Beveree Chat

To unblock the impasse, either someone buys out the brothers or the brothers buy out the other investors. The reality is that neither party has any real value in their investment other than by seeking a payment to go away. What that figure might be is anyone's guess.

Shepperton Supporter wrote: Tue Mar 25, 2025 12:47 pm As far as I am aware the investment levels into Ramayana is not known. It will depend on how committed they are to the club certainly one of them is regularly attending.

I don't believe either brother is regularly attending unless in disguise.

As for investment levels. The brothers probably put zero funds in but own by far the most shares. Apart from that a whole bunch of small investors. I have not been able to identify individuals behind all the companies.

Ramayana Enterprises Shareholding (per company house confirmation statement dated 19-Mar-24)

200 ‘A’ shares (comprising 76% of voting rights)

16101‘B’ shares (comprising 24% of voting rights)

Persons with significant control:

- VAUDEVILLE BRAVO LIMITED (Stefano Petruzzo and Rafaele Petruzzo) 8200 ‘B’ shares
- VAUDEVILLE VENTURES LTD (Stefano Petruzzo and Rafaele Petruzzo) 200 ‘A’ shares

Other shareholders:

- EDWARD BARNETT 272 ‘B’ shares
- MICHAEL BROUGHTON 232 ‘B’ shares
- MIRKO CARDINALE 272 ‘B’ shares
- THOMAS CHRISTOPOUL 396 ‘B’ shares
- SCOTT FORBES 396 ‘B’ shares (appointed as director 19-Dec-22 and understood to be chairman of investor group. Terminated as director 13-May-24)
- JOHN GARCIA 1077 ‘B’ shares
- RICK HEITZMANN 396 ‘B’ shares
- BENJAMIN ALAN KORKLIN 136 ‘B’ shares
- JACQUES LE BARS 136 ‘B’ shares (club chairman at time of investment and now club president)
- ROBERT MACMILLAN 272 ‘B’ shares
- CHRISTOPHER DAMICO 396 ‘B’ shares (Tresmares Capital)
- CRAIG MICHAEL WALLACE & KATHRYN MARY WALLACE 396 ‘B’ shares
- PAUL TISDALE 136 ‘B’ shares
- LUIS VICENTE 232 ‘B’ shares
- WELCOME TO RICHMOND LLC 396 ‘B’ shares
- ALTA PLAZA INVESTMENTS LLC 272 ‘B’ shares
- CHELCOMBE LIMITED 136 ‘B’ shares (Christopher John Llewellyn Davies)
- FUNDO DE CAPITAL DE RISCO DRAYCOTT 272 ‘B’ shares
- INNISHBOFFIN SRL 272 ‘B’ shares
- REBET GMBH 272 ‘B’ shares
- SCARSDALE HOLDINGS LIMITED 136 ‘B’ shares (James Patrick Garvey)
- USHRFC LLC 396 ‘B’ shares
- KEVIN COSTELLO 124 ‘B’ shares
- DUNCAN PAINTER 248 ‘B’ shares
- JILLY CREATIVE VENTURE LTD 136 ‘B’ shares (James David Newman)
- LANDIS CAPITAL LLC 248 ‘B’ shares (Ken Landis, co founder Bobbi Brown, Tula skincare)
- LONDON BLUE LLC 248 ‘B’ shares

"The brothers probably put zero funds in but own by far the most shares."

That has been my thought all along. A speculative plan with a zero cost "investment" by them whilst arranging actual financial investment by others resulting in them owning lots of shares which they hoped to cash in on in the future when the club was bigger and more successful. Unfortunately the plan didn't quite work but they may still get a return if and when they sell their shares.

That's interesting, I hadn't realised the Petruzzo brothers actually owned so many shares themselves, I'd thought they were essentially the front men for Ramayana Investments who'd brought investors in based on their 'vision' for the club, and that it would be those investors who put the money in who owned most of the shares.

The brothers stated themselves that they hadn't put much or any of their own capital in, so I'm a bit confused as to how this fits together. Is it correct to understand that the investors fronted the money for the brothers to buy and effectively own the club, and also subsequently wrote off a loan to provide a further cash injection, but the investors still own a relatively small chunk of the shares? Granted I'm not au fair with how these things usually work but doesn't it seem like a bit of a bad deal for the investors who actually put up the cash?

Or maybe they are just con men ? By their own admittance, their core skill is spinning a yarn.

“Myself and Stefano are not wealthy, don’t have capital. But we’re very good at building a story that makes sense for people to bring capital into” says co-executive director Rafa Petruzzo.

The brothers shares were issued for a nominal price when the company was first set up. The investors paid a much higher price for their shares when they came in a little bit later. I'm sure it was viewed that the brothers worked to get the plan off the ground and finding the investors etc. (basically sweat equity) and so that was their contribution rather than cash.

These types of structure are not unusual.What we won't know is any mechanism for shareholders to remove directors who are underperforming. These terms would probably sit in the shareholder agreement but this is not a publicly available document. The A shares held by the brothers through their companies, give them 76% of the voting rights, so very hard for other shareholders to take control of the board and remove unwanted directors.

Who ever allowed the brothers to get involved and then be in control of the club obviously never did due diligence on what they were letting club get into. They have not only let the club's supporters down but have made it almost certain that Hampton F C are going to slide down the football pyramid in double quick time.

tones wrote: Wed Mar 26, 2025 4:08 pm Who ever allowed the brothers to get involved and then be in control of the club obviously never did due diligence on what they were letting club get into. They have not only let the club's supporters down but have made it almost certain that Hampton F C are going to slide down the football pyramid in double quick time.

I suspect whoever was doing that due dilgence had the clubs best interests firmly at heart. We may have been in the same financial position then as we are now and investment would be welcomed. The brothers have the gift of the gab which no doubt masks their incompetence.

The real issue is with how the brothers spent the investment which could otherwise perhaps have funded the club for several years. Seems to me, the brothers prime drivers were self publicity and to experiment with their 'venture capital FC playbook'. It would be interesting to know what their playbook says should be done in the current circumstances. I doubt that chapter of the story was written.

I suspect the patented "venture capital FC playbook" is much like the strategy of many venture capitalists in these circumstances - once it has become clear you have backed a loser, don't waste any more time on it and try to find other businesses or interests to focus on instead...

geedub wrote: Wed Mar 26, 2025 5:15 pm I suspect the patented "venture capital FC playbook" is much like the strategy of many venture capitalists in these circumstances - once it has become clear you have backed a loser, don't waste any more time on it and try to find other businesses or interests to focus on instead...

Absolutely agree that private equity don't waste time on failed investments, but in this case there still seems to be interest from some of the investors to stay involved. The inference to be drawn is that investors won't back the brothers any further so any continued involvement will need them to depart.

Tony wrote: Thu Mar 27, 2025 8:18 am ...in this case there still seems to be interest from some of the investors to stay involved. The inference to be drawn is that investors won't back the brothers any further so any continued involvement will need them to depart.

That's interesting. I hadn't realised that is quite how things might stand. I guess the lack of a Scott Forbes figure, who originally appeared to head up the investor group, adds to the difficulty in finding a way forward now. Although Scott is still a Ramayana shareholder and I think somebody said they saw him at The Bev recently so perhaps he is not totally disengaged.