being played.......ie, just being told to "sit down & shut up". We, the fans, are in consequential in all this and as such need not be told anything. Put out the odd communique every now & then when the peasants are about to start an uprising & reassure them that everything is running smoothly. The EFL dont care about the fans, their interest is the club. The club dont care about the fans, their interest is to themselves. The Aussies dont care about the fans otherwise they would have said something by now. Nothing to do with NDA's. Everyone knows who is buying what & where.......just not the when. Everything else is just noise.
being played.......ie, just being told to "sit down & shut up". We, the fans, are in consequential in all this and as such need not be told anything. Put out the odd communique every now & then when the peasants are about to start an uprising & reassure them that everything is running smoothly. The EFL dont care about the fans, their interest is the club. The club dont care about the fans, their interest is to themselves. The Aussies dont care about the fans otherwise they would have said something by now. Nothing to do with NDA's. Everyone knows who is buying what & where.......just not the when. Everything else is just noise.
Being “played” implies active management of the situation to achieve a particular end, so let’s take that as keeping the fans quiet. Has RD achieved that? No, he is complaining the fans have embarrassed him unfairly, making more headlines in the process.
The EFL no doubt want the issues to go away, but the fans and the publicity have brought them into the argument. They are not an objective intermediary but their integrity will be judged on what happens next. I have little doubt they regard RD as a nutter. But we’ll soon see how far they are prepared or able to behave honestly.
The Australians appear to have nothing to say that would enhance their position, so it’s no surprise they don’t say anything.
I'm still of the opinion that if Duchatelet dropped his price to £25m, if that is indeed the price, then the Aussies or maybe the other parties would close a deal within days.
It is up to Roland to decide if he keeps on losing money month on month or to cut his losses and get out.
None of the parties are going to pay £40m but surrounded as he is by "yes men" no one will tell Duchatelet that.
I'm still of the opinion that if Duchatelet dropped his price to £25m, if that is indeed the price, then the Aussies or maybe the other parties would close a deal within days.
It is up to Roland to decide if he keeps on losing money month on month or to cut his losses and get out.
None of the parties are going to pay £40m but surrounded as he is by "yes men" no one will tell Duchatelet that.
I think deep down...I mean really deep that Roland loves Charlton. Especially now when the team are playing groovy football...or perhaps not and he can’t find mugs to meet his valuation.
It’s certainly not a distressed sale as he is so wealthy. He appears to have made a valuation (accurate or not - rather than wanting all his investment back) and is sticking to it, we assume he is losing a considerable whack but not as much as he was with a legacy championship wage bill, reduced admin costs and other cuts. Can we also assume at least some of the losses can be offset against profits (and therefore tax) in his other companies?
He has publicly stated getting into football was a mistake but that might be to do with the FFP loosening that removed the Networks competitive edge.
My view is we are still long way off ‘forcing’ a sale, if ever. I also see no evidence that any financial action that we can take has made any difference to him. Evidence does suggest however he is far more affected by bad publicity (much of his own making) and action that portrays him in a bad light since he seems to react by making statements bypassing his own publicity machine.
Charlton under Bowyer are now enjoying a miraculous turn around and a potentially very exciting season. The irony now is that (this is an ideal scenario for encouraging fans back) a well supported team might actually do more to move him on than a boycott as prospective owners see a well supported club and a better number in the books.
It’s certainly not a distressed sale as he is so wealthy. He appears to have made a valuation (accurate or not - rather than wanting all his investment back) and is sticking to it, we assume he is losing a considerable whack but not as much as he was with a legacy championship wage bill, reduced admin costs and other cuts. Can we also assume at least some of the losses can be offset against profits (and therefore tax) in his other companies?
He has publicly stated getting into football was a mistake but that might be to do with the FFP loosening that removed the Networks competitive edge.
My view is we are still long way off ‘forcing’ a sale, if ever. I also see no evidence that any financial action that we can take has made any difference to him. Evidence does suggest however he is far more affected by bad publicity (much of his own making) and action that portrays him in a bad light since he seems to react by making statements bypassing his own publicity machine.
