| Pension Fund Accounting 11:41 - May 13 with 801 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Just wondered if our funding impacts on some decisions.
For instance options being taken on players, who are then told they can leave.
Take Donacien for example. We might only get say £50k for him, and could have taken a view that it's easier to let him go on a free.
Evans could unilaterally take a decision to write off a notional £50k.... But maybe a pension fund can't?
Genuine question, not suggesting it's correct. [Post edited 13 May 2021 11:43]
|  |
| |  |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:44 - May 13 with 773 views | Keno |
On a scheme worth something £2billion dollars I doubt Donaciens value will make a lot of difference
Also the pension scheme will not have any say in the day to running of the club |  |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:46 - May 13 with 749 views | PhilTWTD |
I don't think it will have impacted on the option situation, think the same thing would have happened on that front. |  | | |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:47 - May 13 with 738 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:44 - May 13 by Keno |
On a scheme worth something £2billion dollars I doubt Donaciens value will make a lot of difference
Also the pension scheme will not have any say in the day to running of the club |
Financial institutions don't tend to work on that basis.
There may be measures in place to guard against asset value being written off, whether it's £50k or £500k.
Also, they may not be making decisions, but there will be accounting practices and investment management considerations that they (and therefore the club) will be impacted by.
I doubt the funding comes without any checks and measures being in place. | |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:52 - May 13 with 700 views | Keno |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:47 - May 13 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Financial institutions don't tend to work on that basis.
There may be measures in place to guard against asset value being written off, whether it's £50k or £500k.
Also, they may not be making decisions, but there will be accounting practices and investment management considerations that they (and therefore the club) will be impacted by.
I doubt the funding comes without any checks and measures being in place. |
I dont know for sure but I think I read somewhere that the the majority of the pension funding has been by way of a loan and I really doubt they will have any concern overt the 'day to day' running of the club.
They will leave the measures and decisions to the management of the club overseen by the main investors to whom they will have set very broad parameters
they will not be micromanaging this [Post edited 13 May 2021 11:52]
| |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:55 - May 13 with 684 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:52 - May 13 by Keno |
I dont know for sure but I think I read somewhere that the the majority of the pension funding has been by way of a loan and I really doubt they will have any concern overt the 'day to day' running of the club.
They will leave the measures and decisions to the management of the club overseen by the main investors to whom they will have set very broad parameters
they will not be micromanaging this [Post edited 13 May 2021 11:52]
|
I'm not suggesting they will be micro managing the club.
I'm just suggesting that the fund will be bound by regulatory issues relating to managing their investors money.
This regulation would then be a consideration for the CEO of ITFC.
I'm not sure it was a loan. I hope it's not. [Post edited 13 May 2021 11:55]
| |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:55 - May 13 with 678 views | HighgateBlue |
The simple answer is that Donacien's employer is not a pension fund, and the owner of Donacien's employer is not a pension fund.
Donacien's employer is an ITFC company, and the majority owner of that company is the Gamechanger company. The directors of those two companies owe duties to those companies, and must work within their governing documents. Decisions on what football players to employ and on what terms are not taken by any pension fund. |  | | |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:59 - May 13 with 626 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:55 - May 13 by HighgateBlue |
The simple answer is that Donacien's employer is not a pension fund, and the owner of Donacien's employer is not a pension fund.
Donacien's employer is an ITFC company, and the majority owner of that company is the Gamechanger company. The directors of those two companies owe duties to those companies, and must work within their governing documents. Decisions on what football players to employ and on what terms are not taken by any pension fund. |
Gamechanger is 90% owned by the pension fund, so effectively a subsidiary of the fund.
I guess with ITFC being a further subsidiary it does create some distance between ITFC and the fund. | |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:07 - May 13 with 586 views | Keno |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:55 - May 13 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I'm not suggesting they will be micro managing the club.
I'm just suggesting that the fund will be bound by regulatory issues relating to managing their investors money.
This regulation would then be a consideration for the CEO of ITFC.
