Don't think the Powell squad actually cost that much, it was more down to the planning that went into building that squad. Great article and interview with Powell in the latest VOTV on that very subject.
Varney in GTKTN4 said the budget was £4M.
No - the £4m is the target football wage bill, which incidentally was lower than in 2010/11. The new ownership had to fund the operating loss so it's not a point made in criticism, but as a matter of fact - they actually reduced the amount available for wages compared to previous years. About £1m in fees - from Jenkinson - was then spent on new players.
The idea that additional resource was put in by the owners to achieve promotion is a misconception - although without them loaning money to fund ongoing losses, e.g. if Murray had continued, it couldn't have happened.
Don't think the Powell squad actually cost that much, it was more down to the planning that went into building that squad. Great article and interview with Powell in the latest VOTV on that very subject.
Varney in GTKTN4 said the budget was £4M.
No - the £4m is the target football wage bill, which incidentally was lower than in 2010/11. The new ownership had to fund the operating loss so it's not a point made in criticism, but as a matter of fact - they actually reduced the amount available for wages compared to previous years. About £1m in fees - from Jenkinson - was then spent on new players.
The idea that additional resource was put in by the owners to achieve promotion is a misconception - although without them loaning money to fund ongoing losses, e.g. if Murray had continued, it couldn't have happened.
I was just repeating what PV said. What he didn't say was what it covered so thanks for filling in those blanks.
Comments
Investors buy into the business plan and invest on the basis that they think it's a good plan or not. You look at the assembled team to lead the opportunity and make your decision to part with the cash or not.
Expecting X amount of investors to have hands on input all with differing views would be chaos.
I'm sure the investment is tied to various targets and has checks and balances in place but I doubt the investors have too much of a say.
I just suppose like normal investments, the more money someone invests the better say they have- so I gather that under the premise of investing with AFC they would go along with the advisors etc but if things turn bad they would rightly question what's happenened To their money
What is a new manager is needed or a Lookman type sale on the cards? If you had 5m in the club would you not a least expect to voice an opinion. I think most entrepreneurs would just like most fans on here have a view.
In a way,kind of what the spivs should have done when they started their tenure.
I see thee current play as that they have sounded out certain individuals or have had interest from prospective investors & now that negotiations with RD have progressed to a point where AFC are now calling in the money. They may raise £30m or £50m. The main stumbling block could be if they only raise £20m & hence why the Valley may not be part of the package (at this time).
Also, not owning The Valley is incredibly concerning, as far as I'm concerned. Even at a "knockdown" price of 20m, I don't really see the value of the club as being that high (given we're still hemorrhaging money and have long term debts that I believe are structured around success) without The Valley.
I know soccer is growing in Australia, and they relatively recently overhauled their youth system to be more in line with the Dutch approach, but from what I understand their clubs don't make money. And, domestically at least, they don't seem to be churning out footballers in high demand across Europe.
I know our information is limited, but to me, there are just as many questions, if not more, here than there are answers. And there are a lot of gaps. To be honest, this feels a bit like a marketing campaign (again, in the stage of raising funds it can be to a degree) as it does a group prepared to go in and run the day-to-day of a football club.
At least Duchatelet is looking to sell. Hopefully, whoever buys has the funds to takeover all of the operation & sufficient funding to invest & push the team forward.
Here's a thought, if the minimum investment was 500,000 pounds, that would only be 50 pounds by 10,000 fans. I think that would be easily achievable in order to own a stake in our own club. Not too much to lose either!
That's the sum of my knowledge of the Australian Consortium.
The idea that additional resource was put in by the owners to achieve promotion is a misconception - although without them loaning money to fund ongoing losses, e.g. if Murray had continued, it couldn't have happened.