Charlton under Bowyer are now enjoying a miraculous turn around and a potentially very exciting season. The irony now is that (this is an ideal scenario for encouraging fans back) a well supported team might actually do more to move him on than a boycott as prospective owners see a well supported club and a better number in the books.
If the club lost £10m in 2017/18 after the sale is Konsa, he’s still facing a huge operating loss in 2018/19. There may be some further unwind of previous liabilities but Vetokele is back on the books in full and Sarr, Ajose and Bauer are still here, of which only Bauer is likely to be value for money. He’s not going to offset more than a tiny fraction of that loss with the kind of savings that have been highlighted and income is likely to be down too. He is still bleeding money and if he was that indifferent to it he wouldn’t be making relatively trivial cost savings.
As far as the “miraculous turnaround” is concerned we are currently below where we finished last season. Bowyer has done well and gets the credit he deserves, but let’s face it there are only a handful of teams in this division that can compete with our playing budget. Accrington Stanley are enjoying a “miraculous” season; we’re doing OK - and can hope to do better.
It’s certainly not a distressed sale as he is so wealthy. He appears to have made a valuation (accurate or not - rather than wanting all his investment back) and is sticking to it, we assume he is losing a considerable whack but not as much as he was with a legacy championship wage bill, reduced admin costs and other cuts. Can we also assume at least some of the losses can be offset against profits (and therefore tax) in his other companies?
He has publicly stated getting into football was a mistake but that might be to do with the FFP loosening that removed the Networks competitive edge.
My view is we are still long way off ‘forcing’ a sale, if ever. I also see no evidence that any financial action that we can take has made any difference to him. Evidence does suggest however he is far more affected by bad publicity (much of his own making) and action that portrays him in a bad light since he seems to react by making statements bypassing his own publicity machine.
Charlton under Bowyer are now enjoying a miraculous turn around and a potentially very exciting season. The irony now is that (this is an ideal scenario for encouraging fans back) a well supported team might actually do more to move him on than a boycott as prospective owners see a well supported club and a better number in the books.
I am sure you are right about this - the adverse publicity for Roland resulting from ROT's high profile visit over the August Bank Holiday clearly riled him. Sad as it is for the Charlton employees involved, the bonus business was a gift as far as the Roland Out campaign was concerned as it had direct relevance to his businesses in Belgium. We need ways to maintain that sort f pressure.
Promotion might make the club more sellable IF Roland didn't then raise the price. And I bet the greedy daft bugger would do exactly that.
As I have remarked before, in LDT Roland has once again chosen as his representative and adviser someone who he trusts but who has no knowledge of the English football leagues. Let's hope LDT is a faster learner than Katrien was, and that he has the authority to provide some good advice, and soon. There is clearly something putting off potential purchasers, whether it is the headline price or post sale add-ons.
@Airman Brown I’m interested in what you think were the net savings on this summers business (if any)?
Also if overheads were hurting why cut now? The reason given by LdT was that they were off putting to buyers.. bonkers or not the timing makes sense. I’m not suggesting he is indifferent but he’s certainlt not over concerned although some of that may be reflected in the haircut on his investment, albeit not where we think the valuation should be.
@Airman Brown is that £10m correct? Even if you include interest (that will never be paid), right down of assets and goodwill, it still seems high.
It’s his figure (statement September 25th) and it makes sense based on the published 2016/17 starting point for the year. I cannot see even him publishing a false figure for the loss and presumably LDT has some kind of professional ethics requirement.
@Airman Brown is that £10m correct? Even if you include interest (that will never be paid), right down of assets and goodwill, it still seems high.
It’s his figure (statement September 25th) and it makes sense based on the published 2016/17 starting point for the year. I cannot see even him publishing a false figure for the loss and presumably LDT has some kind of professional ethics requirement.
I have just reread the statement. What I found very intresting is the difference between the real profit and loss for the 2 seasons is almost exactly the transfer fees from Lookman and Fox (+6m v - 5m).
