So, is the increase in the value of the land & buildings equal to the money Roland has put in since owning the club minus any money received from outgoing transfers?
My guess is it is that number but does not include transfer activity, which would not count as capital invested in long-term assets. The increase in value may well reflect money he put into some stadium renovations, the training ground, and the couch.
I get a sneaking suspicion that the $42M is the amount which he is unwilling to sell below at no matter what. It's his line in the sand.
Am I right in think it’s likely the most recent accounts will be published in the coming weeks?
They have to be filed witrhin 9 months of their financial year end boss, i.e. by 31st March otherwise the company is subject to a fine which racks up the longer the delay.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Basically bought for £18.943m, valued by directors at £42.707m so middle number is the difference (ie uplift in valuation since acquisition).
i assume they had advice to get to their number as not sure how RD or KM (think she was a director then) would have the requisite knowledge for what would be a very complicated valn. Also wonder on what basis it was valued and whether that number includes a load of hope value for change of use.
Thank-you. I feel this is extremely important if RD is now going to try and split the club from The Valley & Sparrows Lane.
So he paid nothing for the club in the first place if the land & buildings were costed at £18.943M.
He had them revalued upwards from £18.9M to £42.7M over a duration of 3.5 years.
I'm astounded that someone on here thinks it's a good idea for us to take the club off his hands for nothing, when he paid nothing for it and let him keep the land & buildings for which he paid £18.9M and now values at £42.7M.
Can anyone explain how The Valley & Sparrows Lane could have risen in value from £18.9M to £42.7M in 3.5 years ?
My only assumption can be that it was worth well over £30M when he purchased, which is why he didn't worry about due dilligence, as he assumed/knew the land was undervalued by at least £12M ?
Feel free to correct me anyone, if I'm wrong.
Can any clever people on here add to my thoughts, as I do feel it has a strong bearing on what Charlton is actually worth ?
Noting clever in saying it but I believe RD bought CAFC for the value of the land in the accounts as if a football club was a conventional asset, and is under the delusion that everyone values a football club like that.
His suggestion about the EFL shows he is seriously mad as well as deluded.
Splitting the assets from the club is what Glicksten did and look where that ended up.
It's the perfect solution for RD if he can get away with it. Turns a £12m+ per annum loss into a £5m (or whatever stadium rents are) a year revenue stream. Any buyer willing to agree to that is worse than RD.
RD's Talksport chat where he suggested he was selling the land separately is simply a smoke screen for saying he wants to offload the club to stop the haemorrhage of cash and hang on to the assets to give him rental income to repay his losses. Man speaks with forked tongue.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
Coming back to the house scenario. My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
Coming back to the house scenario. My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
Coming back to the house scenario. My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
Your next door neighbour s house price was halfed
I did forget to add the following year there was a 75%decrease when elfs moved to Bromley
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
Coming back to the house scenario. My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
Looking at this as a guideline only, property prices in Charlton may have increased by around 50% between early 2014 and June 2017.
So there could be a case for saying the land value increased to say £30M. However, £42M seems top heavy as there were not £12M worth of improvements. I know I'm comparing property prices to The Valley & Sparrows Lane, but I'm using it as a guide.
If I'm honest I've always thought RD can make a reasonable case for asking £30M, but anything higher and he's pushing it.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
Coming back to the house scenario. My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
Looking at this as a guideline only, property prices in Charlton may have increased by around 50% between early 2014 and June 2017.
So there could be a case for saying the land value increased to say £30M. However, £42M seems top heavy as there were not £12M worth of improvements. I know I'm comparing property prices to The Valley & Sparrows Lane, but I'm using it as a guide.
If I'm honest I've always thought RD can make a reasonable case for asking £30M, but anything higher and he's pushing it.
Noting clever in saying it but I believe RD bought CAFC for the value of the land in the accounts as if a football club was a conventional asset, and is under the delusion that everyone values a football club like that.