I'm not sure it was a loan. I hope it's not. [Post edited 13 May 2021 11:55]
|
By loan I done mean that in the conventional sense more a business arrangement whereby that have made funds available via gamechanger on which they will expect a possibly nominal return each year with repayment 'in the future'
The amount involved for the pension is a very small amount and very much their 'speculative punt' | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:17 - May 13 with 562 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:07 - May 13 by Keno |
By loan I done mean that in the conventional sense more a business arrangement whereby that have made funds available via gamechanger on which they will expect a possibly nominal return each year with repayment 'in the future'
The amount involved for the pension is a very small amount and very much their 'speculative punt' |
I understand that it's (relatively) speculative and relatively small, and hopefully our CEO will have leeway to make all decisions.
However, I do think the CEO will be accountable to the fund ultimately.
I have worked with a number of pension funds, and in my experience they count every penny. [Post edited 13 May 2021 12:19]
| |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:22 - May 13 with 534 views | Keno |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:17 - May 13 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I understand that it's (relatively) speculative and relatively small, and hopefully our CEO will have leeway to make all decisions.
However, I do think the CEO will be accountable to the fund ultimately.
I have worked with a number of pension funds, and in my experience they count every penny. [Post edited 13 May 2021 12:19]
|
Undoubtedly if this goes wrong for the CEO there will be a day of reckoning!! | |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:27 - May 13 with 517 views | HighgateBlue |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 11:59 - May 13 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Gamechanger is 90% owned by the pension fund, so effectively a subsidiary of the fund.
I guess with ITFC being a further subsidiary it does create some distance between ITFC and the fund. |
Org Az Secondary Opportunity Fund Lp (lovely first five letters of that name by the way...) is a Limited Partnership incorporated in Ohio. It is that entity which owns shares in Gamechanger 20 Limited, the English company. I am not sure that it is accurate to say that an English company can be a subsidiary of a Limited Partnership, but in any event I can't see why decisions made by the ITFC entity about the acquisition or disposal of assets (player contracts) would be affected by any rules that may or may not govern the Partnership.
It is true of course that transfer decisions will be affected by what sums are passed down the ownership structure to the ITFC entity, but that's a different question. | | | |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:30 - May 13 with 506 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:27 - May 13 by HighgateBlue |
Org Az Secondary Opportunity Fund Lp (lovely first five letters of that name by the way...) is a Limited Partnership incorporated in Ohio. It is that entity which owns shares in Gamechanger 20 Limited, the English company. I am not sure that it is accurate to say that an English company can be a subsidiary of a Limited Partnership, but in any event I can't see why decisions made by the ITFC entity about the acquisition or disposal of assets (player contracts) would be affected by any rules that may or may not govern the Partnership.
It is true of course that transfer decisions will be affected by what sums are passed down the ownership structure to the ITFC entity, but that's a different question. |
You could be right.
Like I say, I wasn't sure, but just wouldn't be surprised if there was a trickle down impact of rules that govern the pension fund investment. | |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 13:17 - May 13 with 452 views | Guthrum |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 12:30 - May 13 by Marshalls_Mullet |
You could be right.
Like I say, I wasn't sure, but just wouldn't be surprised if there was a trickle down impact of rules that govern the pension fund investment. |
Those rules would only govern where a pension fund is allowed to invest its money. If the people they've invested in are misusing the funds, that's a matter for due diligence (and withdrawal if necessary), not control from above.
There is a considerable difference between "investment" and "control". The board members may only have a small individual stake in the business, but they are the ones in charge of steering it. The investors potentially have the right to change the board if they don't like what's happening (tho even that is dependent upon what the shares say), but no direct influence over day-to-day matters, or even strategy.
The whole point of investing is that you are delegating someone else to use your money on a project of their own, in the hope of getting a return. You can insist on seats on the board, to gain some level of control, but that is not automatic. ORG's representative is outnumbered four-to-one on the board of Gamechanger. |  |
| |
| Pension Fund Accounting on 13:52 - May 13 with 414 views | J2BLUE |
Doubt it. I think it's just looking to squeeze as much money out of assets as possible. Even if Donacien goes for £100k and we pay him £30k while waiting for him to go that's £70k towards ground maintenance, backroom staff, fan initiatives, club shop staff etc etc.
It's the sort of thing that would have meant a CEO paid for themselves under Evans. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