So if last seasons figure is correct, as you say we should believe it to be, the actual running loss has increased by what ever amount we sold Konsa and Holmes for. Be very intresting if this is backed up come April's accounts.
@Airman Brown is that £10m correct? Even if you include interest (that will never be paid), right down of assets and goodwill, it still seems high.
It’s his figure (statement September 25th) and it makes sense based on the published 2016/17 starting point for the year. I cannot see even him publishing a false figure for the loss and presumably LDT has some kind of professional ethics requirement.
I have just reread the statement. What I found very intresting is the difference between the real profit and loss for the 2 seasons is almost exactly the transfer fees from Lookman and Fox (+6m v - 5m).
So if last seasons figure is correct, as you say we should believe it to be, the actual running loss has increased by what ever amount we sold Konsa and Holmes for. Be very intresting if this is backed up come April's accounts.
He actually says in the statemement that the operating loss (which doesn't include player trading, for avoidance of doubt) increased in 2017/18 - considering it was £14.3m in 2016/17 AND there was unwind of some liabilities left over from the Championship in the subsequent year, that is remarkable. In fact, I doubt if it is true. If it is I wonder who he thinks was responsible.
@Airman Brown is that £10m correct? Even if you include interest (that will never be paid), right down of assets and goodwill, it still seems high.
It’s his figure (statement September 25th) and it makes sense based on the published 2016/17 starting point for the year. I cannot see even him publishing a false figure for the loss and presumably LDT has some kind of professional ethics requirement.
I have just reread the statement. What I found very intresting is the difference between the real profit and loss for the 2 seasons is almost exactly the transfer fees from Lookman and Fox (+6m v - 5m).
So if last seasons figure is correct, as you say we should believe it to be, the actual running loss has increased by what ever amount we sold Konsa and Holmes for. Be very intresting if this is backed up come April's accounts.
He actually says in the statemement that the operating loss (which doesn't include player trading, for avoidance of doubt) increased in 2017/18 - considering it was £14.3m in 2016/17 AND there was unwind of some liabilities left over from the Championship in the subsequent year, that is remarkable. In fact, I doubt if it is true. If it is I wonder who he thinks was responsible.
Bloody hell, I have just reread the 2016/17 accounts, well the P&L anyway. I didn't realise they include the sales of JBG, Cousins, Pope etc as well!
@Airman Brown I’m interested in what you think were the net savings on this summers business (if any)?
Also if overheads were hurting why cut now? The reason given by LdT was that they were off putting to buyers.. bonkers or not the timing makes sense. I’m not suggesting he is indifferent but he’s certainlt not over concerned although some of that may be reflected in the haircut on his investment, albeit not where we think the valuation should be.
Hard to say but Holmes and Konsa were significant costs in 2017/18 and you'd think Taylor and Pratley are now, up to a point. We won't be paying all (most of?) the loan players' wages and the same applies to last season.
I think the disconnect is between the idea that the running costs are putting off buyers and that the savings he is making are material to that. Although I don't agree with a lot of what the Portsmouth guy had to say at the CAST AGM (it was generic and didn't fit the Charlton case), he was obviously right to talk about player contracts as the significant liability in the business. The real saving opportunity comes at the end of this season, because we have hardly any contracted players for 2019/20 (Pearce, Taylor, Pratley, Aribo, Sarr, Dijksteel being the main exceptions) at this point and unless RD thinks they have sale value (mainly the other young players) it's likely the squad will be cleared out in L1. Plus some sales.
I though the Portsmouth fella spoke a lot of sense. As you know I am no Duchatelet apologist but it is for sure the case that we could have worse and other teams in the EFL and premiership can demonstrate that fairly effectively.
Player contracts are, as he said, fairly rock solid and agreeing to the long term contracts of Sarr, Holmes, Vetokele and others has certainly been a drag on finances.
So now we have gone too far the other way and are only offering short term (or no eg Bauer) deals.