His suggestion about the EFL shows he is seriously mad as well as deluded.
Splitting the assets from the club is what Glicksten did and look where that ended up.
It's the perfect solution for RD if he can get away with it. Turns a £12m+ per annum loss into a £5m (or whatever stadium rents are) a year revenue stream. Any buyer willing to agree to that is worse than RD.
RD's Talksport chat where he suggested he was selling the land separately is simply a smoke screen for saying he wants to offload the club to stop the haemorrhage of cash and hang on to the assets to give him rental income to repay his losses. Man speaks with forked tongue.
I'm pretty sure he bought the club for a quid, relieved Jiminez of £18m of debt and made himself the creditor, but regardless you're spot on it would make little sense to own the football club and not the Valley and Sparrows Lane.
All he's doing is recognising the football club in isolation has no value, which begs the question why anyone would take it off his hands on that basis. A bit self-defeating that.
If it's true that he now only wants fair valuation of the land for a purchase price, surely all a buyer needs to do is get independent valuation and negotiate on that basis. It will be a lot less than Duchatelet has been asking, I'm quite sure.
But I don't imagine for a moment this incoherent lunatic would settle for that.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
The valley valuation will be justified in that if we moved stadiums that's what it would be worth if sold.
As someone mentioned on another thread, the Valley and Sparrows Lane can only be developed for recreational purposes. He built a hotel, shopping complex and flats at Stayen and thinks in the UK planning would be just as easy.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
Coming back to the house scenario. My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
Looking at this as a guideline only, property prices in Charlton may have increased by around 50% between early 2014 and June 2017.
So there could be a case for saying the land value increased to say £30M. However, £42M seems top heavy as there were not £12M worth of improvements. I know I'm comparing property prices to The Valley & Sparrows Lane, but I'm using it as a guide.
If I'm honest I've always thought RD can make a reasonable case for asking £30M, but anything higher and he's pushing it.
1. Land value is generally a lot more volatile than house / property value.
2. This area will have seen substantial rises in value due to a general gentrification, crossrail nearby etc
3. The value of the ground and training ground that a Valuer applies would depend on what basis you are asking them to value? As is..?. what comparables could they pin their values to of a London based football stadium/training ground changing hands as a going concern? There is no “rental yield” you could apply to it as there is no lease, as such any value is likely to be a highly speculative one based on potential alternative use. Essentially most of it will be based on hope value that you can change useage to something more valuable (like resi) but that is a seriously speculative value. Without planning permission in place purchasers would more than likely take an option subject to planning than write out a huge cheque to take a punt.
I'll post a bit more on this tomorrow when I'm soberer and have bothered to do some more research. But the revaluation gains are in the accounts of CAFC, not Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd (CAHL). CAFC owns the developments on The Valley site, but not the land, which is owned by CAHL.
Under the reporting framework of FRS102, adopted by the 'Charlton' group of companies, it is a requirement that property is revalued every five years by independent qualified people. Every third year into the five, the directors must perform another revaluation.
Because there is not an open market in well-developed south London football grounds against which to arrive at a sensible valuation, the method adopted is the Depreciated Cost Approach (DCA). This basically tries to assess the cost of putting the existing assets in situ at today's prices, then applying depreciation based on their real age. So if the stadium had cost £20m to build in 1999 and had been depreciated at 2% per year, it would be worth £12m now. But if the stadium were to be built now at a cost of £50m and 2% x 20 years depreciation was applied, it would now be worth £30m under the DCA. So the gain on revaluation would be 18m.
(I have picked these numbers for ease of calculation, but actually I dont think they are that far off).
In the books of CAHL the land is valued at £11.7m, and I'll have a look into historical revaluations tomorrow - I can't see anything for the last couple of years accounts.
But what RD is apparently failing to understand is that the value attributed to the stadium is largely theoretical. Giving the football club away for no money is still selling it for about £10m more than it's worth. He'd be better off with the approach that the physical assets are worth £40m and the club worth -£10m, then paying someone that much to take it off his hands. But the stadium development is worth sod all without a club to play in it...
