Nail on head
Main Stand redevelopment thread
- Topic starter Penge Eagle
- Start date
Hrolf The Ganger
Member
- Location
- a sofa somewhere in Kent.
- Country
England
It would only be to get new investment. Not a takeover.
Davepalace707
Member
- Location
- Northumberland
- Country
-
England
Yep. And Blaming player spend for using up the funds earmarked for building? Over the past 3 years we’ve had a net £nil spend on transfers
chris123
Member
- Location
- hove actually
- Country
-
England
Need to remember that to avoid tax complications, any new money needs to be by a new share issue.
- Country
-
England
If you can piss you can paint as the saying goes.
TBF skimming is a learned skill, and most could learn and do it but wouldn't, hence Casuals healthy rates. Sparky's make less afaik.
Woody Johnson invested and bought Textors shares and he hasn't got control. Buying and investing are separate.
The problem is investors or buyers don't like using their own money. Three of our shareholders are billionaires, so they have the money, just don't want to spend it.
Isn’t the alleged agreement that all 4 put in the same amount? Presumably the way Parish has maintained control. Unfortunately Parish is not in their league financially
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
True, but they don't spend it because they don't have control. I think we are going to see a takeover and Parish gone sooner or later. For better or for worse, who knows.
Not sure how much is needed but 25m each not going to hurt them thats 100m raised , unless the project cost more than the figures we are seeing , we think it cost 200m but it really cost 400m , with 200m put in by owners and borrowing 200 to complete it .
Other than that cant think of a reason why they haven't invested .
its just a theory I could be well wide of the make
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
Takeover can happen, I'm surprised Johnson hasn't done it. He might be biding his time for the right moment. Anything is for sale at the right price. I'm not sure people want to invest when their only profit is when they exit. Hence the silly price tag. And our complicated ownership system makes it all the harder.
Save Dwindlehurst
Member
- Country
-
England
I think Parish sees the new stand as his legacy and perhaps will step aside once it’s done. And what a legacy (hopefully) he will leave- a shiny new stand, 3 major trophies and getting on for 2 decades in the top flight!
grumpymort
Member
- Location
- US/Thailand/UK
- Country
USA
No
Palace doesn't only have 4 share holders they have many with small amounts.
SP is in his current position because the others allow it and don't want to do all the day to day running (They are using same model used for US sports)
SP doesn't have much wealth when you look at it his gains have been from this job.
Blitz/Harris put in far more compared to him already when they purchased the club 60-80m was ring fenced that alone is worth more then SP is so what happened to that it was suppose to be for the stadium expansion over decade ago the answer is because they didn't do the expansion they had to bring a lot of areas up to regulation I remember SP saying this.
Are current ground site is not worth the money if it was the three big hitters we have would pump money in but when its going to cost 200m+ to increase by not even 10 thousand which would take almost 20 years to break even that is not a good investment.
I dont really understand how Parish is the problem. When he bought the club he made it clear, he didnt intend to own the club long term. His 25% of voting right makes very little difference, the three Americans could out vote him on any issue they want. They seem fairly happy for Parish to remain as chairman and he seems happy enough to be paid to run the club. He's not stuipd, he will advise them on what he believes to be in the clubs best interest, but when it comes to large amounts of investment, like the main stand, they will have the final say.
This has what seems to have happened with Woody Johnson, he has obviously looked at the plans and said this makes no sense, its far too expensive having a concrete structure, lets look at a predominantly steel structure and get the price down. Im guessing that's why they've changed project managers.
This has what seems to have happened with Woody Johnson, he has obviously looked at the plans and said this makes no sense, its far too expensive having a concrete structure, lets look at a predominantly steel structure and get the price down. Im guessing that's why they've changed project managers.
Maybe not in your eyes or even mine come to that , but they set a business plan and how to increase revenue .
Unless they are looking at improving the ground all round its a hard one for us to envisage .
the 20 years to breaks even is on our current income but if we keep progressing then it Maybe 15yrs or less , but regardless its got to happen for us to progress with current plan
akiisalegend
Member
- Location
- Croydon
- Country
-
England
I've said many times on here that woody johnson saying to change the structure is a myth. It was a replacement consultant brought on board who did, after bovis had stopped their involvement.
TheBigToePunt
Member
- Country
-
England
Obviously, it's always worth seeing what can be done to reduce the cost of a project. That's just sensible.
However, whatever the difference might be between using concrete and steel, or using different external finishes, or different contractors, surely the relevant point is that the finances are so tight on this that saving a few million here and there, even if it adds up to (lets say) £20m, or even slightly more, has come to be essential for the stand even to proceed?
It just underlines how delicate the balancing act is, and that this is a case of the club spending its own money to the detriment of the playing budget, and borrowing a lot more on top.
In other words, the argument that there is no option but to build the stand, that any explanation for it stalling is just 'excuses', and that the sooner we build it the better off we will be are demonstrably incorrect. If that were the case then there would be no need for such detailed scrutiny and caution.
Furthermore, it all shows very clearly that the owners are absolutely not paying for it at all. They might be mega-rich, but that is irrelevant.
However, whatever the difference might be between using concrete and steel, or using different external finishes, or different contractors, surely the relevant point is that the finances are so tight on this that saving a few million here and there, even if it adds up to (lets say) £20m, or even slightly more, has come to be essential for the stand even to proceed?
It just underlines how delicate the balancing act is, and that this is a case of the club spending its own money to the detriment of the playing budget, and borrowing a lot more on top.
In other words, the argument that there is no option but to build the stand, that any explanation for it stalling is just 'excuses', and that the sooner we build it the better off we will be are demonstrably incorrect. If that were the case then there would be no need for such detailed scrutiny and caution.
Furthermore, it all shows very clearly that the owners are absolutely not paying for it at all. They might be mega-rich, but that is irrelevant.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
I never once thought the stand might be delayed again.
I don’t think Parish has a spare £25m, that’s the problem
Without mega rich owners we wouldnt get funding for it.