Maybe I’m being a bit old fashioned here but I generally benchmark what I do against the industry norms and then try and get a better deal. When did we decide we knew better than everyone else (Duchatelet?)
I though the Portsmouth fella spoke a lot of sense. As you know I am no Duchatelet apologist but it is for sure the case that we could have worse and other teams in the EFL and premiership can demonstrate that fairly effectively.
Player contracts are, as he said, fairly rock solid and agreeing to the long term contracts of Sarr, Holmes, Vetokele and others has certainly been a drag on finances.
So now we have gone too far the other way and are only offering short term (or no eg Bauer) deals.
Maybe I’m being a bit old fashioned here but I generally benchmark what I do against the industry norms and then try and get a better deal. When did we decide we knew better than everyone else (Duchatelet?)
I didn’t agree that we need to worry about him stopping paying the bills - he is no position to do that because the likely outcome would be that (much of) his own loan would be wiped out. It would be a good thing IMO. Someone could then buy the club at a reasonable price.
I thought the idea we should be selective about accepting any new owner was fanciful. We don’t have sufficient leverage as fans to make a choice.
The reason RD is a worse owner than most others is that he can afford to keep getting it wrong - a normal businessman would have cut their losses by now - and is evidently indifferent to the effect that what he does has on the club and its fans. Hence his absence. He is delusional about the situation and careless with detail, eg he thought the ex-directors’ loans had “expired”.
He’s not (as far as we know) a crook. But crooks usually end up in jail. He can just destroy the club with impunity. And he continues to do so.
It seems sad to me that we had a guy from Portsmouth telling Charlton fans how a club could be run well, work with its fans, etc, when we were the club that wrote that particular book.
Tbf to the guy he was perfectly genuine and excited about the Portsmouth history and I am not digging him out. I just thought his “advice” was misconceived.
I though the Portsmouth fella spoke a lot of sense. As you know I am no Duchatelet apologist but it is for sure the case that we could have worse and other teams in the EFL and premiership can demonstrate that fairly effectively.
Player contracts are, as he said, fairly rock solid and agreeing to the long term contracts of Sarr, Holmes, Vetokele and others has certainly been a drag on finances.
So now we have gone too far the other way and are only offering short term (or no eg Bauer) deals.
Maybe I’m being a bit old fashioned here but I generally benchmark what I do against the industry norms and then try and get a better deal. When did we decide we knew better than everyone else (Duchatelet?)
I didn’t agree that we need to worry about him stopping paying the bills - he is no position to do that because the likely outcome would be that (much of) his own loan would be wiped out. It would be a good thing IMO. Someone could then buy the club at a reasonable price.
I thought the idea we should be selective about accepting any new owner was fanciful. We don’t have sufficient leverage as fans to make a choice.
The reason RD is a worse owner than most others is that he can afford to keep getting it wrong - a normal businessman would have cut their losses by now - and is evidently indifferent to the effect that what he does has on the club and its fans. Hence his absence. He is delusional about the situation and careless with detail, eg he thought the ex-directors’ loans had “expired”.
He’s not (as far as we know) a crook. But crooks usually end up in jail. He can just destroy the club with impunity. And he continues to do so.
It seems sad to me that we had a guy from Portsmouth telling Charlton fans how a club could be run well, work with its fans, etc, when we were the club that wrote that particular book.
Tbf to the guy he was perfectly genuine and excited about the Portsmouth history and I am not digging him out. I just thought his “advice” was misconceived.
Was also disappointing at the same meeting hearing our Trust Treasurer saying we all need to remember RD is still paying our bills and we don't want that to stop.
It is interesting to me that the Aussies are still in the frame as potential buyers.
From's RD's perspective, I just assume no other potential buyers are anywhere close to agreeing with his valuation, hence he won't tell them to get lost despite their failure to close on the purchase. But why are the Aussies still apparently still interested? Are Charlton really that attractive a proposition for gaining entry to the English football league at RD's asking price that they are apparently prepared to work for months and months trying to put together a consortium in order to fund it. Sooner or later you would think they either have to come up with the necessary finances or else look elsewhere for a cheaper acquisition.