Hans, your last statement is telling. In another thread I suggest someone pay his £1, groundshare elsewhere and sweat him out. Need deeper pockets than a single pound though.
I imagine that property/land prices in the Charlton area have increased significantly in the past 4-5 years. They've benefited from the Greenwich effect, i.e. gentrification and massive growth in housing, "upwardly mobile" people, etc. It always expands outwards from where the growth starts. So, in theory, the Valley and surrounding land would have also increased in value - but the big if is if its usage can be changed (which it seemingly can't for several reasons) otherwise don't really see that its that relevant (except to the madman).
Agreed, but the valuation increased from £18M in 2014 to £42M in 2017 !
Coming back to the house scenario. My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
Just for completeness, I've had a deeper look at the CAHL accounts. They confirm that the asset is the land upon which the stadium stands (edit:) and at Sparrows Lane. Its total value in 2012 was 5.81m, revalued to 10.35m in 2013, this being the professional 5 yearly review. In 2016, now treated as an investment property under FRS102, it increased a further £1.35m to 11.7m where it stands now. However, the accounts to 30 June 2018, currently awaited, will show a further professional revaluation and it will be interesting to see how much the value has risen. I'd suppose it might be a fair bit, and is therefore causing RD to believe it is worth more than it really is and hang on for what he perceives is something close to this value.
Just for completeness, I've had a deeper look at the CAHL accounts. They confirm that the asset is the land upon which the stadium stands. It's value in 2012 was 5.81m, revalued to 10.35m in 2013, this being the professional 5 yearly review. In 2016, now treated as an investment property under FRS102, it increased a further £1.35m to 11.7m where it stands now. However, the accounts to 30 June 2018, currently awaited, will show a further professional revaluation and it will be interesting to see how much the value has risen. I'd suppose it might be a fair bit, and is therefore causing RD to believe it is worth more than it really is and hang on for what he perceives is something close to this value.
Just for completeness, I've had a deeper look at the CAHL accounts. They confirm that the asset is the land upon which the stadium stands. Its total value in 2012 was 5.81m, revalued to 10.35m in 2013, this being the professional 5 yearly review. In 2016, now treated as an investment property under FRS102, it increased a further £1.35m to 11.7m where it stands now. However, the accounts to 30 June 2018, currently awaited, will show a further professional revaluation and it will be interesting to see how much the value has risen. I'd suppose it might be a fair bit, and is therefore causing RD to believe it is worth more than it really is and hang on for what he perceives is something close to this value.
So the 10 acres of the Valley were valued in June 2018 at £11.7m or £1.7m per acre
Are there similar figures for Sparrows lane?
Apologies, @Henry Irving , I've edited my post to make it clearer the value includes the land at both sites. There is no split of the respective values in the accounts, so it is impossible to discern the carrying value of each site.
Just for completeness, I've had a deeper look at the CAHL accounts. They confirm that the asset is the land upon which the stadium stands. Its total value in 2012 was 5.81m, revalued to 10.35m in 2013, this being the professional 5 yearly review. In 2016, now treated as an investment property under FRS102, it increased a further £1.35m to 11.7m where it stands now. However, the accounts to 30 June 2018, currently awaited, will show a further professional revaluation and it will be interesting to see how much the value has risen. I'd suppose it might be a fair bit, and is therefore causing RD to believe it is worth more than it really is and hang on for what he perceives is something close to this value.
So the 10 acres of the Valley were valued in June 2018 at £11.7m or £1.7m per acre
Are there similar figures for Sparrows lane?
Apologies, @Henry Irving , I've edited my post to make it clearer the value includes the land at both sites. There is no split of the respective values in the accounts, so it is impossible to discern the carrying value of each site.
To be clear, -£10m is a number I pulled out of the air for illustrative purposes.
