|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Feb 8, 2024 15:00:14 GMT
It is too soon to properly judge Ladapo and Fiorini, but I don’t think anyone who has seen either play would deny that neither player looks remotely fit …which again begs the question of why sign them ? I hold my hands up on Ladapo, I wanted us to sign him when he was at Rotherham. Not sure what has happened there. Two + seasons sitting on a bench at Portman Road! Chuks allowing players have to play regularly to stay match fit. A half fit Fiorini may have been an interesting ‘short term on approval’ loan with an option to purchase but he appears to be only 10% fit and I cannot see how he can provide any upside for us this season. Chuks just could make a difference whereas Fiorini will only play if we have major injuries in midfield. This reminds me of the signings we made last January. Hector and Bonne both needed games to get them up to speed. Bonne, once match fit, was still rubbish - just fit and rubbish. Hector, on the other hand, made a contribution towards the end of the season. I have no idea how fit Ladapo and Fiorini can get but if we are still scrambling around for points at the end of March they might make a difference to our season. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Feb 8, 2024 16:01:43 GMT
You might want to read the link I shared when replying to one of your posts a couple of days ago Occam’s Razor It was about the parable of the blindmen and an elephant. It’s highly relevant here and metaphorically both you and I are amongst the blindmen, though you don’t accept it. I don’t lack ambition for the club anymore than you do. I simply have a different perspective. From my perspective, as one of the blindmen, I simply have a different understanding to yours about what the club needs to do succeed. From that perspective, if the club does the things I hope it will do, it will be successful. And that means getting into the Championship and staying there, before challenging to win promotion to the Premier League. You have a different perspective and that’s fair enough. I know I might be wrong and can recognise you might be right, even though I don’t think you are. You seem to assume that simply because I have a different perspective, I must, by definition, have the wrong motivation or don’t really care. You’re wrong. Take a look at the parable. It’s a thirty second read. Re Methven, he owns a minimum of 5% of the club. On the assumption GFP paid circa £12m, that stake cost him a minimum of £600,000. The stake might easily have cost £750,000, instead of £75,000, which would have bought him 6.25% of the company. se7sm ‘s question was what happens going forward? If the club needs £10m of additional funding, say, is Methven on the hook for another £625,000 and so on? The answer is we don’t know. It’s possible he isn’t though. Maybe CM purchased another class of shares compared to the other shareholders? It’s possible jonkool As I said in an earlier post, we’ll probably never know for sure how the club has been financed so it’s all partly informed guesswork. However, there are a few things worth bearing in mind. 1. It’s almost certain that combined, Gabriel Brener (and family), Joshua Friedman (and family) and Warren Rosenfeld (and family) control Global Football Partners and hence the club, i.e. they can out vote everyone else. Brener and Friedman might even be able to do so without Rosenfeld. There is, therefore, no obvious need for different share classes with different voting rights. Methven has a small minority shareholding and no control. 2. It’s interesting that when Jimenez, Cash, Slater et al acquired the club from Richard Murray they left him with a ten percent shareholding. However, Murray made no contribution to the ongoing funding of the club. That all came via loans from Jimenez et al. That was agreed at the time of the sale and both both buyer and seller would have had reasons for agreeing to structure the deal that way. 3. In the event of a sale of the club, a part sale or a return of capital to investors, it is highly likely that those shareholders who provided ongoing funding via loans would get their money out before the other shareholders. Any loans can be structured that way and, of course, those shareholders providing the loans have control. When Jimenez et al sold the club to Roland Duchatelet they got the money they’d lent the club back (i.e. they recouped the funding they’d provided) while Richard Murray got nothing. 4. I’m sure Methven wanted to own a stake in the club, hoping to cash in if the club can become established in the Championship and challenge for promotion to the Premier League, but it’s also very likely that the main investors were keen that he has some “skin in the game”. That keeps him “honest” and gives him a big incentive to do whatever he can to ensure success. I’ve no idea how wealthy Methven might be, but it’s not unreasonable to suppose that £750,000 is a lot of money to him. The fact he might have to write it all off will keep him motivated and aligns his interests with those of the investors. It’s a win-win. 5. This all works whether Methven contributes to the ongoing funding or not. The fact he may not be required to do so does mean that the other investors will have more dollar value at risk, but that’s likely to be a significantly smaller percentage of their net worth than it is of his and, once again, they’ll have their loans repaid before Methven starts to share in any profits on a sale. 6. The same principle might well apply to any member of management (e.g. Rodwell) who has a shareholding, i.e. they’ll have paid for their shares from their own means, but won’t contribute to the ongoing funding of losses. Again, this gives them skin in the game and aligns their interests with those of the investors. Arrangements like this will be standard fare to Joshua Friedman and others. All other shareholders are probably contributing on a prorata basis. They’ll obviously need to be wealthy enough to afford to do so. This is all speculative, but a structure along these lines would make sense. If you were one of the investors you’d want control (✅), you’d want to delegate day to day management to a professional executive (❓), you’d want that executive to be incentivised and for their interests to be aligned with yours (✅) and given you’re providing the ongoing funding you’d want some kind of preferred return or priority access to cash when money is being paid out to investors (✅). As we’ve discussed on many occasions, execution is key and there can, as result, never be any guarantee of success. However, I remain confident that we’ve at last got lucky with the investor group and that the ownership and management structure is an attractive one. We just need to win a few games of football!! |
