• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

Last edited:
The price will likely have come down since then, considering how fast the club has been declining.

It's also now people who don't want to be here they are negotiating with, rather than one who really did
Haven't declined financially , latest Deloitte Money League shows a 9% increase in revenue on the previous year and next years will show another increase because of the CL money earned this season.
 
Last edited:
The price will likely have come down since then, considering how fast the club has been declining.

It's also now people who don't want to be here they are negotiating with, rather than one who really did
Neither of those statement hold water.

While we might be in a sticky patch as a football side, we are an immensely well run football club, which continues to make vast sums of cash from all manner of channels.

Then you suggest that the club is being run by people who don't want to be here, without evidence. Who are you Trump? We have a CEO who is just getting started and board who have just committed to investment both in terms of transfer budgets and wages.
 
Neither of those statement hold water.

While we might be in a sticky patch as a football side, we are an immensely well run football club, which continues to make vast sums of cash from all manner of channels.

Then you suggest that the club is being run by people who don't want to be here, without evidence. Who are you Trump? We have a CEO who is just getting started and board who have just committed to investment both in terms of transfer budgets and wages.

They'll be gone by summer. The distain they hold for the club is like if me or you inherited a rowing team in South Sudan.

Zero Net Spend FC
 
It's also now people who don't want to be here they are negotiating with, rather than one who really did
The statement about outside interest was made on Sept 7th and Levy had already left so the prospective buyers would be negotiating with the board and CEO in September post Levy .
At the current time any prospective buyers would be in negotiation with exactly the same people on the board apart from Hinson who was appointed in October.
Personally I don't get why the Lewis family would make all these changes to the board structure if they were intent on selling.
 
Would someone taking Levy's share of the club make any difference, at West Ham Daniel Kretinsky owns about 27% of the club , according to Forbes he is worth $10.3 billion, haven't seen Hammers break any transfer records . (Or build a hotel :) )

It can vary. John Textor had a 43% ownership stake of Crystal Palace but had absolutely no legal say over how the club can be run. While Steve Parish owns 10% and has full control.
 
It can vary. John Textor had a 43% ownership stake of Crystal Palace but had absolutely no legal say over how the club can be run. While Steve Parish owns 10% and has full control.

You can have shares with specific voting rights, or you can hand over running operations to certain groups (Glazers allowing Ratcliffe to run United football side), but someone with 43% will have the ability to have say (my understanding is part of Palace's setup is due to Textor's multi-club ownership issues and Palace's participation in Europe)

I'd say a situation where someone with more than 10% stake has no say (vs. chooses not to exercise that right) would be unusual.
 
You can have shares with specific voting rights, or you can hand over running operations to certain groups (Glazers allowing Ratcliffe to run United football side), but someone with 43% will have the ability to have say (my understanding is part of Palace's setup is due to Textor's multi-club ownership issues and Palace's participation in Europe)

I'd say a situation where someone with more than 10% stake has no say (vs. chooses not to exercise that right) would be unusual.

The guy Textor sold to does not own any other football clubs and has no say in how the club is run.
 
You can have shares with specific voting rights, or you can hand over running operations to certain groups (Glazers allowing Ratcliffe to run United football side), but someone with 43% will have the ability to have say (my understanding is part of Palace's setup is due to Textor's multi-club ownership issues and Palace's participation in Europe)

I'd say a situation where someone with more than 10% stake has no say (vs. chooses not to exercise that right) would be unusual.

Yeh and I suspect that even though Parish tries to make his position as solid as he can, if you have 40% shares in something, you can call in your influence at some point should you wish to
 
Yeh and I suspect that even though Parish tries to make his position as solid as he can, if you have 40% shares in something, you can call in your influence at some point should you wish to

You can but the other minor shareholders are all on side with Parish and their minor shares outweigh the 43% that the new US shareholder awoldy Johnson has. Johnson would need one of the other 4 shareholders who all own more than 10% to turn on Parish.
 
Would make sense for him to cash in now that's he not involved, and can't see him being overly keen on having any dealings with the Lewis family after the way he was treated. Take the money and enjoy the high life for the rest of his life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Back