|
|
Post by zenga on Sept 19, 2024 22:38:15 GMT
The Singaporean/Japanese construction has not honored it's financial commitments to SK Deinze, which they own. Earlier this year the ACA FP guy who was the DoF for Deinze and also sits on the board of ACA FP, Adrián Espárraga, left for Ronaldo's club Al-Nassr to become their DoF. Nevertheless, ACA said at the start of the season that they wanted to promote with Deinze this season. Few months later and they haven't paid the bills, to the point where the local people who are involved in Deinze went public. Said it before that I can't see how a club like Deinze can ever become sustainable in Belgium, due to its location and lack of fanbase. Last season I had the opportunity to sit down with a few of the club people, including a representative of ACA and they seemed at the very least competent people. So not sure what has happened. Would be interesting to hear what/if they have done anything Charlton related, because on their website they list Charlton as one of their clubs. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Sept 20, 2024 7:23:57 GMT
Interesting. They don’t own much of us do they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Sept 20, 2024 7:36:38 GMT
Interesting. They don’t own much of us do they? This news release explains the ownership structure - here. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Sept 20, 2024 8:37:39 GMT
The Singaporean/Japanese construction has not honored it's financial commitments to SK Deinze, which they own. Earlier this year the ACA FP guy who was the DoF for Deinze and also sits on the board of ACA FP, Adrián Espárraga, left for Ronaldo's club Al-Nassr to become their DoF. Nevertheless, ACA said at the start of the season that they wanted to promote with Deinze this season. Few months later and they haven't paid the bills, to the point where the local people who are involved in Deinze went public. Said it before that I can't see how a club like Deinze can ever become sustainable in Belgium, due to its location and lack of fanbase. Last season I had the opportunity to sit down with a few of the club people, including a representative of ACA and they seemed at the very least competent people. So not sure what has happened. Would be interesting to hear what/if they have done anything Charlton related, because on their website they list Charlton as one of their clubs. They were at the Bolton game I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Sept 20, 2024 9:28:27 GMT
The Singaporean/Japanese construction has not honored it's financial commitments to SK Deinze, which they own. Earlier this year the ACA FP guy who was the DoF for Deinze and also sits on the board of ACA FP, Adrián Espárraga, left for Ronaldo's club Al-Nassr to become their DoF. Nevertheless, ACA said at the start of the season that they wanted to promote with Deinze this season. Few months later and they haven't paid the bills, to the point where the local people who are involved in Deinze went public. Said it before that I can't see how a club like Deinze can ever become sustainable in Belgium, due to its location and lack of fanbase. Last season I had the opportunity to sit down with a few of the club people, including a representative of ACA and they seemed at the very least competent people. So not sure what has happened. Would be interesting to hear what/if they have done anything Charlton related, because on their website they list Charlton as one of their clubs. Thanks for sharing this zenga It’s never been clear to me how ACA FP are funded or how they thought they could add value. Their clubs in Belgium and Spain don’t appear to offer any obvious potential. I wouldn’t be that surprised if it’s fallen over. Hopefully, from Charlton’s perspective this is no big deal. My guess is that only the top two or perhaps three shareholders (Friedman, Brener and perhaps Rosenfeld) contribute to the ongoing funding of the club so that ACA’s investment was only ever viewed as a kind of partnership and/or sharing of expertise opportunity. If this hunch is right then they wouldn’t be missed though what they’d do with their shareholding and seat on the GFP Board is unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Sept 20, 2024 9:33:24 GMT
Interesting. They don’t own much of us do they? This news release explains the ownership structure - here.It lists seven owners with 5%+ each. Rumours at the time suggested that the three US investors might own 17-21% each giving them majority control. What happens next to ACA share of GFP/SE7? How might it be priced and does GFP have a veto over who might acquire the share? I was expecting that minority share interests might wish to cash out AFTER promotion but hadn't anticipated a sale this early. |
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Sept 20, 2024 9:40:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Sept 30, 2024 16:22:57 GMT
Today SK Deinze announced that ACA FP basically told them they won't invest another penny into the club, or in other words they won't be able to live up to their financial commitments. Players had to return their leasing cars, academy trainers are waiting for their salaries, ... basically ACA FP ended up making a complete shitshow out of SK Deinze, and the club is now on the verge of going bankrupt. Also the CEO appointed by ACA FP resigned.
Worst part: this has been going on for at least half a year, but yet before the summer they were still touting around that they wanted to win the league this year, while fully knowing they were unable to honor their financial obligations towards the club.
Again, like I stated earlier in another topic, their investment and ambitions with SK Deinze doesn't make any sense. We are talking about a very small club, literally boxed in between 6-7 bigger clubs in what is already a small country. Maybe if they were to be promoted they would max attract 6-7k home visitors, best case scenario. Same for the academy. Still clueless what they tried to achieve. On the other hand, they definitely had a proper vision and made the right moves (which would cost/require a ton of money).
