All about Silverlake - FT piece just posted

Their investment bets in the travel industry not looking so good.

Not sure how a company with a small minority stake has much influence in the club, unless the club is skint and wants more investment.

They aren't investing for one month returns.

They will have influence because of the nature of who they are. There are also minority protections that necessitate the Board is not simply a tool of the Abu Dhabi state. Furthermore, 10% is not insignificant they are not the only minority.
 
Their investment bets in the travel industry not looking so good.

Not sure how a company with a small minority stake has much influence in the club, unless the club is skint and wants more investment.

I agree with this. They’re attracted to the club because of the potential returns it brings, but they’re not going to have much, if any say, in the decisions. It’s the decisions that have already been made which are important, that’s why they invested. They’re a presence, no doubt, but ultimately a minority.
 
I agree with this. They’re attracted to the club because of the potential returns it brings, but they’re not going to have much, if any say, in the decisions. It’s the decisions that have already been made which are important, that’s why they invested. They’re a presence, no doubt, but ultimately a minority.

Silverlake are not passive money. Its an initial stake and he's on the Board. Clearly they are not managing day to day but they are far more than money.

Couldn't agree less that "It’s the decisions that have already been made which are important, that’s why they invested" - for Silverlake its ALL about the future.
 
Silverlake are not passive money. Its an initial stake and he's on the Board. Clearly they are not managing day to day but they are far more than money.

Couldn't agree less that "It’s the decisions that have already been made which are important, that’s why they invested" - for Silverlake its ALL about the future.

Ah, I didn’t realise that they were on the board in an executive capacity. And I take your point re the future being the important thing, I meant that decisions made by the board ultimately attracted them. The key issue really is that football people make football decisions and suits make the business decisions. There has to be a clear dichotomy, it’s the lines blurring that leads to problems. Not that there should be any issues at your place, the footballing side is well away from the other.
 
Ah, I didn’t realise that they were on the board in an executive capacity. And I take your point re the future being the important thing, I meant that decisions made by the board ultimately attracted them. The key issue really is that football people make football decisions and suits make the business decisions. There has to be a clear dichotomy, it’s the lines blurring that leads to problems. Not that there should be any issues at your place, the footballing side is well away from the other.
He won't be executive on the board (he will be a Non-exec Director) nor do the board make the football decisions - there are no "football people" on City's CFG board. Its a parent investment company. But that board will dictate the high level strategic direction of the Group and critically, approve budgets that accommodate the football decisions.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.