I don't think RD can offset losses from CAFC against profits from his main businesses such as Melexis. Nor are his other clubs in Staprix likely to be showing big profits. However, Nigel Kleinfeld , the Trust finance wizard, inspected Staprix accounts and found lurking there a profitable call centre/ direct marketing business which operates from offices in the Stayen stadium in S-T. To that extent, the losses could be utilized. But personally I think it is all about what he walks away with from football compared with what he has put in. We know he is already well up on the Standard business, and presumably doesn't want to spoil that by losing £15m on the sale of Charlton.
I don't see that as merely incompetence, I see it also as blatant disrespect. They were more than happy to go public about calling the meetings so that they could show that they had teeth, but now are keeping their counsel. Presumably because there is sweet FA they can do about him being there, due to their own process is so weak.
I'd warrant that nothing they've found out does them at the EFL any favours at all. Fit & Proper? for what exactly? They've got nothing to say cos even their PR department understands that: "we've sat idly by and let a member club of 113 years vintage be run into the ground by a foreigner we'd not previously met, we only stirred ourselves this time cos that noisy rabble doorstepped us with Fleet St in tow" is not something to publicise. So long as smthn purporting to be CAFC fulfils its fixtures and pays its subs on time EFL has neither the wit nor willingness to give one flying fuck. Ownership, governance, structure, reputation, honourable staff relations matter not one jot, especially as CAFC doesn't subscribe to all the EFL's fuckwit ideas, like ifollow. Their enduring silence says nothing else.
It is interesting to me that the Aussies are still in the frame as potential buyers.
From's RD's perspective, I just assume no other potential buyers are anywhere close to agreeing with his valuation, hence he won't tell them to get lost despite their failure to close on the purchase. But why are the Aussies still apparently still interested? Are Charlton really that attractive a proposition for gaining entry to the English football league at RD's asking price that they are apparently prepared to work for months and months trying to put together a consortium in order to fund it. Sooner or later you would think they either have to come up with the necessary finances or else look elsewhere for a cheaper acquisition.
It is interesting to me that the Aussies are still in the frame as potential buyers.
From's RD's perspective, I just assume no other potential buyers are anywhere close to agreeing with his valuation, hence he won't tell them to get lost despite their failure to close on the purchase. But why are the Aussies still apparently still interested? Are Charlton really that attractive a proposition for gaining entry to the English football league at RD's asking price that they are apparently prepared to work for months and months trying to put together a consortium in order to fund it. Sooner or later you would think they either have to come up with the necessary finances or else look elsewhere for a cheaper acquisition.
I've been asking this question for months, just seems very strange to me.
It is interesting to me that the Aussies are still in the frame as potential buyers.
From's RD's perspective, I just assume no other potential buyers are anywhere close to agreeing with his valuation, hence he won't tell them to get lost despite their failure to close on the purchase. But why are the Aussies still apparently still interested? Are Charlton really that attractive a proposition for gaining entry to the English football league at RD's asking price that they are apparently prepared to work for months and months trying to put together a consortium in order to fund it. Sooner or later you would think they either have to come up with the necessary finances or else look elsewhere for a cheaper acquisition.
It is interesting to me that the Aussies are still in the frame as potential buyers.
From's RD's perspective, I just assume no other potential buyers are anywhere close to agreeing with his valuation, hence he won't tell them to get lost despite their failure to close on the purchase. But why are the Aussies still apparently still interested? Are Charlton really that attractive a proposition for gaining entry to the English football league at RD's asking price that they are apparently prepared to work for months and months trying to put together a consortium in order to fund it. Sooner or later you would think they either have to come up with the necessary finances or else look elsewhere for a cheaper acquisition.
I've been asking this question for months, just seems very strange to me.
I've no idea what the Aussie masterplan is, but then if their consortium membership has changed, I'm not sure they know either.