This begs the question: what the fuck is such an unreliable shareholder doing with billionaire investors from the US? Who got them on board?
This is pure speculation on my end, but could ACA FP have been a burden for this summer investment into Charlton? While a 10% shareholder isn't the biggest one, it can be enough to be annoying in such a diverse shareholding structure. I'm not familiar with UK shareholders law, but here for example you could have a clause in the shareholders agreement that they can't be diluted for x amount of time, effectively blocking / slowing down the process of raising more capital from other investors.
Or in other words, was their a mechanic that allowed ACA FP to block further investment from GFP?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Sept 30, 2024 20:05:08 GMT
Thanks for sharing zenga Good question. My guess is that the answer is no, ACA FP would not have been able to block further investment, but this does beg the question of how funding is organised. The plan is probably for ongoing funding to be via loans and it’s possible that only the three biggest shareholders will participate. We’ll probably never know for sure though because we won’t be able to see what’s going on in GFP. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Sept 30, 2024 21:28:16 GMT
Thanks for sharing zenga Good question. My guess is that the answer is no, ACA FP would not have been able to block further investment, but this does beg the question of how funding is organised. The plan is probably for ongoing funding to be via loans and it’s possible that only the three biggest shareholders will participate. We’ll probably never know for sure though because we won’t be able to see what’s going on in GFP. Loans don’t bypass the SCMP though do they? |
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Oct 2, 2024 22:39:20 GMT
Thanks for sharing zenga Good question. My guess is that the answer is no, ACA FP would not have been able to block further investment, but this does beg the question of how funding is organised. The plan is probably for ongoing funding to be via loans and it’s possible that only the three biggest shareholders will participate. We’ll probably never know for sure though because we won’t be able to see what’s going on in GFP. Loans don’t bypass the SCMP though do they? They don't (loans create effective debt), but what Mundell is referring to imo is how GFP is internally funded, which has zero impact on how GFP funds the club with regards to SCMP (e.g.: Friedman loans GFP 1m, GFP injects 1m as equity into Charlton. The Friedman loan to GFP doesn't matter for the SCMP). |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Oct 2, 2024 23:48:35 GMT
Loans don’t bypass the SCMP though do they? They don't (loans create effective debt), but what Mundell is referring to imo is how GFP is internally funded, which has zero impact on how GFP funds the club with regards to SCMP (e.g.: Friedman loans GFP 1m, GFP injects 1m as equity into Charlton. The Friedman loan to GFP doesn't matter for the SCMP). I see. That does make sense but I would like to think that the EFL would see through that. It could enable clubs holding companies to go into administration, which could avoid a points penalty - assuming the EFL ignore that too. |
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Oct 3, 2024 2:58:30 GMT
They don't (loans create effective debt), but what Mundell is referring to imo is how GFP is internally funded, which has zero impact on how GFP funds the club with regards to SCMP (e.g.: Friedman loans GFP 1m, GFP injects 1m as equity into Charlton. The Friedman loan to GFP doesn't matter for the SCMP). I see. That does make sense but I would like to think that the EFL would see through that. It could enable clubs holding companies to go into administration, which could avoid a points penalty - assuming the EFL ignore that too. 1. I fail to see how that is relevant to the EFL with regards to the SCMP. An investment entity like GFP - that is not generating revenue from trading like a regular business - is always going to need external funding, and if that happens through capital / equity / loans is basically irrelevant as long as the money is 'clean'. 2. I miss your point about how that could be an incentive to a clubs holding company to go into administration. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Oct 3, 2024 7:27:07 GMT
I see. That does make sense but I would like to think that the EFL would see through that. It could enable clubs holding companies to go into administration, which could avoid a points penalty - assuming the EFL ignore that too. 1. I fail to see how that is relevant to the EFL with regards to the SCMP. An investment entity like GFP - that is not generating revenue from trading like a regular business - is always going to need external funding, and if that happens through capital / equity / loans is basically irrelevant as long as the money is 'clean'. 2. I miss your point about how that could be an incentive to a clubs holding company to go into administration. The SCMP is to prevent clubs having excessive amounts of debt. Despite your explanations of this set up the club is being funded with loans. If GFP does no other trading then any and all loans would have to be funded or paid back from the club. Maybe it’s allowed but it looks, to me, like a way for owners to do exactly what the rules forbid but use complicated holding company structures to make it look like something else. If those making the loans decide to call them back then GFP could be put into administration while a new owner is sought and a significant amount of debt is written off. The points deductions are in place to punish those running the clubs from doing this. If using a holding company prevents that then it makes a mockery of that rule and punishment. What is to stop another club from using a similar set up and borrowing from financial institutions and putting the club’s assets down as collateral? This could, literally, cause another Bury - one of the things that the EFL have promised would not be allowed to happen again. You may well be correct and this may well be allowed, but it looks like it is set up to, deliberately, allow us to run up significant debt while spending much more than is sustainable. That can’t be what the EFL wanted to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 3, 2024 10:38:20 GMT
