[Football] Crystal Palace sell £87.5m stake to US businessman

[bhanutz]

If Palace’s debts of £61.1M are “crippling”, how would you describe Brighton’s debt of £67.2M?

You lot really clutch at straws... I have seen the 2nd biggest debt in football banded about by you morons... You just don't get it do you. You would much rather be in our position but just cannot admit it. Sad really.

 

[loz]

We totally get that.
Trust me we are very much aware how big an advantage we have over you in that regard.
It's just the trolls who come on here and try to pretend that your financial situation is the same as ours, that triggers the debate.

In regards to why a Palace fan may not appreciate your chairman, it could be because he has consistently gambled your future by paying more than he can afford, in order to stay in the Premier league.
He has kept it going for 9 years, but my guess is, if the wheels ever do come off, there will be a different view on the last 10 years, by more than just 1 palace fan.

Not really sure I get that, I suppose they could pay under the going rate and get relegated...also we lose a lot less money than most clubs including your own ( you dont make money running a football club)

I would also say Palaces financial situation is no where as bad as you would like it to be.

 

[bhanutz]

Not really sure I get that, I suppose they could pay under the going rate and get relegated...also we lose a lot less money than most clubs including your own ( you dont make money running a football club)

I would also say Palaces financial situation is no where as bad as you would like it to be.

Its not as good as ours tho... no matter how many times you try to convince yourselves...

 

[bobbysmith01]

Why would a Palace fan hate a chairman who has looked after a club in its most successful period of 9 seasons in the top flight...weird !

There is a strip of land that Sainsburys want silly money for and the club are not prepared to be ransomed over it...it quite a common thing in property circles, Brightons own Nicholas van Hoogstraten used it to make his millions

What you have got to remember is that not every club has a multi millionaire prepared to bankroll a club and most have to look for other investments, its not always a bad thing.

Think you will find a lot of Palace fans do not hold Parish in high esteem, he is called 'Pinocchio' for some reason??

I am only telling you what I am told, but feel he is not a very honest chairman as lot of things he promises does not happens. I also know another fan who will not go back until he is gone as he was of season ticket holders who was removed by the hooded hooligans after years of sitting in his seat.

Yes we are very lucky to have an owner who looks after us and not in the game to make a buck or 2, nor takes a 1-2 million pound a year salary. Think I prefer our owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I think you’ll find that £37M of your debt is in fact secured against future broadcast revenues.

I think you're misunderstanding the idea of unsecured debt.
All loans have to be secured against something.

Most clubs have a similar issue post Covid, because Matchday revenue has taken a hit, therefore cashflow was a problem.
The £37m was to cover the lost matchday revenue from two seasons.

Palace used loans secured against TV revenue years before the Pandemic hit.
That was because they couldn't afford to pay their wage bill.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Not really sure I get that, I suppose they could pay under the going rate and get relegated...also we lose a lot less money than most clubs including your own ( you dont make money running a football club)

I would also say Palaces financial situation is no where as bad as you would like it to be.

I'm sure you would.
Would you feel the same if you were relegated?

 

[rippleman]

I know it's difficult to stop yourself resorting to whataboutery, but the 2 situations are very different

We have an owner who can and will cover it. You didn't.
Hopefully your yank has deep pockets and isn't hoping to turn a profit.

This has been explained to Mr Letdown and his cronies many times before.

He is either remarkably thick or just another palace troll.

 

[Mr Putdown]

You lot really clutch at straws... I have seen the 2nd biggest debt in football banded about by you morons... You just don't get it do you. You would much rather be in our position but just cannot admit it. Sad really.

How is pointing out the similarity in the losses both clubs made “clutching at straws” ?

I fully get you’ve got an extremely wealthy owner, who is also a fan, whereas we don’t. I’m not sure why you think that’s sad, it’s just a fact.

 

[Springal]

Don't forget losses come in many forms. For instance the investments we have made in physical infrastructure are included within that. Likewise I am sure all football clubs took advantage of the COVID situation to increase losses by moving amortisation around if beneficial to get done in 1 lump

 

[lizard]

I suspect one of the highlights from their eleven year history was the part where they looted and burned down their own town.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

How is pointing out the similarity in the losses both clubs made “clutching at straws” ?

I fully get you’ve got an extremely wealthy owner, who is also a fan, whereas we don’t. I’m not sure why you think that’s sad, it’s just a fact.

Because you asked why Palace's debt was "crippling" and Brighton's comparable losses (in 19/20) weren't crippling.


It was an attempt at whataboutery that fell on it's face, for a reason you now claim to have known all along.

Same old Palace.

 

[Mr Putdown]

I think you're misunderstanding the idea of unsecured debt.
All loans have to be secured against something.

