[cite]Posted By: March51[/cite]Yes, it reads:' Charlton Athletic has retained the right to repurchase these freehold properties under certain circumstances on defined terms'.
Sorry, that will teach me to skim read. Which para is that March51?
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I presume I am right in thinking that it makes the football club more vunerable on the basis that if the new owner of the training ground goes bust and has to sell the club could find themselves with a landlord with no affinity for Charlton. Surely thats a wory.
Possibly but having had the above pointed out it would seem that there is an agreed fee to buy back.
Richard Murray and Sir Maurice have bought them with their family pension fund and a trust fund so less likely to go bust IMHO but there remain a number of questions to be answered.
It is all just horribly worrying. I trust the current directors to be acting in the best interests of the Club right now, but it could be storing up trouble for the future. But needs must, I guess....
[cite]Posted By: Weegie Addick[/cite]It is all just horribly worrying. I trust the current directors to be acting in the best interests of the Club right now, but it could be storing up trouble for the future. But needs must, I guess....
Raising money for working capital....Well if that means paying over paid players wages, then NO. The training ground is something that the club has, uses and needs. By selling it off, even within the club means its something we lose. I want the club to be strong, but to sell off its training ground is a big no no!
I sincerely hope you're right SHG. But after many years of unwavering devotion and support I am now really starting to question in my own mind as to whether they haven't been the main problem throughout all of this and I don't like it.
If not "the problem" - which is probably still unfair - then they don't really appear to have done a lot right these past few years to those on the outside looking in.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]On the two houses £100k each for a small house in Charlton seems cheap but not in a great location and at least one of them is used for storing Stewards equipment.
Haven't seen the letter yet but this struck me as cheap too. I'd give you £100k for one of 'em.
when they sell the club for a pittance, they the directors will keep one of the assets, but will no longer be Directors? will the Valley be next? Perhaps it makes sense though.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]On the two houses £100k each for a small house in Charlton seems cheap but not in a great location and at least one of them is used for storing Stewards equipment.
Haven't seen the letter yet but this struck me as cheap too. I'd give you £100k for one of 'em.
Always a worry when `market prices' are mentioned and whether preferential rates are being applied - both to selling price and lease back price. As others have said I have always pretty much trusted the judgment of the Board but given some of the decision making that has gone badly awry over the last few years and the arrival of the `new boys' that some within our ranks clearly mistrust I'm not to sure myself any more! I haven't seen the letter yet but I may have one on my doorstep when I get home!
I knew the guy who sold one of the houses - the one the stewards use on matchdays in Lansdowne Mews - and fairly sure he sold it to the club for around £80K - would have been around 10 years ago I think?
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Explain a bit more Len. Not at all knowledgable about company law.
Not Company Law but tax.
Essentially Capital gains tax is payable on profits made when capital assets such as land, property, shares etc are disposed of.
It looks like there might be a £20k gain on one of the houses for example if Sporaddick's mate is right. It is possible (in the same financial year) to offset losses in one company against profits in another company within the group. This is known as group relief.
If group relief is not used then not only does the Club lose it's assets but it cops a capital gains tax bill too for the privilege!
Share the concern expressed by others. We're potentially on a slippery slope here .
Another bad year next season in div three and who knows where we will be and what will be left of the club's assets?
Go back to the reports from the AGM a fedw months ago. There was a tendency to say ''oh it's all under control, the estimated operating deficit next year is only £1.5m.'' But that was if we stayed in the championship. Look at the next sentence and you will see that if relegated the estimated operating defcit for next year rises to £4.5m. Is that wearable? Apparently not without selling off the crown jewels.
Apart from the name change bit, I rather wish AFKA's April fool had been true. I think cash is needed to save our club and I'm almost past caring where it comes from. It's getng that desperate.
Just a small point Len, but Companies don't actually pay Capital Gains Tax. They pay Corporation Tax on the chargeable gain arising from the sale of business assets. OK, I've got my coat & I'm leaving now.
