John Textor has joined, as director, investor and 4th partner

[red&blue_moomin]

Originally Posted by PurePalace4E4

degenerate.

He's certainly denigrating our owners. We wouldn't have a Cat 1 academy currently without them and they have made 10s of millions of pounds worth of loans to the club. There's some graphs of owner funded loans on The Swiss Ramble or Price of Football can't remember which which had the exact amount on a graph.

[Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by AJ

There is some business advantage by having a holding company in Delaware, I cannot remember what.

Official reasons seem to be tenuous at best from what I read.

I suspect it may be a case of it being "the done thing" to be incorporated there. Sort of running with the big boys who seem to congregate there.

I know many times it maybe not much more than a rented office space. A pretty large multi-national company I worked for here was incorporated there... pretty sure the company had nothing there beyond someone answering a phone.

[ms21]

Originally Posted by red&blue_moomin

He's certainly denigrating our owners. We wouldn't have a Cat 1 academy currently without them and they have made 10s of millions of pounds worth of loans to the club. There's some graphs of owner funded loans on The Swiss Ramble or Price of Football can't remember which which had the exact amount on a graph.

I think it’s positive that the other Americans want to stay. It was reported somewhere that Parish was keeping the same stake but it would seem they are actually in fact diluting equally. Matt Woosnam confirmed this in a comment on his article. That would indicate Harris/Blitzer have no intentions to sell up just yet

[PurePalace4E4]

Originally Posted by The Vicar

Probably mostly true.

But is that a good or bad thing?

It depends how we want to play it out. It can be very easy, it can be very hard, dependant on the interested party.

But do we think our investors are looking to sell now, or build value over 5-10 years by building new stands, building the fanbase, increasing our reach, increasing our potential?

I know which way I think we are looking and it's forward.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Exciting times for us all.

Some may get on PV's back if it doesn't come together straight away, but the board will be aware of targets set. They are aware of potential. If PV doesn't work out (which I don't think is likely; we did well under Pards initially FFS!, even though he sold GOOD players that were Palace through and through like Jedi and got rid of GM as well, mainly due to his ego, hearsay is heresy), we'll have backup plans; fully expect Fat Sam back if it all goes to tits. Again, you heard it here first.

[ms21]

Originally Posted by Vince Hilaire's Afro

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that the willingness by some to blindly promote the imagined 'specter' of the greedy, corrupt American PL club owner is akin to the lazy prejudiced smear campaign against the Jews in 1930s Europe.

We're surely better than that.

Really???

[disco mixx kidd]

Have cpfc2010 given up their 51% majority? The yanks now have controlling interest?

[MFBias]

Originally Posted by ms21

I’d say we need at least 3 signings to fully back Vieira in the way he wants to play. You can disagree but thats the reason I said we need at least 3.

And btw, we haven’t replaced everyone that left and I’m not entirely sure what you’ve based that on.

Unless you mean cloning players:

Townsend - Olise
Cahill/Dann - Andersen
Sakho - Guehi
Van Aanholt - Mitchell (Mitchell - Hannam)
McCarthy - Gallagher
Hennessey - Butland
Henderson - Matthews

[ms21]

Originally Posted by MFBias

Townsend - Olise
Cahill/Dann - Andersen
Sakho - Guehi
Van Aanholt - Mitchell (Mitchell - Hannam)
McCarthy - Gallagher
Hennessey - Butland
Henderson - Matthews

Well if you’re using 2 players for one spot & including players we already have at the club then I guess you could argue we replaced Van Aanholt with Mitchell and Cahill/Dann with Andersen. I’m not saying we need to sign another CB given the other priorities in the squad and even at left back there are bigger priorities. But to say we’ve replaced everyone in the context of signings is not true. We also haven’t replaced Barshuayi and if you were to look at the vast majority of PL clubs you’d see at least 3 strikers in the squad. That’s even more pertinent for us given the type of strikers we currently have at the club. Then you move onto CM and IMO we’re not in a position to dominate the midfield against anyone in the PL with the current midfielders we have in the squad.

In an ideal world it’d be more than 3. But 3 is the bare minimum the club should be aiming for before close of play IMO. But as I said, I’d expect it to be 1-2. Just hope one is a central midfielder.

The squad would be in very good shape if Roy were still the manager. But it’s different with someone like Vieira, he needs a certain profile of squad to play the way he wants to and that squad is still quite short. And he said so himself in the post match interview at Watford.

[Jonboy]

Delaware is a popular state to incorporate because it is considered to have the best legal system including special courts to deal with corporations. Corporate law in Delaware also protects the privacy (and assets) of shareholders.

[Hazbaz]

Originally Posted by PurePalace4E4

It's worked really badly for Chelscum.

They have a Russian oligarch who is a also fan so more like SP than the Glazers

[jrnicholson]

Originally Posted by ms21

Well if you’re using 2 players for one spot & including players we already have at the club then I guess you could argue we replaced Van Aanholt with Mitchell and Cahill/Dann with Andersen. I’m not saying we need to sign another CB given the other priorities in the squad and even at left back there are bigger priorities. But to say we’ve replaced everyone in the context of signings is not true. We also haven’t replaced Barshuayi and if you were to look at the vast majority of PL clubs you’d see at least 3 strikers in the squad. That’s even more pertinent for us given the type of strikers we currently have at the club. Then you move onto CM and IMO we’re not in a position to dominate the midfield against anyone in the PL with the current midfielders we have in the squad.