|
|
|
Post by jonkool on Feb 9, 2024 8:40:16 GMT
Maybe CM purchased another class of shares compared to the other shareholders? It’s possible jonkool As I said in an earlier post, we’ll probably never know for sure how the club has been financed so it’s all partly informed guesswork. However, there are a few things worth bearing in mind. 1. It’s almost certain that combined, Gabriel Brener (and family), Joshua Friedman (and family) and Warren Rosenfeld (and family) control Global Football Partners and hence the club, i.e. they can out vote everyone else. Brener and Friedman might even be able to do so without Rosenfeld. There is, therefore, no obvious need for different share classes with different voting rights. Methven has a small minority shareholding and no control. 2. It’s interesting that when Jimenez, Cash, Slater et al acquired the club from Richard Murray they left him with a ten percent shareholding. However, Murray made no contribution to the ongoing funding of the club. That all came via loans from Jimenez et al. That was agreed at the time of the sale and both both buyer and seller would have had reasons for agreeing to structure the deal that way. 3. In the event of a sale of the club, a part sale or a return of capital to investors, it is highly likely that those shareholders who provided ongoing funding via loans would get their money out before the other shareholders. Any loans can be structured that way and, of course, those shareholders providing the loans have control. When Jimenez et al sold the club to Roland Duchatelet they got the money they’d lent the club back (i.e. they recouped the funding they’d provided) while Richard Murray got nothing. 4. I’m sure Methven wanted to own a stake in the club, hoping to cash in if the club can become established in the Championship and challenge for promotion to the Premier League, but it’s also very likely that the main investors were keen that he has some “skin in the game”. That keeps him “honest” and gives him a big incentive to do whatever he can to ensure success. I’ve no idea how wealthy Methven might be, but it’s not unreasonable to suppose that £750,000 is a lot of money to him. The fact he might have to write it all off will keep him motivated and aligns his interests with those of the investors. It’s a win-win. 5. This all works whether Methven contributes to the ongoing funding or not. The fact he may not be required to do so does mean that the other investors will have more dollar value at risk, but that’s likely to be a significantly smaller percentage of their net worth than it is of his and, once again, they’ll have their loans repaid before Methven starts to share in any profits on a sale. 6. The same principle might well apply to any member of management (e.g. Rodwell) who has a shareholding, i.e. they’ll have paid for their shares from their own means, but won’t contribute to the ongoing funding of losses. Again, this gives them skin in the game and aligns their interests with those of the investors. Arrangements like this will be standard fare to Joshua Friedman and others. All other shareholders are probably contributing on a prorata basis. They’ll obviously need to be wealthy enough to afford to do so. This is all speculative, but a structure along these lines would make sense. If you were one of the investors you’d want control (✅), you’d want to delegate day to day management to a professional executive (❓), you’d want that executive to be incentivised and for their interests to be aligned with yours (✅) and given you’re providing the ongoing funding you’d want some kind of preferred return or priority access to cash when money is being paid out to investors (✅). As we’ve discussed on many occasions, execution is key and there can, as result, never be any guarantee of success. However, I remain confident that we’ve at last got lucky with the investor group and that the ownership and management structure is an attractive one. We just need to win a few games of football!! A very plausible construct as it proverbially ticks many boxes. As you say execution of strategy is everything … the Spivs were on the right track in 2011, RD had a feasible plan given the then FFP regs which were latterly torn up by EFL, even TS had good initial intentions. Only ESI was a bust at outset as they were a bunch of wide boys looking for a short term asset strip. So it’s agreed that poor execution has been the main issue since 2011 and initially the decisions made by our present SMT and DofF in particular have been anything but good execution. However let us hope that this has now been rectified and remember it’s always darkest just before dawn. |
|
|
|
Post by bigandy99 on Feb 9, 2024 17:59:07 GMT
Based on the thread title.. fans don’t do failure either!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Feb 10, 2024 9:00:46 GMT
Right now it seems to me not about what the club needs to do to succeed, but what it needs to do to head off further failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Feb 10, 2024 9:07:33 GMT
Right now it seems to me not about what the club needs to do to succeed, but what it needs to do to head off further failure. That’s the spirit!! |
|