[cite]Posted By: Red_Pete[/cite]Just a small point Len, but Companies don't actually pay Capital Gains Tax. They pay Corporation Tax on the chargeable gain arising from the sale of business assets. OK, I've got my coat & I'm leaving now.
True.
However the point still stands that tax is potentially payable on the chargeable gain unless there are either other capital losses to offset or they group relieve it. That really is what I was trying to say.
The principle of capital gains tax that I described is how the corporation tax chargeable gain is worked out. I could also have mentioned indexation relief which could reduce the gain depending on when the asset was purchased and or improved. However I felt that for a simple explanation of a principle all that would do is complicate.
Nevertheless you are correct and I was wrong.
It will teach me to try to offer an easily understood explanation in a few lines in the future.
Comments
Sorry, that will teach me to skim read. Which para is that March51?
Possibly but having had the above pointed out it would seem that there is an agreed fee to buy back.
Richard Murray and Sir Maurice have bought them with their family pension fund and a trust fund so less likely to go bust IMHO but there remain a number of questions to be answered.
No attempt to big up the thread there then : - (
That's how I see it.
Cheers.
By selling it off, even within the club means its something we lose.
I want the club to be strong, but to sell off its training ground is a big no no!
This all sounds like history repeating itself.
If not "the problem" - which is probably still unfair - then they don't really appear to have done a lot right these past few years to those on the outside looking in.
What a mess.
Haven't seen the letter yet but this struck me as cheap too. I'd give you £100k for one of 'em.
Always a worry when `market prices' are mentioned and whether preferential rates are being applied - both to selling price and lease back price. As others have said I have always pretty much trusted the judgment of the Board but given some of the decision making that has gone badly awry over the last few years and the arrival of the `new boys' that some within our ranks clearly mistrust I'm not to sure myself any more! I haven't seen the letter yet but I may have one on my doorstep when I get home!
I knew the guy who sold one of the houses - the one the stewards use on matchdays in Lansdowne Mews - and fairly sure he sold it to the club for around £80K - would have been around 10 years ago I think?
Sale and leaseback can only be done once and if it is insufficient what then?
A very worrying development in my view.
I assume that they plan to avoid capital gains tax on the disposal by group relieving the football trading company's losses.
The Valley will be next and then we will be not so very different from Crystal Palace.
I'd almost rather AFKA's April fool joke be true than this:-(
Not Company Law but tax.
Essentially Capital gains tax is payable on profits made when capital assets such as land, property, shares etc are disposed of.
It looks like there might be a £20k gain on one of the houses for example if Sporaddick's mate is right. It is possible (in the same financial year) to offset losses in one company against profits in another company within the group. This is known as group relief.
If group relief is not used then not only does the Club lose it's assets but it cops a capital gains tax bill too for the privilege!
I'm no expert, lol .... but it does appear that there's a certain element of moving assets around internally to keep finances balanced.
Another bad year next season in div three and who knows where we will be and what will be left of the club's assets?
Go back to the reports from the AGM a fedw months ago. There was a tendency to say ''oh it's all under control, the estimated operating deficit next year is only £1.5m.'' But that was if we stayed in the championship. Look at the next sentence and you will see that if relegated the estimated operating defcit for next year rises to £4.5m. Is that wearable? Apparently not without selling off the crown jewels.
Apart from the name change bit, I rather wish AFKA's April fool had been true. I think cash is needed to save our club and I'm almost past caring where it comes from. It's getng that desperate.
Maybe we are in for an eventful summer and coming changes will prove beneficial.
We just need to be patient.
;o)
True.
However the point still stands that tax is potentially payable on the chargeable gain unless there are either other capital losses to offset or they group relieve it. That really is what I was trying to say.
The principle of capital gains tax that I described is how the corporation tax chargeable gain is worked out. I could also have mentioned indexation relief which could reduce the gain depending on when the asset was purchased and or improved. However I felt that for a simple explanation of a principle all that would do is complicate.
Nevertheless you are correct and I was wrong.
It will teach me to try to offer an easily understood explanation in a few lines in the future.