Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett consider stepping aside
- Thread starter KingDing
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
seriously, how fucked up is THAT?! >🙁
Not at all, really. Anyone in their position will try and squeeze every last possible penny out of any prospective buyer. It shows (a) that they themselves really rate our future prospects and (b) that they think others will too.
Neither H nor G has a majority over the other and we've been bedevilled by paralysis in the boardroom at times when they've been at each other's throats. If the new guy is strong enough he can bang heads together and keep things moving through times like those. He'll also bring knowledge, contacts and connections of his own to the table and that can only help.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39746.msg1085398#msg1085398 date=1270805589]
seriously, how fucked up is THAT?! >🙁
[/quote]
Does any of you want to buy an exotic villa along the beach ( 5 acre plot) with instant access to Ayurvedic massage in the lovely tropical state of Kerala in South India in an upcoming tourist area for 20 million pounds. Of course, you will have to build the exotic villa yourself, hire the ayurvedic massagers and pay them. But it is a great deal!!!!
seriously, how fucked up is THAT?! >🙁
[/quote]
Does any of you want to buy an exotic villa along the beach ( 5 acre plot) with instant access to Ayurvedic massage in the lovely tropical state of Kerala in South India in an upcoming tourist area for 20 million pounds. Of course, you will have to build the exotic villa yourself, hire the ayurvedic massagers and pay them. But it is a great deal!!!!
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=39746.msg1085491#msg1085491 date=1270817083]
Cheers JJ.
I just wonder what power he'll actually hold though mate, and if in reality we'll still be dependent on H&G (and now maybe another investor) to be in agreement before we can move forward.
[/quote]
That of course would be the 64 million dollar question. Obv.there's the potential for tension there, so anyone appointed to that role would have to be hard as nails and twice as sharp, capable of carving out a real role for him/herself and fulfilling it, in spite of Statler and Waldorf if need be.
Cheers JJ.
I just wonder what power he'll actually hold though mate, and if in reality we'll still be dependent on H&G (and now maybe another investor) to be in agreement before we can move forward.
[/quote]
That of course would be the 64 million dollar question. Obv.there's the potential for tension there, so anyone appointed to that role would have to be hard as nails and twice as sharp, capable of carving out a real role for him/herself and fulfilling it, in spite of Statler and Waldorf if need be.
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39746.msg1085524#msg1085524 date=1270819325]
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=39746.msg1085559#msg1085559 date=1270821821]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39746.msg1085524#msg1085524 date=1270819325]
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
[/quote]
Ha ha spot on. Bloody twats. Consider stepping aside? They should consider suicide. Cuntz
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39746.msg1085524#msg1085524 date=1270819325]
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
[/quote]
Ha ha spot on. Bloody twats. Consider stepping aside? They should consider suicide. Cuntz
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=39746.msg1085559#msg1085559 date=1270821821]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39746.msg1085524#msg1085524 date=1270819325]
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
[/quote]
agreed! Yeah, but would Beavis and Butthead change their view. Maybe if RBS puts down more pressure on them.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39746.msg1085524#msg1085524 date=1270819325]
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
[/quote]
agreed! Yeah, but would Beavis and Butthead change their view. Maybe if RBS puts down more pressure on them.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=39746.msg1085559#msg1085559 date=1270821821]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39746.msg1085524#msg1085524 date=1270819325]
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
[/quote]
I don't think that stacks up. Forbes.com valued the club just recently at over £1 billion as it stands now. Even paying £500 mill.for the club and borrowing the thick end of your figure to get the stadium built (as anyone would - nobody's going to pay cash down for a project like that), an investor would be in notional profit to the tune of £100 mill.before a single game were played there. Any interested parties hanging fire at the moment are far more likely to be doing so in the hope that the banks force H and G's hands than they are because of concerns about borrowing for the stadium.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=39746.msg1085524#msg1085524 date=1270819325]
Exactamundo. They might be tw@ts but they're not fools.