1. I fail to see how that is relevant to the EFL with regards to the SCMP. An investment entity like GFP - that is not generating revenue from trading like a regular business - is always going to need external funding, and if that happens through capital / equity / loans is basically irrelevant as long as the money is 'clean'. 2. I miss your point about how that could be an incentive to a clubs holding company to go into administration. The SCMP is to prevent clubs having excessive amounts of debt. Despite your explanations of this set up the club is being funded with loans. If GFP does no other trading then any and all loans would have to be funded or paid back from the club. Maybe it’s allowed but it looks, to me, like a way for owners to do exactly what the rules forbid but use complicated holding company structures to make it look like something else. If those making the loans decide to call them back then GFP could be put into administration while a new owner is sought and a significant amount of debt is written off. The points deductions are in place to punish those running the clubs from doing this. If using a holding company prevents that then it makes a mockery of that rule and punishment. What is to stop another club from using a similar set up and borrowing from financial institutions and putting the club’s assets down as collateral? This could, literally, cause another Bury - one of the things that the EFL have promised would not be allowed to happen again. You may well be correct and this may well be allowed, but it looks like it is set up to, deliberately, allow us to run up significant debt while spending much more than is sustainable. That can’t be what the EFL wanted to happen. If the three of us were to buy and fund CAFC in an attempt to secure promotion to the Championship, it would make zero difference as to how many holding companies in the structure, nor their location when it comes to SCMP. The football club finances are being monitored. Only when we buy the club does the EFL look at the source and sufficiency of funds. So if you get cold feet in the second season after our fifth manager then you might choose to exit or stop funding the holding company. Either way that's a holding company dispute, and we either find an agreed buyer or wipe you out, depending upon agreements in place. Similarly, if zenga finds additional capital and you & I don't wish to have our share diluted then we need to match it or agree a deal, or suffer dilution. The EFL don't care about us, but will wish to run the rule over any new partner taking on 10%+. That's my understanding, but more than happy to be challenged on this. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Oct 3, 2024 17:59:17 GMT
The SCMP is to prevent clubs having excessive amounts of debt. Despite your explanations of this set up the club is being funded with loans. If GFP does no other trading then any and all loans would have to be funded or paid back from the club. Maybe it’s allowed but it looks, to me, like a way for owners to do exactly what the rules forbid but use complicated holding company structures to make it look like something else. If those making the loans decide to call them back then GFP could be put into administration while a new owner is sought and a significant amount of debt is written off. The points deductions are in place to punish those running the clubs from doing this. If using a holding company prevents that then it makes a mockery of that rule and punishment. What is to stop another club from using a similar set up and borrowing from financial institutions and putting the club’s assets down as collateral? This could, literally, cause another Bury - one of the things that the EFL have promised would not be allowed to happen again. You may well be correct and this may well be allowed, but it looks like it is set up to, deliberately, allow us to run up significant debt while spending much more than is sustainable. That can’t be what the EFL wanted to happen. If the three of us were to buy and fund CAFC in an attempt to secure promotion to the Championship, it would make zero difference as to how many holding companies in the structure, nor their location when it comes to SCMP. The football club finances are being monitored. Only when we buy the club does the EFL look at the source and sufficiency of funds. So if you get cold feet in the second season after our fifth manager then you might choose to exit or stop funding the holding company. Either way that's a holding company dispute, and we either find an agreed buyer or wipe you out, depending upon agreements in place. Similarly, if zenga finds additional capital and you & I don't wish to have our share diluted then we need to match it or agree a deal, or suffer dilution. The EFL don't care about us, but will wish to run the rule over any new partner taking on 10%+. That's my understanding, but more than happy to be challenged on this. Why do I have to be the one that get’s cold feet? 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Oct 3, 2024 19:03:47 GMT
Why do I have to be the one that get’s cold feet? 😂 You'd be the most sane one of us three! |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 3, 2024 20:35:40 GMT
Why do I have to be the one that get’s cold feet? 😂 You'd be the most sane one of us three! Oi zenga don't tell him about the new investor coz he'll want pay off! |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 4, 2024 8:20:50 GMT