The buildings, certainly those at The Valley, are the property of Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd, and stand at approx. £42m under the depreciated cost approach I bored you witless with a few posts ago. To recap, that isn't the cost, it's what the value would be if they were constructed now, but depreciation applied over the period of their existence (a real hybrid method that only accountants would devise).
Comments
His suggestion about the EFL shows he is seriously mad as well as deluded.
Splitting the assets from the club is what Glicksten did and look where that ended up.
It's the perfect solution for RD if he can get away with it. Turns a £12m+ per annum loss into a £5m (or whatever stadium rents are) a year revenue stream. Any buyer willing to agree to that is worse than RD.
RD's Talksport chat where he suggested he was selling the land separately is simply a smoke screen for saying he wants to offload the club to stop the haemorrhage of cash and hang on to the assets to give him rental income to repay his losses. Man speaks with forked tongue.
My home in Bromley nearly doubled In just over 3 years.
So there could be a case for saying the land value increased to say £30M.
However, £42M seems top heavy as there were not £12M worth of improvements.
I know I'm comparing property prices to The Valley & Sparrows Lane, but I'm using it as a guide.
If I'm honest I've always thought RD can make a reasonable case for asking £30M, but anything higher and he's pushing it.
https://www.foxtons.co.uk/living-in/charlton/
I'm busy tomorrow but they said they can meet you at the valley for 3pm
All he's doing is recognising the football club in isolation has no value, which begs the question why anyone would take it off his hands on that basis. A bit self-defeating that.
If it's true that he now only wants fair valuation of the land for a purchase price, surely all a buyer needs to do is get independent valuation and negotiate on that basis. It will be a lot less than Duchatelet has been asking, I'm quite sure.
But I don't imagine for a moment this incoherent lunatic would settle for that.
1. Land value is generally a lot more volatile than house / property value.
2. This area will have seen substantial rises in value due to a general gentrification, crossrail nearby etc
3. The value of the ground and training ground that a Valuer applies would depend on what basis you are asking them to value? As is..?. what comparables could they pin their values to of a London based football stadium/training ground changing hands as a going concern? There is no “rental yield” you could apply to it as there is no lease, as such any value is likely to be a highly speculative one based on potential alternative use. Essentially most of it will be based on hope value that you can change useage to something more valuable (like resi) but that is a seriously speculative value. Without planning permission in place purchasers would more than likely take an option subject to planning than write out a huge cheque to take a punt.
Its total value in 2012 was 5.81m, revalued to 10.35m in 2013, this being the professional 5 yearly review. In 2016, now treated as an investment property under FRS102, it increased a further £1.35m to 11.7m where it stands now. However, the accounts to 30 June 2018, currently awaited, will show a further professional revaluation and it will be interesting to see how much the value has risen. I'd suppose it might be a fair bit, and is therefore causing RD to believe it is worth more than it really is and hang on for what he perceives is something close to this value.
So the 10 acres of the Valley were valued in June 2018 at £11.7m or £1.7m per acre
Are there similar figures for Sparrows lane?
Apologies, @Henry Irving , I've edited my post to make it clearer the value includes the land at both sites. There is no split of the respective values in the accounts, so it is impossible to discern the carrying value of each site.
So £11.7m for the land at the Valley and Sparrows Lane less than a year ago.
I assume that there is value in the buildings too?
Also, If I understand you correctly the football club has a negative value of -£10m, presumably as it is loss making.
I would say that the golden share ie membership of the football league has some value although I'm not sure how that could be calculated.
I'm struggling to see how an offer of over £30m wouldn't have resulted in the bidders arm being ripped off by any sane seller.
The buildings, certainly those at The Valley, are the property of Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd, and stand at approx. £42m under the depreciated cost approach I bored you witless with a few posts ago. To recap, that isn't the cost, it's what the value would be if they were constructed now, but depreciation applied over the period of their existence (a real hybrid method that only accountants would devise).