All this talk about "using his losses elsewhere in his group companies" is a massive red herring. He still has to lose the money i.e. for Charlton to spend more than it earns. That money is spent, gone, done, out of his hands, not coming back. It is likely that whichever entity legally owns the shares in CAFC, will be able to set off some trading losses against other group profits in the group's tax calculations. Corporation tax around EU varies from 10% in some of the more eastern recent arrivals to 29% in Belgium and 33% in France. If CAFC loses €10M in 2018, roly's group companies might be able to reduce a future corporation tax liability by €2.9M, at best. He's still over €7M out of pocket, at best. For remaining involved in something that he has no interest in and constantly bugs the hell out of him. That's paying more than half a mil per month just to be called a cunt. Flat out insanity. He'll be better off the minute he ceases his involvement with CAFC, right away, immediately, without delay, instantly, tout de suite, ogenblikkelijk. Unpalatable or not, the truth is he is in no way obligated to check out the credentials of whomsoever pays his price. Just as the spivs sold to the first tard that ponied up the readies, he is free to accept the negotiables from any clown, nonse or lunatic. At even a tenth of what the tombstone tooted old twunt is asking, that clown would have to be loony indeed. In short roly is a special kind of masochist, with a severe case of megalomania and bad teeth.
Comments
The EFL no doubt want the issues to go away, but the fans and the publicity have brought them into the argument. They are not an objective intermediary but their integrity will be judged on what happens next. I have little doubt they regard RD as a nutter. But we’ll soon see how far they are prepared or able to behave honestly.
The Australians appear to have nothing to say that would enhance their position, so it’s no surprise they don’t say anything.
It is up to Roland to decide if he keeps on losing money month on month or to cut his losses and get out.
None of the parties are going to pay £40m but surrounded as he is by "yes men" no one will tell Duchatelet that.
WIOTOS
Can we also assume at least some of the losses can be offset against profits (and therefore tax) in his other companies?
He has publicly stated getting into football was a mistake but that might be to do with the FFP loosening that removed the Networks competitive edge.
My view is we are still long way off ‘forcing’ a sale, if ever. I also see no evidence that any financial action that we can take has made any difference to him. Evidence does suggest however he is far more affected by bad publicity (much of his own making) and action that portrays him in a bad light since he seems to react by making statements bypassing his own publicity machine.
Charlton under Bowyer are now enjoying a miraculous turn around and a potentially very exciting season. The irony now is that (this is an ideal scenario for encouraging fans back) a well supported team might actually do more to move him on than a boycott as prospective owners see a well supported club and a better number in the books.
As far as the “miraculous turnaround” is concerned we are currently below where we finished last season. Bowyer has done well and gets the credit he deserves, but let’s face it there are only a handful of teams in this division that can compete with our playing budget. Accrington Stanley are enjoying a “miraculous” season; we’re doing OK - and can hope to do better.
Promotion might make the club more sellable IF Roland didn't then raise the price. And I bet the greedy daft bugger would do exactly that.
As I have remarked before, in LDT Roland has once again chosen as his representative and adviser someone who he trusts but who has no knowledge of the English football leagues. Let's hope LDT is a faster learner than Katrien was, and that he has the authority to provide some good advice, and soon. There is clearly something putting off potential purchasers, whether it is the headline price or post sale add-ons.
Also if overheads were hurting why cut now? The reason given by LdT was that they were off putting to buyers.. bonkers or not the timing makes sense. I’m not suggesting he is indifferent but he’s certainlt not over concerned although some of that may be reflected in the haircut on his investment, albeit not where we think the valuation should be.
So if last seasons figure is correct, as you say we should believe it to be, the actual running loss has increased by what ever amount we sold Konsa and Holmes for. Be very intresting if this is backed up come April's accounts.