In an ideal world it’d be more than 3. But 3 is the bare minimum the club should be aiming for before close of play IMO. But as I said, I’d expect it to be 1-2. Just hope one is a central midfielder.

The squad would be in very good shape if Roy were still the manager. But it’s different with someone like Vieira, he needs a certain profile of squad to play the way he wants to and that squad is still quite short. And he said so himself in the post match interview at Watford.

Perhaps Manchester City would be more your sort of team.

[ms21]

Originally Posted by jrnicholson

Perhaps Manchester City would be more your sort of team.

Such a lazy, infantile and moronic argument. I’m not expecting us to spend anything like City and nowhere do I even suggest such a thing. Get a grip. I am expecting us to back a manager tasked with progressing the football with the tools he requires to do that. At this current moment in time I don’t believe he has been and he has said that himself, as I’ve already mentioned.

You’d best hope we don’t sign 3 players (and there’s every chance we will) otherwise your comment is gonna make you look a bit ridiculous.

[E.H.Plimmy]

Originally Posted by ms21

Such a lazy, infantile and moronic argument. I’m not expecting us to spend anything like City and nowhere do I even suggest such a thing. Get a grip. I am expecting us to back a manager tasked with progressing the football with the tools he requires to do that. At this current moment in time I don’t believe he has been and he has said that himself, as I’ve already mentioned.

You’d best hope we don’t sign 3 players (and there’s every chance we will) otherwise your comment is gonna make you look a bit ridiculous.

Completely agree. I'm a rather shiny-happy right now however come 4.55 on Sat when our GD is 0-5, I shall be calling for Vieira to be horsewhipped along Croydon High Street by RH, but, come on, you can't say the argument doesn't have merit. Disagree if you choose (and I fear my CHOSEN disagreement may be borne more of hope than evidence, but I'm damned if I shall be miserable BEFORE we're bottom - we WON'T be bottom) but the disdain is unfair. The argument seems perfectly measured and reasonable. Yes, he'll look like a dick after our obvious forthcoming 4-0 win (is that what I said earlier? Must've been - pre-season giddiness surely can't THAT much skew reason) but suggestion that such reasoned unease is unacceptable is too much.

[Hazbaz]

Originally Posted by AJ

I am sorry that is so untrue. If you think that owners, no matter where they come from should be prepared to pump money into the club and not expect it back, rather than running the club at a small loss or even a slight profit is being greedy then we live in different worlds.

No I don’t think that is what I said. I believe that clubs should be self sustaining as with any business. Leicester (and Brentford to a lesser degree) are examples of what can be achieved. I think that ultimately the downfall of the premier league will be due to owners that have virtually unlimited pockets who buy success and make it less possible for others to compete. When you think about it we have effectively gone from a big 6 to a big 4 already.

My concern is that many American owners see the long term out for their investment in terms of changing our basic model and, whilst currently shelved, I seriously doubt that the super league idea is dead or that the franchise model won’t rear up again regardless of the platitudes that have been espoused. That drive for greater and greater return on investment is what concerns me. It’s one of the reasons that I think there should be better regulation of private equity firms also.

It isn’t just the USA effect though because we have agents moving into part owning clubs and going forward gaining direct access to these academies which I find hard to reconcile as being in the best interest of the young players or ultimately other clubs. There is so much that needs looking at. I really like the idea of fan part ownership because ultimately owners come and go, they are only temporary stewards, but the fans remain steadfast and hopefully that’s how we hold on to the soul of football in this country.

[TopKnot]

Originally Posted by Hazbaz

No I don’t think that is what I said. I believe that clubs should be self sustaining as with any business. Leicester (and Brentford to a lesser degree) are examples of what can be achieved. I think that ultimately the downfall of the premier league will be due to owners that have virtually unlimited pockets who buy success and make it less possible for others to compete. When you think about it we have effectively gone from a big 6 to a big 4 already.

My concern is that many American owners see the long term out for their investment in terms of changing our basic model and, whilst currently shelved, I seriously doubt that the super league idea is dead or that the franchise model won’t rear up again regardless of the platitudes that have been espoused. That drive for greater and greater return on investment is what concerns me. It’s one of the reasons that I think there should be better regulation of private equity firms also.

It isn’t just the USA effect though because we have agents moving into part owning clubs and going forward gaining direct access to these academies which I find hard to reconcile as being in the best interest of the young players or ultimately other clubs. There is so much that needs looking at. I really like the idea of fan part ownership because ultimately owners come and go, they are only temporary stewards, but the fans remain steadfast and hopefully that’s how we hold on to the soul of football in this country.

Leicester as an example of being self sustained, are you sure about that?

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[Riley]

Originally Posted by PurePalace4E4

Yeah, I was a bit TL;DR, especially with the continued malapropism, which put me right off.

Yes, i can see why that might be shot-putting for some people.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by jrnicholson

Perhaps Manchester City would be more your sort of team.

Ridiculous comment

[stinky]

Originally Posted by El Aguila

He could probably afford Adlers helping out with his tax affairs.

Steady on

[SW11 Andy]

Originally Posted by stinky

He's joined, as director, investor and 4th partner

More Cheerleaders in skimpy oufits please

[BillyTKid]

Make our academy the best in the country and we will be self sustainable. We will be producing a £50m player every two or three seasons.