Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Because they invest in a business, which is perfectly fine, and that business owner got involved in buying their own football club, which is perfectly fine.

 

 

 

My understanding of an investment fund is any money you put in gets re-invested into other companies. So then surely the money PIF put into Clearlake would have been used to buy Chelsea and therefore PIF will benefit from any profits gained from the purchase of Chelsea. Is that not correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, duo said:

My understanding of an investment fund is any money you put in gets re-invested into other companies. So then surely the money PIF put into Clearlake would have been used to buy Chelsea and therefore PIF will benefit from any profits gained from the purchase of Chelsea. Is that not correct?

Yeah.

 

PIF invest in lots of things around the world, including Clearlake. They don't have any real control over how they use those funds or how their multiple investments are run, they just want a return from the money they put in.

 

So, it's a complete non-story and a clickbait headline. As you say, if Chelsea make a profit that's just part of the return PIF would make from Clearlake, that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Large media organisation publishes a clickbait story to get a rise out of people. N.O superiors instantly start mocking fellow fans. 

 

And what do you know...the vast majority of Twitter comments are well grounded, and see through the ridiculously bad journalism. Of course there's the comments from daft twats...but they're the minority.

 

This place really needs to think higher of fellow fans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be absolutely staggered if Chelsea is the only club they have a ‘stake’ in, given how much PIF money will be sloshing around investment funds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Private equity juggernauts have investors all over the world but it’s likely the fund and capital used to acquire Chelsea is specifically based with all sources of said fund traced back and vetted per the PL test. Clearlake could literally be investing PIF money in something as benign as a diversified portfolio of solar panels or fulfillment center warehouses. It’s legit a non story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kanji said:

Private equity juggernauts have investors all over the world but it’s likely the fund and capital used to acquire Chelsea is specifically based with all sources of said fund traced back and vetted per the PL test. Clearlake could literally be investing PIF money in something as benign as a diversified portfolio of solar panels or fulfillment center warehouses. It’s legit a non story. 

 

There's no massive headlines on the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund owning part of Juventus and Borussia Dortmund. Very likely because it's just a wealth fund investing to gain profits by small % ownership in various companies, not actively owning said companies by being the main shareholder. This is an absolute non-story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish people would spend 5 minutes. Including journalists and learn about who owns what or who invests in what. They would be shocked. Once they get over that shock theyll stop being such fucking idiots and fannies creating non stories. Do the proper research. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kanji said:

Wish people would spend 5 minutes. Including journalists and learn about who owns what or who invests in what. They would be shocked. Once they get over that shock theyll stop being such fucking idiots and fannies creating non stories. Do the proper research. 

Timing of article is no coincidence on eve of 1st game.  Pity it hasn't got the reaction the author wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kanji said:

Wish people would spend 5 minutes. Including journalists and learn about who owns what or who invests in what. They would be shocked. Once they get over that shock theyll stop being such fucking idiots and fannies creating non stories. Do the proper research. 

Journalism as we understand it is dead. It’s all about generating clicks and outrage. 

we are in the post truth world. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kanji said:

Wish people would spend 5 minutes. Including journalists and learn about who owns what or who invests in what. They would be shocked. Once they get over that shock theyll stop being such fucking idiots and fannies creating non stories. Do the proper research. 

There IS a story there, it's just got fuck all to do with football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Journalism as we understand it is dead. It’s all about generating clicks and outrage. 

we are in the post truth world. 

Not true. Journalism as a means to control the narrative has always existed, and always will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So PIF have a share in an investment fund that has a share in Chelsea via their own investment fund. Fucking hell, and that’s news worthy?! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They recently announced fund with over 10 billion in commitments. They raise capital in those funds via or pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, public companies, high net worth family offices etc from all over the world 
 

they often announce what that fund will invest in too via the exact companies or types of industries. It’s about as normal as any private equity group out there. 

 

 

Edited by Kanji

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very suspicious of investment funds. Skybet is an example. They were sold, killing the argument that Skynews and skysports had any incentive to influence gambling habits. But it wasn't sold to a new owner, it was sold to an investment firm who wrapped it up in a package and nobody really knows who owns it. If I owned Skysports I'd be heavily invested in a package that included Skybet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to break it to you but much of what you know and see today is probably wrapped up in some sort of fund 

 

like nearly every single version of a digital lock or similar product is owned by this massive Swedish conglomerate. They own nearly every competitor to its own product now. It’s mad. 

 

 

Edited by Kanji

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Kanji said:

Hate to break it to you but much of what you know and see today is probably wrapped up in some sort of fund 

 

like nearly every single version of a digital lock or similar product is owned by this massive Swedish conglomerate. They own nearly every competitor to its own product now. It’s mad. 

 

 

 

That was the point of my post. Once upon a time these connections were visible and any corruption would raise an alarm. Now ownership is all smoke and mirrors, but likely still owned by the same small group of people that they always were.

Take my 'blankets for the homeless' charity. People might ask questions if I still owned my blanket manufacturing company so I sold it to an investment firm who packaged it into a fund, together with the disposable toothbrush company I sold them. Of course I'm going to invest my windfall in that fund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Izakaya said:

Any of them even there today? None shown on tv so far. Seems weird if not. 

Jamie Reuben we're there with (who I guess) is his brother and their father.

 

Haven't seen anything from the others though...🤷‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...