I think the disconnect is between the idea that the running costs are putting off buyers and that the savings he is making are material to that. Although I don't agree with a lot of what the Portsmouth guy had to say at the CAST AGM (it was generic and didn't fit the Charlton case), he was obviously right to talk about player contracts as the significant liability in the business. The real saving opportunity comes at the end of this season, because we have hardly any contracted players for 2019/20 (Pearce, Taylor, Pratley, Aribo, Sarr, Dijksteel being the main exceptions) at this point and unless RD thinks they have sale value (mainly the other young players) it's likely the squad will be cleared out in L1. Plus some sales.
I though the Portsmouth fella spoke a lot of sense. As you know I am no Duchatelet apologist but it is for sure the case that we could have worse and other teams in the EFL and premiership can demonstrate that fairly effectively.
Player contracts are, as he said, fairly rock solid and agreeing to the long term contracts of Sarr, Holmes, Vetokele and others has certainly been a drag on finances.
So now we have gone too far the other way and are only offering short term (or no eg Bauer) deals.
Maybe I’m being a bit old fashioned here but I generally benchmark what I do against the industry norms and then try and get a better deal. When did we decide we knew better than everyone else (Duchatelet?)
I thought the idea we should be selective about accepting any new owner was fanciful. We don’t have sufficient leverage as fans to make a choice.
The reason RD is a worse owner than most others is that he can afford to keep getting it wrong - a normal businessman would have cut their losses by now - and is evidently indifferent to the effect that what he does has on the club and its fans. Hence his absence. He is delusional about the situation and careless with detail, eg he thought the ex-directors’ loans had “expired”.
He’s not (as far as we know) a crook. But crooks usually end up in jail. He can just destroy the club with impunity. And he continues to do so.
It seems sad to me that we had a guy from Portsmouth telling Charlton fans how a club could be run well, work with its fans, etc, when we were the club that wrote that particular book.
Tbf to the guy he was perfectly genuine and excited about the Portsmouth history and I am not digging him out. I just thought his “advice” was misconceived.
If he stopped this would force the issue.
From's RD's perspective, I just assume no other potential buyers are anywhere close to agreeing with his valuation, hence he won't tell them to get lost despite their failure to close on the purchase. But why are the Aussies still apparently still interested? Are Charlton really that attractive a proposition for gaining entry to the English football league at RD's asking price that they are apparently prepared to work for months and months trying to put together a consortium in order to fund it. Sooner or later you would think they either have to come up with the necessary finances or else look elsewhere for a cheaper acquisition.
I don't think RD can offset losses from CAFC against profits from his main businesses such as Melexis. Nor are his other clubs in Staprix likely to be showing big profits. However, Nigel Kleinfeld , the Trust finance wizard, inspected Staprix accounts and found lurking there a profitable call centre/ direct marketing business which operates from offices in the Stayen stadium in S-T. To that extent, the losses could be utilized. But personally I think it is all about what he walks away with from football compared with what he has put in. We know he is already well up on the Standard business, and presumably doesn't want to spoil that by losing £15m on the sale of Charlton.
He still has to lose the money i.e. for Charlton to spend more than it earns. That money is spent, gone, done, out of his hands, not coming back. It is likely that whichever entity legally owns the shares in CAFC, will be able to set off some trading losses against other group profits in the group's tax calculations. Corporation tax around EU varies from 10% in some of the more eastern recent arrivals to 29% in Belgium and 33% in France. If CAFC loses €10M in 2018, roly's group companies might be able to reduce a future corporation tax liability by €2.9M, at best. He's still over €7M out of pocket, at best. For remaining involved in something that he has no interest in and constantly bugs the hell out of him. That's paying more than half a mil per month just to be called a cunt. Flat out insanity. He'll be better off the minute he ceases his involvement with CAFC, right away, immediately, without delay, instantly, tout de suite, ogenblikkelijk. Unpalatable or not, the truth is he is in no way obligated to check out the credentials of whomsoever pays his price. Just as the spivs sold to the first tard that ponied up the readies, he is free to accept the negotiables from any clown, nonse or lunatic.
At even a tenth of what the tombstone tooted old twunt is asking, that clown would have to be loony indeed.
In short roly is a special kind of masochist, with a severe case of megalomania and bad teeth.