[/quote]
but neither's anyone else with a lot of money, which is why they can't flog this particular nonsense. we had planning permission in 2007, we've still got it now. what we needed was someone with the funding to get the thing built, which they've singularly failed to do.
as far as i can see, they want a £250m profit for little more than a fancy redesign of the stadium plans. it's money for old rope, and no-one's buying.
i'm sure everyone who's had any interest in the club has taken account of the increased revenue-generating potential of a new stadium in their valuations of the club; unfortunately, they'll also be pedantic enough to factor in the £300-400m debt it'll require to get the thing built.
some people, eh?
[/quote]
I don't think that stacks up. Forbes.com valued the club just recently at over £1 billion as it stands now. Even paying £500 mill.for the club and borrowing the thick end of your figure to get the stadium built (as anyone would - nobody's going to pay cash down for a project like that), an investor would be in notional profit to the tune of £100 mill.before a single game were played there. Any interested parties hanging fire at the moment are far more likely to be doing so in the hope that the banks force H and G's hands than they are because of concerns about borrowing for the stadium.
what are you talking about? i'm not saying they'd have 'concerns' about borrowing for the stadium, or that they'd prefer to fund it from their current accounts (!), but that they'd weigh the COST of the stadium, met by funds generated any way they want, against the projected returns.
as for forbes's figures:
1. i thought they quoted the billion in US$? so that would make even their figure more like £700m, depending on what rates they've used for their translations.
2. it's clearly not a working, practical, valuation is it? it sounds like a lazy response, but the proof's staring at us in the face: where are all these interested parties jumping over themselves to gobble up this exciting bargain deal? IIRC even purslow said, in his off the record bit to SoS, that H&G's valuation was completely unrealistic. i tend to place a little more faith in the man in the thick of the business and the evidence of the markets than some list-generating american magazine.
as for forbes's figures:
1. i thought they quoted the billion in US$? so that would make even their figure more like £700m, depending on what rates they've used for their translations.
2. it's clearly not a working, practical, valuation is it? it sounds like a lazy response, but the proof's staring at us in the face: where are all these interested parties jumping over themselves to gobble up this exciting bargain deal? IIRC even purslow said, in his off the record bit to SoS, that H&G's valuation was completely unrealistic. i tend to place a little more faith in the man in the thick of the business and the evidence of the markets than some list-generating american magazine.
According to the Echo, Broughton is close to agreeing to become our new chairmen.
Does that mean a full take over is ruled out? Because that appointment must surley mean something is a foot in term of investment.
Oh, and Broughton is a lifelong Chelsea fan. Greeeat.
Does that mean a full take over is ruled out? Because that appointment must surley mean something is a foot in term of investment.
Oh, and Broughton is a lifelong Chelsea fan. Greeeat.
Liverpool chairman Broughton
Apr 10 2010 by Dominic King, Liverpool Echo
LIVERPOOL co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett are on the verge of appointing Martin Broughton, the head of British Airways, to become the club’s independent chairman.
Hicks and Gillett, both of whom were at Anfield on Thursday night to watch the Reds demolish Benfica in the Europa League, have been in Britain since Tuesday discussing a number of issues with their advisers, most notably investment.
The appointment of an independent chairman, though, has also featured heavily in their talks and, after much deliberation, Broughton is understood to be the man they want to step in. Liverpool officials will not comment on the subject but it is understood Broughton has held talks over the position and is set to be appointed to the role at some point in the next week. Where he will be based remains unclear. Broughton, a 62-year-old from West London, has been with BA since 2000 – he was on the board for four years before becoming chairman in 2004 – but he has a considerable background in sport, as he chaired the British Horseracing Board between 2004-2007.
He was also chairman of British American Tobacco when it launched the BAR Formula One team in 1999.
Such a move on Hicks and Gillet’s behalf makes sense, particularly if they are to find a minority investor to help reduce the club’s current £237m debt.
Reds Managing Director Christian Purslow has been attempting to bring in third party investment for months but the only confirmed interest so far has come from the Rhone Group, a private equity fund, who offered £113m for a 40 per cent stake last month.
