Crystal Palace being sold...

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Benjamin

Benjamin

Palace chairman Parish confirms hope for American sale by Christmas

Fresh off a trip to the United States that included a visit to BlazerCon, Crystal Palace co-chairman Steve Parish confirmed that a pair of American businessmen are in advanced talks to buy a sizable chunk of the Eagles.

Parish’s match day notes for Monday’s visit from Sunderland include the news. He says the move is necessary to get the club to the next level, with stadium improvements vital to that.

[ MLS Cup playoffs: Portland tops Dallas | RBNY falls to Columbus ]

The chairman is quick to point out that Palace is in good shape either way, and that the club will continue running the same way.

From CPFC.co.uk:

“
I know some people may have reservations about this but I firmly believe this is what is needed to move us to the next level, and as always we only have the club’s best intentions at heart.


If it all goes ahead then it’ll be great for Crystal Palace Football Club, but we all know that these deals are complicated things so if it doesn’t go through then we’ll still be in a good position. I’ve said that we hope to get things done before Christmas if possible but we’ll see – I’ll keep you informed.”

The hesitance to show real excitement does provide a fine example of how English fans feel about big money Americans joining the fray, doesn’t it? Is that justified?
 
Blanchflower said:
Imagine how good they'd be if the Glazer's hadn't taken hundreds of millions out of the club.
Click to expand...
STF said:
Man utd debt as of may was £395.4m
Click to expand...
For as much money as that club makes, neither of those problems have truly been at fault for Man U's problems either. Ferguson retired and took his magic with him; subsequent managers have been fully backed in the transfer market, but simply haven't been able to measure up to expectations.

400m debt for them is piss easy and low.
 
VirginiaSpur said:
For as much money as that club makes, neither of those problems have truly been at fault for Man U's problems either. Ferguson retired and took his magic with him; subsequent managers have been fully backed in the transfer market, but simply haven't been able to measure up to expectations.

400m debt for them is piss easy and low.
Click to expand...

Not sure you are getting it - it's £400m debt now, it was £750m 10 years ago. Just think how much they have paid to service those debts which is money taken directly from the club for no other purpose than to make their owners wealthy.

Their squad when the Glazers took over included Ronaldo, Giggs, Scholes, Keane, Ferdinand, Van Nistelrooy, Saha and Rooney. The quality of the players decreased drastically, even while Ferguson was there.
 
Blanchflower said:
Not sure you are getting it - it's £400m debt now, it was £750m 10 years ago. Just think how much they have paid to service those debts which is money taken directly from the club for no other purpose than to make their owners wealthy.

Their squad when the Glazers took over included Ronaldo, Giggs, Scholes, Keane, Ferdinand, Van Nistelrooy, Saha and Rooney. The quality of the players decreased drastically, even while Ferguson was there.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand that completely. But I still disagree with you regarding the scale of the problem.

I'm really not fond at all of leveraged buyouts, but Man U's really was not much of an issue in hindsight. It's the second richest club in the world; they make money on a scale that we can scarcely appreciate as Spurs supporters. They were and are capable of servicing that debt without adversely affecting their club operations and transfers.

The quality of the playing squad has decreased, but not at all because of the money was being spent elsewhere. Really not at all. In hindsight it was Ferguson's greatest success and also his greatest failure. He continued to win the league despite the playing squad deteriorating and/or ageing. He really didn't need to spend the money. It turns out subsequent managers did, and as such they have been backed fully in the transfer market. It was hard to blame him at the time because he still won the fucking league, but in hindsight it does now appear that he did not leave an easy job for his successor.

I believe your point is self-defeating. Man U had 750m in debt, and they were still winning the league. Now they do not and they're struggling, not because of money, but rather despite it.
 
VirginiaSpur said:
For as much ire as it drew, the Glazer takeover of United actually was very successful. That club is in a tailspin now for entirely different reasons.
Click to expand...
Aren't they paying something like £80m a year just in interest to service the debts? That's practically their TV rights money - gone.

And aren't the debts held against the club rather than The Glazers? Therefore were things to go tits up (unlikely given the size of their brand but similar things have happened) they could walk away debt free (and probably with a huge chunk of cash) and the club would be responsible for the debts?

They're genuine questions as I'm not entirely sure, but I'm fairly certain the Glazers are now far better off than they were, all the while the club are far less successful than when they bought it. Doesn't strike me as a success story.
 
Millbanks said:
Aren't they paying something like £80m a year just in interest to service the debts? That's practically their TV rights money - gone.

And aren't the debts held against the club rather than The Glazers? Therefore were things to go tits up (unlikely given the size of their brand but similar things have happened) they could walk away debt free (and probably with a huge chunk of cash) and the club would be responsible for the debts.
Click to expand...
Yes on both counts. It's why I'm not particularly a fan of leveraged buyouts, just on an emotional level they offend me.

But that debt service is still eminently manageable for them. The club takes in more than half a billion dollars in revenue per year! Hell, they just signed a new shirt sponsorship worth over half a billion as well! That's money that we can scarcely dream of, and their debt service hasn't stopped them from buying the likes of Angel Di Maria for 60m pounds. Sure he flopped, but it still shows that debt hasn't impacted their transfer activity.
 
VirginiaSpur said:
Yes on both counts. It's why I'm not particularly a fan of leveraged buyouts, just on an emotional level they offend me.

But that debt service is still eminently manageable for them. The club takes in more than half a billion dollars in revenue per year! Hell, they just signed a new shirt sponsorship worth over half a billion as well! That's money that we can scarcely dream of, and their debt service hasn't stopped them from buying the likes of Angel Di Maria for 60m pounds. Sure he flopped, but it still shows that debt hasn't impacted their transfer activity.
Click to expand...
Sure, the debt hasn't held them back - but it sure has left the club in a far more precarious position than it should be in, given the revenue. The owners get all of the benefits with none of the risk. The club is an asset they can afford to lose, and the club and the fans would be the ones to suffer.

Just seems unethical to me. And doesn't make business sense for the club, only for the owners.
 
Millbanks said:
Sure, the debt hasn't held them back - but it sure has left the club in a far more precarious position than it should be in, given the revenue. The owners get all of the benefits with none of the risk. The club is an asset they can afford to lose, and the club and the fans would be the ones to suffer.

Just seems unethical to me. And doesn't make business sense for the club, only for the owners.
Click to expand...
They're not in a precarious position. That's the point I've been making all along. They're just not.

The club itself it still far more valuable than the money that they have taken out of the club.
 
This is a family matter ...........please.
3rgXBLLWykOMCTRpDy_zpsui36kubg.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom