Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
So who are our new owners then? Board looking for new investors p14
Comments
-
At the same time Charlton Athletic seek £20 million Killian Mbappe gets £50+ million in back pay!
Football is crazy!10 -
Arent they a hedge fund? BDT are a Merchant bank by the look of it, which would make more sense given the scenariocarly burn said:Why are they asking BDT & MSD Partners to look for them?
Surely Friedman's Canyon partners would do it for diddly??1 -
Why ? Just a random guess or "insider knowledge" ?AhyFKABartram said:Been expecting this0 -
So you're saying Mbappe is buying a stake in Charlton. Interesting.Kap10 said:At the same time Charlton Athletic seek £20 million Killian Mbappe gets £50+ million in back pay!
Football is crazy!11 -
But these are two different things.Airman Brown said:Two points - the market in football clubs, particularly English ones, moves as well as the status of a club. Secondly, this has always been a speculative business venture in which the investors will look to safeguard and recoup their investment when the opportunity arises. This doesn’t mean that their agenda can’t be aligned with ours as fans at any given time, but they are not primarily involved because they want to own a club for the fun of it, even if they do enjoy that. Equally they are wealthy enough to take the gamble in the first place.The original widespread assumption was that they wanted to flip the club for profit. I don’t think that all needs to happen at once for that to be correct. This looks like good business for the owners if they can do it. The club needs further investment, whether we stay up or not, so whether you see it as repayment or funds for that it makes sense.
If the current owners are potentially selling some of their existing shares, so they get back a part of their initial investment, then that's their money to do with as they please. The club wont necessarily see a penny of that.
If it's the club potentially issuing new shares then that's maybe up to £20milion in the kitty to go and spunk - sorry, I meant "invest" - on new players.
Obviously I hope its the latter, and that seems to be the assumption other people have made. But I'm just asking why people are so confident that's the case, based on one cryptic tweet.1 -
Hopefully because the investment is a lot more attractive if you know your money is going straight into improving the club.Off_it said:
But these are two different things.Airman Brown said:Two points - the market in football clubs, particularly English ones, moves as well as the status of a club. Secondly, this has always been a speculative business venture in which the investors will look to safeguard and recoup their investment when the opportunity arises. This doesn’t mean that their agenda can’t be aligned with ours as fans at any given time, but they are not primarily involved because they want to own a club for the fun of it, even if they do enjoy that. Equally they are wealthy enough to take the gamble in the first place.The original widespread assumption was that they wanted to flip the club for profit. I don’t think that all needs to happen at once for that to be correct. This looks like good business for the owners if they can do it. The club needs further investment, whether we stay up or not, so whether you see it as repayment or funds for that it makes sense.
If the current owners are potentially selling some of their existing shares, so they get back a part of their initial investment, then that's their money to do with as they please. The club wont necessarily see a penny of that.
If it's the club potentially issuing new shares then that's maybe up to £20milion in the kitty to go and spunk - sorry, I meant "invest" - on new players.
Obviously I hope it’s the latter, and that seems to be the assumption other people have made. But I'm just asking why people are so confident that's the case, based on one cryptic tweet.0 -
But that depends on exactly what's being offered. That's my point. We don't know. Unless someone does and they're not saying?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Hopefully because the investment is a lot more attractive if you know your money is going straight into improving the club.Off_it said:
But these are two different things.Airman Brown said:Two points - the market in football clubs, particularly English ones, moves as well as the status of a club. Secondly, this has always been a speculative business venture in which the investors will look to safeguard and recoup their investment when the opportunity arises. This doesn’t mean that their agenda can’t be aligned with ours as fans at any given time, but they are not primarily involved because they want to own a club for the fun of it, even if they do enjoy that. Equally they are wealthy enough to take the gamble in the first place.The original widespread assumption was that they wanted to flip the club for profit. I don’t think that all needs to happen at once for that to be correct. This looks like good business for the owners if they can do it. The club needs further investment, whether we stay up or not, so whether you see it as repayment or funds for that it makes sense.
If the current owners are potentially selling some of their existing shares, so they get back a part of their initial investment, then that's their money to do with as they please. The club wont necessarily see a penny of that.
If it's the club potentially issuing new shares then that's maybe up to £20milion in the kitty to go and spunk - sorry, I meant "invest" - on new players.
Obviously I hope it’s the latter, and that seems to be the assumption other people have made. But I'm just asking why people are so confident that's the case, based on one cryptic tweet.1 -
Is the actual timing of all this rather confusing stuff going on a factor to consider, beyond the amounts?0
-
They are two different mechanisms, I agree, but regardless additional money will have to go into the club every year or it will go bust. The only other way of funding the operating loss is to sell players, but that is counter-productive on the pitch and ultimately in terms of revenue, and is unlikely to be feasible.Off_it said:
But these are two different things.Airman Brown said:Two points - the market in football clubs, particularly English ones, moves as well as the status of a club. Secondly, this has always been a speculative business venture in which the investors will look to safeguard and recoup their investment when the opportunity arises. This doesn’t mean that their agenda can’t be aligned with ours as fans at any given time, but they are not primarily involved because they want to own a club for the fun of it, even if they do enjoy that. Equally they are wealthy enough to take the gamble in the first place.The original widespread assumption was that they wanted to flip the club for profit. I don’t think that all needs to happen at once for that to be correct. This looks like good business for the owners if they can do it. The club needs further investment, whether we stay up or not, so whether you see it as repayment or funds for that it makes sense.
If the current owners are potentially selling some of their existing shares, so they get back a part of their initial investment, then that's their money to do with as they please. The club wont necessarily see a penny of that.
If it's the club potentially issuing new shares then that's maybe up to £20milion in the kitty to go and spunk - sorry, I meant "invest" - on new players.
Obviously I hope its the latter, and that seems to be the assumption other people have made. But I'm just asking why people are so confident that's the case, based on one cryptic tweet.8 -
Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds0
-
Sponsored links:
-
They wouldn’t get someone on board quick enough for that anywayCrispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds2 -
What did it sayCrispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds0 -
Even if it was available it couldn't all be used on transfer fees. There is a salary cap of 70% of turnover.Crispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds3 -
"...we're not doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds"J BLOCK said:
What did it sayCrispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds
😉16 -
And even if they were they would be stupid to say so, and this lot have tried very hard to give the impression money is hard to come by. I don't blame them, it's what I would do with my £1.50.Gribbo said:
"...we're not doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds"J BLOCK said:
What did it sayCrispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds
😉1 -
How have Millwall managed to sustain a championship squad with smaller crowds? Is it because transfers going out count towards turnover and they've got lucky with a few recently or does the Berylson money add to turnover ? If so, why wouldn't the influx of £20m count towards turnover? Is it because the Berylson money is a gift, not a loan as such?Crusty54 said:
Even if it was available it couldn't all be used on transfer fees. There is a salary cap of 70% of turnover.Crispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds2 -
Good piece with Matt Slater about all this over on Rich's Substack. All sounds quite positive from what Matt has said.8
-
Can only be counted towards turnover if it is equity and not a loan. The owners selling a portion of their shares has no impact on the Charlton P+L unless they either loaned the money or injected it as equity.DOUCHER said:
How have Millwall managed to sustain a championship squad with smaller crowds? Is it because transfers going out count towards turnover and they've got lucky with a few recently or does the Berylson money add to turnover ? If so, why wouldn't the influx of £20m count towards turnover? Is it because the Berylson money is a gift, not a loan as such?Crusty54 said:
Even if it was available it couldn't all be used on transfer fees. There is a salary cap of 70% of turnover.Crispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds0 -
Isn't most of Millwalls recent stuff based off selling Zian Flemming and Roman Esse for big money?0
-
What if the owners created new shares, diluting theirs, and sold them... Would that count?Covered_End_Lad said:
Can only be counted towards turnover if it is equity and not a loan. The owners selling a portion of their shares has no impact on the Charlton P+L unless they either loaned the money or injected it as equity.DOUCHER said:
How have Millwall managed to sustain a championship squad with smaller crowds? Is it because transfers going out count towards turnover and they've got lucky with a few recently or does the Berylson money add to turnover ? If so, why wouldn't the influx of £20m count towards turnover? Is it because the Berylson money is a gift, not a loan as such?Crusty54 said:
Even if it was available it couldn't all be used on transfer fees. There is a salary cap of 70% of turnover.Crispywood said:Listening to the Cawley podcast it doesn’t sound like they’re doing it to provide an extra 20m in transfer funds0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yes. And 8 million for Tanganga, who we signed on a free. It’s the model we have to follow. It’s worked well so far, as long as we keep getting the recruitment right. Which we should do as the network and model we have there at the moment is superb. Can’t fault it.MarcusH26 said:Isn't most of Millwalls recent stuff based off selling Zian Flemming and Roman Esse for big money?
6 -
AIG Just become largest shareholder in Salford. Lots of change0
-
You wait til the fruits of gallen’s labour starts to filter through - you’ll have plenty of capable players but there’ll never be fitMillwallFan said:
Yes. And 8 million for Tanganga, who we signed on a free. It’s the model we have to follow. It’s worked well so far, as long as we keep getting the recruitment right. Which we should do as the network and model we have there at the moment is superb. Can’t fault it.MarcusH26 said:Isn't most of Millwalls recent stuff based off selling Zian Flemming and Roman Esse for big money?1 -
Who or what is AIG?billysboots said:AIG Just become largest shareholder in Salford. Lots of change0 -
They were Man Utd shirt sponsor for several years. Think Beckham sold his Salford stake to them a few years back, they must have just bought someone else out.SoundAsa£ said:
Who or what is AIG?billysboots said:AIG Just become largest shareholder in Salford. Lots of change0 -
American insurance company.SoundAsa£ said:
Who or what is AIG?billysboots said:AIG Just become largest shareholder in Salford. Lots of change0 -
Cal McNair1
-
He was over today as a guest of the club.
Reckon he knows Brener pretty well having both owned sporting teams in Houston.15