Hicks, in particular, was reluctant to accept that figure but there are still several interested parties who have increased their interest in buying a stake since news of Rhone’s interest emerged
Apr 10 2010 by Dominic King, Liverpool Echo
LIVERPOOL co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett are on the verge of appointing Martin Broughton, the head of British Airways, to become the club’s independent chairman.
Hicks and Gillett, both of whom were at Anfield on Thursday night to watch the Reds demolish Benfica in the Europa League, have been in Britain since Tuesday discussing a number of issues with their advisers, most notably investment.
The appointment of an independent chairman, though, has also featured heavily in their talks and, after much deliberation, Broughton is understood to be the man they want to step in. Liverpool officials will not comment on the subject but it is understood Broughton has held talks over the position and is set to be appointed to the role at some point in the next week. Where he will be based remains unclear. Broughton, a 62-year-old from West London, has been with BA since 2000 – he was on the board for four years before becoming chairman in 2004 – but he has a considerable background in sport, as he chaired the British Horseracing Board between 2004-2007.
He was also chairman of British American Tobacco when it launched the BAR Formula One team in 1999.
Such a move on Hicks and Gillet’s behalf makes sense, particularly if they are to find a minority investor to help reduce the club’s current £237m debt.
Reds Managing Director Christian Purslow has been attempting to bring in third party investment for months but the only confirmed interest so far has come from the Rhone Group, a private equity fund, who offered £113m for a 40 per cent stake last month.
Hicks, in particular, was reluctant to accept that figure but there are still several interested parties who have increased their interest in buying a stake since news of Rhone’s interest emerged
[quote author=keniget link=topic=39746.msg1085796#msg1085796 date=1270887275]
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39746.msg1085800#msg1085800 date=1270887948]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=39746.msg1085796#msg1085796 date=1270887275]
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
[/quote]
I'm no business expert, but I would guess it's for precisely the opposite reason: ie, to demonstrate to potential investors that, if they buy 40% of the club, the other two won't simply gang up to get their own way all the time.
What effect it has on Purslow, or how he feels about it, I have no idea.
[quote author=keniget link=topic=39746.msg1085796#msg1085796 date=1270887275]
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
[/quote]
I'm no business expert, but I would guess it's for precisely the opposite reason: ie, to demonstrate to potential investors that, if they buy 40% of the club, the other two won't simply gang up to get their own way all the time.
What effect it has on Purslow, or how he feels about it, I have no idea.
A lot will depend on what kind of working relationship he develops with anyone appointed in that new role, but in principle I'd have thought he'd be in favour if it helps streamline the club's decision-making.
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=39746.msg1085959#msg1085959 date=1270914034]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39746.msg1085800#msg1085800 date=1270887948]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=39746.msg1085796#msg1085796 date=1270887275]
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
[/quote]
I'm no business expert, but I would guess it's for precisely the opposite reason: ie, to demonstrate to potential investors that, if they buy 40% of the club, the other two won't simply gang up to get their own way all the time.
What effect it has on Purslow, or how he feels about it, I have no idea.
[/quote]
It will have no effect on Purslows role, as he is managing director. Our chief executive position has not been filled. This is what Broughton will be appointed to do though, but with a very tied hands...
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39746.msg1085800#msg1085800 date=1270887948]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=39746.msg1085796#msg1085796 date=1270887275]
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
[/quote]
I'm no business expert, but I would guess it's for precisely the opposite reason: ie, to demonstrate to potential investors that, if they buy 40% of the club, the other two won't simply gang up to get their own way all the time.
What effect it has on Purslow, or how he feels about it, I have no idea.
[/quote]
It will have no effect on Purslows role, as he is managing director. Our chief executive position has not been filled. This is what Broughton will be appointed to do though, but with a very tied hands...
A lifelong Chelsea fan as Chairman?
Holy mother of fuck.
My football club has DIED. If there were ever any doubt, it's now dead.