Thanks for sharing zenga Good question. My guess is that the answer is no, ACA FP would not have been able to block further investment, but this does beg the question of how funding is organised. The plan is probably for ongoing funding to be via loans and it’s possible that only the three biggest shareholders will participate. We’ll probably never know for sure though because we won’t be able to see what’s going on in GFP. Based on what was said at last night’s Bromley Addicks meeting this assumption is wrong. Apparently, Methven said that each investor contributes to ongoing funding in proportion to their shareholding. He said that the issues ACA FP are facing aren’t important because they aren’t a big shareholder. However, I think you must be right zenga , the inability of one shareholder to provide their share of funding, even a small one, must create a complication or two, even if it’s all easily resolvable. There is an important implication for Methven here too. If what’s been posted elsewhere is right, then it means Methven himself would have been required to provide a minimum of £450,000 of funding last season (5% of the total of £8.9m) and that if losses are running at £5m p.a. that ownership is costing him a minimum of £250,000 p.a. That’s astonishing. Can it be true? It’s certainly skin in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Oct 4, 2024 9:02:53 GMT
Thanks for sharing zenga Good question. My guess is that the answer is no, ACA FP would not have been able to block further investment, but this does beg the question of how funding is organised. The plan is probably for ongoing funding to be via loans and it’s possible that only the three biggest shareholders will participate. We’ll probably never know for sure though because we won’t be able to see what’s going on in GFP. Based on what was said at last night’s Bromley Addicks meeting this assumption is wrong. Apparently, Methven said that each investor contributes to ongoing funding in proportion to their shareholding. He said that the issues ACA FP are facing aren’t important because they aren’t a big shareholder. However, I think you must be right zenga , the inability of one shareholder to provide their share of funding, even a small one, must create a complication or two, even if it’s all easily resolvable. There is an important implication for Methven here too. If what’s been posted elsewhere is right, then it means Methven himself would have been required to provide a minimum of £450,000 of funding last season (5% of the total of £8.9m) and that if losses are running at £5m p.a. that ownership is costing him a minimum of £250,000 p.a. That’s astonishing. Can it be true? It’s certainly skin in the game. That can't be right. Not unless Methven is on £250k a year salary.. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 4, 2024 9:33:29 GMT
Based on what was said at last night’s Bromley Addicks meeting this assumption is wrong. Apparently, Methven said that each investor contributes to ongoing funding in proportion to their shareholding. He said that the issues ACA FP are facing aren’t important because they aren’t a big shareholder. However, I think you must be right zenga , the inability of one shareholder to provide their share of funding, even a small one, must create a complication or two, even if it’s all easily resolvable. There is an important implication for Methven here too. If what’s been posted elsewhere is right, then it means Methven himself would have been required to provide a minimum of £450,000 of funding last season (5% of the total of £8.9m) and that if losses are running at £5m p.a. that ownership is costing him a minimum of £250,000 p.a. That’s astonishing. Can it be true? It’s certainly skin in the game. That can't be right. Not unless Methven is on £250k a year salary.. To be fair, that’s exactly my reaction. However, there are only two possibilities if it’s not true. Either what’s been quoted elsewhere isn’t quite right, i.e. it’s not what Methven said, or Methven’s answer wasn’t complete. It’s possible he is a special case, but chose not to say so. It’s also possible that he’s much wealthier than we imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Oct 4, 2024 10:02:28 GMT
The question is, why was it necessary to bring in these small percentage shareholders in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Oct 5, 2024 9:27:31 GMT
Deinze fans in tears last night after what most likely will have been their last game. A very healthy club for the past 30 years, always outperforming their budget. Until 2,5 years ACA FP came around. If it were up to me such a shareholder, even when they only own ~10% has no business being a shareholder of any other football club. ACA FP out!  |
|
|
|
Post by dickybaby on Oct 12, 2024 7:23:22 GMT
Press release last night: After several weeks of work behind the scenes, we are pleased to announce that the future of KMSK Deinze is assured. Last week, exclusive negotiations took place between ACA Football Partners, the current owner of the club, and a European investment group.
In these talks, in which all parties involved actively participated, an agreement was reached that secures the takeover of the club, an essential step in the club's rescue process. The transfer of the shares will take place in the coming weeks, once all legal procedures related to the acquisition process have been completed.
|
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Oct 12, 2024 21:16:08 GMT
ACA FP turned SK Deinze, once a debt free club, into a club with €2m in debt over the course of ~2 years. Fucking clowns.
|
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Oct 12, 2024 21:48:56 GMT
Says alot about our owners Zenga for ever getting involved with them.
So much for doing your homework.
ACA FP are total wronguns.
|
|
|
|
Post by grapevine49 on Oct 13, 2024 9:51:35 GMT
They are headlines any associated company/ trading organisation can do without. Depending on the size of their shareholding & ongoing financial commitment it will, as a matter of due diligence, invite EFL attention. In terms of overall impact - “size” matters. Can I see why the original link was useful? Absolutely. The opportunity presents as having links to a lesser senior European club as a conduit for developing younger players/ the Academy pipeline.
Going forward if there is any default in terms of financial commitments to us it is likely for SE7 not GFP to manage, not least the relationship between the two. I wasn’t intending to comment on club progress until December but will add a few complementary not complimentary thoughts later.
|
|