Most clubs have a similar issue post Covid, because Matchday revenue has taken a hit, therefore cashflow was a problem.
The £37m was to cover the lost matchday revenue from two seasons.

Palace used loans secured against TV revenue years before the Pandemic hit.
That was because they couldn't afford to pay their wage bill.

I haven’t misunderstood unsecured debt at all, I just pointed out the inaccuracy of Deportivo Seagull’s assertion that all your debt was unsecured as it was all covered by TB.

I’m fully aware that plenty of clubs also use loans secured against future broadcasting revenues, it’s not exactly unusual in football due to the way tv payments are made. I’m not sure why you even mentioned it, I wasn’t being in the slightest critical of Brighton doing this, it’s hardly unusual. The poster I quoted clearly wasn’t aware of this, hence me pointing it out.

 

[Easy 10]

Fundamentally you just look at it and think what is going on. The advantage of having one owner funding the whole shooting match is no in house politics. Bloom has recruited excellent people to run the club day to day but he calls the shots and funds appropriately. Must be a nightmare for Parish to bring that assortment of funders together to agree on strategy. no one would ever want to be one of 5+ minority shareholders in any company. It's textbook doomed to fail territory.

A point which Simon Jordan has just pointed out on TalkSPORT - a collection of minority shareholders where big egos are involved is often not ideal.
He is also baffled at the 18% share for £90m, as this values the club at circa £500m+ ("which would certainly make Newcastle sit up").

Doesn't really stack up. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Mr Putdown]

This has been explained to Mr Letdown and his cronies many times before.

He is either remarkably thick or just another palace troll.

Well seeing as I’ve never trolled this board or its predecessor for the 20 odd years I’ve been a member, I guess I must be remarkably thick.

 

[Danny Wilson Said]

You could make the argument that Palace's financial model has been successful, because they are still in the Premier League. And every season they stay up and collect another £100m (and extend Zaha's contact once more), they have succeeded again.

 

[bobbysmith01]

Well seeing as I’ve never trolled this board or its predecessor for the 20 odd years I’ve been a member, I guess I must be remarkably thick.

Think you are a decent poster, just 'batting' for your own side and I respect that. Some of the other posters just don't see both sides, but think you do. Bottom line we both lose money, ours is a little better as we don't have to pay back at this stage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Uh_huh_him]

A point which Simon Jordan has just pointed out on TalkSPORT - a collection of minority shareholders where big egos are involved is often not ideal.
He is also baffled at the 18% share for £90m, as this values the club at circa £500m+ ("which would certainly make Newcastle sit up").

Doesn't really stack up. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yeah seems a bit weird, I assume this is the difference between an investor joining a board and a hostile take-over.
i,e, the investor pays over the odds, to get his stake, rather than convincing the other shareholders to sell to him.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I haven’t misunderstood unsecured debt at all, I just pointed out the inaccuracy of Deportivo Seagull’s assertion that all your debt was unsecured as it was all covered by TB.

I’m fully aware that plenty of clubs also use loans secured against future broadcasting revenues, it’s not exactly unusual in football due to the way tv payments are made. I’m not sure why you even mentioned it, I wasn’t being in the slightest critical of Brighton doing this, it’s hardly unusual. The poster I quoted clearly wasn’t aware of this, hence me pointing it out.

It doesn’t however detract from the argument that our debt is effectively backed off by our chairman. The bottom line on any debt is what happens if the lender wants to cash in. With exception of the above all our debt is with the chairman. He’s effectively lent it to himself.
Who holds the Palace debt? If it’s with the owners and they are happy to effectively convert to shares (as per Bloom) then not so much of a problem … but that’s not the case is it?
At the end of the day the debt is not an issue if a) you can afford to service it, b) you trust the lender not to shaft you …


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

A point which Simon Jordan has just pointed out on TalkSPORT - a collection of minority shareholders where big egos are involved is often not ideal.
He is also baffled at the 18% share for £90m, as this values the club at circa £500m+ ("which would certainly make Newcastle sit up").

Doesn't really stack up. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

From The Guardian:

It is hoped that Textor’s investment of £87.5m for what is believed to be a substantial percentage of the club close to Parish’s 18% controlling stake will significantly reduce debts at Selhurst Park and help to redevelop the stadium, with plans for a new main stand yet to progress despite years of planning.​

It almost doesn't matter what he has paid for his stake - that's not money going into the club - it will be buying shares from existing shareholders. He gives them cash and they give him some shares in return.

Maybe some of that £87.5m was used to buy his holding, with the remainder going into the club itself to be used for investment in players and stands and stuff.

Edit: ...unless they've created new shares - in which case the club would receive the money.

 

[Bry Nylon]

He is also baffled at the 18% share for £90m, as this values the club at circa £500m+

For that reason, I shan't be investing today. I'm out.