I'm almost pissed off enough to join SoS, but I dont drink enough to get in.
Holy mother of fuck.
My football club has DIED. If there were ever any doubt, it's now dead.
I'm almost pissed off enough to join SoS, but I dont drink enough to get in.
I'm breaking wind on my couc.......oh bollocks. Followed through.
Exclusive: Barclays To Hunt For Liverpool BuyerThe American businessmen who own Liverpool Football Club have hired heavyweight City advisers to oversee an auction of part or all of the Premier League outfit, I have learned.
Tom Hicks and George Gillett are on the verge of appointing Barclays Capital, the investment bank, to handle a sale process that will begin shortly by inviting new offers for the club.
It's the latest chapter of an ownership saga that has angered Liverpool fans in recent months as they've seen their team knocked out of the Champions' League and fall away surprisingly early in the Premier League title race.
The owners hope that recruiting Barcap will inject fresh impetus into their quest for new investment, although their preference is now for an outright sale rather than to find an investor prepared to buy a minority stake.
"This is almost certain to be an exit process," a person close to the situation told me tonight. Notwithstanding that, Hicks and Gillett have no intention of selling on the cheap and will rebuff offers for the club that they believe fail to reflect its value. Equally, they may decide to sell only a minority stake if that offers the best immediate value available to them.
As I understand it, Barcap will therefore advise the owners on all options open to them, not just an outright sale.
To provide reassurance for potential buyers that the auction is a genuine attempt to sell the club, Martin Broughton, the chairman of British Airways, will be confirmed as Liverpool's chairman in the early part of next week. His appointment, which is not quite certain yet but which is overwhelmingly likely, will mean Hicks and Gillett stepping down as co-chairmen.
Broughton's role at Liverpool will effectively be that of an interim chairman given that I understand he will play a key role in overseeing the sale of the club.
He would seem to be a well-suited candidate for such a role, given his deep personal interest in sport (he's a keen Chelsea fan and a former chairman of the British Horseracing Board) and his experience of handling challenging corporate situations.
The perception among potential investors that Hicks and Gillett are at loggerheads has played a significant role in frustrating the search for new money.
Rhone Capital, a US private equity firm, did table a proposal several weeks ago that would have seen it acquire a minority equity stake (that would have included management control) in Liverpool for about £100m. Hicks and Gillett were not keen on the idea, and the offer has now lapsed.
There's certainly other interest out there too, including from Middle Eastern and Indian investors, although there are no further firm proposals on the table yet. However, the prospect of full ownership is likely to whet the appetite of many buyers given the possibility of a move to a new stadium and the latent commercial potential of the club.
Liverpool needs an injection of capital to meet the demands of its main creditor, Royal Bank of Scotland, that it reduce its debt by about £100m.
Given that RBS is majority-owned by the British taxpayer, it's unlikely in the extreme that it would want to take control of the club.
That said, the bank is determined to see Liverpool refinanced in the short term.
This news about Liverpool increases the likelihood that English football's three most famous clubs will change hands, given a potential takeover bid for Arsenal from Stan Kroenke and the Red Knights' plans to bid for Manchester United.
Liverpool and its owners declined to comment this evening. ---
Tom Hicks and George Gillett are on the verge of appointing Barclays Capital, the investment bank, to handle a sale process that will begin shortly by inviting new offers for the club.
It's the latest chapter of an ownership saga that has angered Liverpool fans in recent months as they've seen their team knocked out of the Champions' League and fall away surprisingly early in the Premier League title race.
The owners hope that recruiting Barcap will inject fresh impetus into their quest for new investment, although their preference is now for an outright sale rather than to find an investor prepared to buy a minority stake.
"This is almost certain to be an exit process," a person close to the situation told me tonight. Notwithstanding that, Hicks and Gillett have no intention of selling on the cheap and will rebuff offers for the club that they believe fail to reflect its value. Equally, they may decide to sell only a minority stake if that offers the best immediate value available to them.
As I understand it, Barcap will therefore advise the owners on all options open to them, not just an outright sale.
To provide reassurance for potential buyers that the auction is a genuine attempt to sell the club, Martin Broughton, the chairman of British Airways, will be confirmed as Liverpool's chairman in the early part of next week. His appointment, which is not quite certain yet but which is overwhelmingly likely, will mean Hicks and Gillett stepping down as co-chairmen.
Broughton's role at Liverpool will effectively be that of an interim chairman given that I understand he will play a key role in overseeing the sale of the club.
He would seem to be a well-suited candidate for such a role, given his deep personal interest in sport (he's a keen Chelsea fan and a former chairman of the British Horseracing Board) and his experience of handling challenging corporate situations.
The perception among potential investors that Hicks and Gillett are at loggerheads has played a significant role in frustrating the search for new money.
Rhone Capital, a US private equity firm, did table a proposal several weeks ago that would have seen it acquire a minority equity stake (that would have included management control) in Liverpool for about £100m. Hicks and Gillett were not keen on the idea, and the offer has now lapsed.
There's certainly other interest out there too, including from Middle Eastern and Indian investors, although there are no further firm proposals on the table yet. However, the prospect of full ownership is likely to whet the appetite of many buyers given the possibility of a move to a new stadium and the latent commercial potential of the club.
Liverpool needs an injection of capital to meet the demands of its main creditor, Royal Bank of Scotland, that it reduce its debt by about £100m.
Given that RBS is majority-owned by the British taxpayer, it's unlikely in the extreme that it would want to take control of the club.
That said, the bank is determined to see Liverpool refinanced in the short term.
This news about Liverpool increases the likelihood that English football's three most famous clubs will change hands, given a potential takeover bid for Arsenal from Stan Kroenke and the Red Knights' plans to bid for Manchester United.
Liverpool and its owners declined to comment this evening. ---
[quote author=Hansern link=topic=39746.msg1085974#msg1085974 date=1270919386]
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=39746.msg1085959#msg1085959 date=1270914034]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39746.msg1085800#msg1085800 date=1270887948]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=39746.msg1085796#msg1085796 date=1270887275]
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
[/quote]
I'm no business expert, but I would guess it's for precisely the opposite reason: ie, to demonstrate to potential investors that, if they buy 40% of the club, the other two won't simply gang up to get their own way all the time.
What effect it has on Purslow, or how he feels about it, I have no idea.
[/quote]
It will have no effect on Purslows role, as he is managing director. Our chief executive position has not been filled. This is what Broughton will be appointed to do though, but with a very tied hands...
[/quote]
I doubt that. Chairman and Chief Exec are very different roles and combining the two, while not illegal, is not generally considered good practice. In any case Purslow's doing well enough as MD for us not really to need a Chief Exec. Considering Parry got a cool half-million a year in salary, I'd have thought that money was worth saving.
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=39746.msg1085959#msg1085959 date=1270914034]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=39746.msg1085800#msg1085800 date=1270887948]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=39746.msg1085796#msg1085796 date=1270887275]
What's the point of doing this? And what effect will this have on Purslows role?
[/quote]
I think it means if someone buys 40% and the owners share is reduced to 30% each the new investor can't simpy push through their ideas because they have more shares than each of the owners, instead all key decisions made via the new chairman.
[/quote]
I'm no business expert, but I would guess it's for precisely the opposite reason: ie, to demonstrate to potential investors that, if they buy 40% of the club, the other two won't simply gang up to get their own way all the time.
What effect it has on Purslow, or how he feels about it, I have no idea.
[/quote]
It will have no effect on Purslows role, as he is managing director. Our chief executive position has not been filled. This is what Broughton will be appointed to do though, but with a very tied hands...
[/quote]
I doubt that. Chairman and Chief Exec are very different roles and combining the two, while not illegal, is not generally considered good practice. In any case Purslow's doing well enough as MD for us not really to need a Chief Exec. Considering Parry got a cool half-million a year in salary, I'd have thought that money was worth saving.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
