Announced on April Fool's Day ... what does that say about the current state of our club ... that we can't tell the difference between fact and farce anymore?
There is a joke going on here, and whatever the answer, the joke is on all of the supporters!
Shame that the directors decided to buy bricks and mortar, would have served a number of uses if they had bought some of the players and then sold 'em on e-bay
[cite]Posted By: Kap10[/cite]Shame that the directors decided to buy bricks and mortar, would have served a number of uses if they had bought some of the players and then sold 'em on e-bay
I received the letter this morning and read it as nothing but positive action being taken in what we all know is a desperate situation. In an environment where there is no cash about and banks arent lending we have:-
1) Murray and Hatter providing cash in exchange for certain properties
2) Whitehand doing similar with £300k
3) Chappell adding another £500k not related to the property deals
4) The Directors opting not to receive the dividend on the recent bond investment.
And all we get is whinge, whinge and more whingeing.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]
And all we get is whinge, whinge and more whingeing.
I wouldn't say that. I think people are concerned because:
1. Most don't really understand
2. Are unsure of what implications, if any
3. Have any knowledge of what is being agreed is a fair deal for the club or not.
Bryan Matthew, who has done a few financial pieces for our Blog, has wrote the following:
I've had a chance to consider the proposal being made by the club and a few things occur to me on what is basically a 'Sale and Leaseback' deal. First of all, what are the Board proposing?
a) The Aries Sports Ground and the Community Trust all weather facility to be sold to Richard Murray and Sir Maurice Hatter for 1m;
b) The Youth Academy ground to be sold to Robert Whitehand for 300k;
c) The two residential sites in Lansdowne Mews to be sold to Whitehand for 200k
In return, Murray and Whitehand would lease the grounds back to the club with minimum terms of 25 years where the club would pay them a commercial rent.
Looking at the Accounts, it is not wholly clear what the value of these properties are- Shareholders have not been told but reading between the lines, I suspect the value to be around the £5m mark.
The club needs money that is clear- at face value the Directors would be doing quite well with this proposal -if my figures are correct (and the valuation may be way out) then for 1.5m they will be picking up something that is worth 5m. Look at it another way:
Assuming that the commercial rent is say 7%, then over the life of the lease the club would pay the Directors 2.6m in rent (annual rent would be 105k) as well as them having properties worth maybe 10m at that time, but nobody is buying at the moment and even the sale of the Ariel Sports Ground is subject to Crown approval.
However the club would gain by this deal if it goes through -it would raise 1.5m (equal to 5,000 season tickets) to presumbly invest in the team or keep us afloat (the club aren't saying what it would use the money for from what I have seen), what we would lose is ownership of valuable assets, we could not sell the property for a better price later although we do have the option to buy them back and we would end up paying rent for something that we current own- in short, it's a kind of Equity Release scheme, except we are selling to people we know and who we like to think we can trust. It would also mean that our only assets would be The Valley and the Players.
As I have said, with Hatter, Murray and Whitehand not able to vote on these proposals, the 'ordinary' shareholder comes into their own here. My view for what it is worth, is that shareholders need to be told:
a) what the valuation of the properties are
b) what the rent will be
to make a proper judgement but my feeling is that it is a decent deal in the current climate.
Thats a good post and does I think make things a little clearer for me certainly. I think our board are trustworthy and although mistakes have been made aplenty I don`t condemn them at all.
Whether it's a good deal or not - time will tell.
Whether it's a necessary deal or not - I'm guessing "yes".
Love the accurate analysis above - nice to know it's not all knee-jerk or self promotion on here.
For what it's worth, in a professional capacity - albeit somewhat squiffy - Bryan nails exactly what I'm thinking on this. Give me til the morning and I might think of more, but in the meantime that will do for me.
it seems the deal is necessary but I don't like it. We are watering down the Club's assets and in the long term that is surely a bad thing. Where does this stand as well with reagrd to the rumours of the Club using training facilities at Kings Hill. Is there anything in the agreement to stop RM,BW,MH from selling the properties on without the Club getting first refusal? At the end of the day though this looks like a necessary evil.
Hopefully im not being naive but surely RM as a true Charlton man wouldnt undo any more of the good work hes done over the years by putting the club in bad position.
Chappell added: "There are few purchasers for these types of properties in normal property markets, and this is especially so in this difficult market"
Uhmm, sounds like they looked for a purchaser but couldn't find one. Where would that have left us ?
LA, I read that as more a justification for the price rather than looking for an outside purchaser.
I have to say, that the way this came out could perhaps have been handled smarter, i.e. an earlier statement on the OS. I do think though, whilst understanding the concerns, this is the least worst option, if no other investers were available. Because much of the money to purchase the assets appears tied up in pension or other trust arrangements, this may have been the only way that the Directors could get money into the club.
Cautiously I welcome it but I have posted elsewhere that perhaps, isn't the time for a new VIP scheme, so that fans can assist the club in re-building itself. The previous VIP scheme straddled a recession yet raised over £1M. Coincidentally a simliar amount as being raised by this sale of assets.
whats wrong with the Director's lending the money at 0% interest (money which i thought we were told they no longer had!) with the assets as guarantee if the club cant pay it back?
Dont trust them. Poor businessmen making more poor decisions.
[cite]Posted By: kentred2[/cite]whats wrong with the Director's lending the money at 0% interest (money which i thought we were told they no longer had!) with the assets as guarantee if the club cant pay it back?
Dont trust them. Poor businessmen making more poor decisions.
Because as it says this money has come out of trust funds to shore up our club and you cannot legally take that money out and lend it to someone at 0% interest, you have to have a tangible asset to replace it. I cannot believe how many negative posts about this. The club have an income shortfall and the four main directors have yet again filled that void in the best way they can despite lending the club £15m last year and receiving no interest at all. It is interesting to me that there is no viable alternative suggested.
[cite]Posted By: kentred2[/cite]whats wrong with the Director's lending the money at 0% interest (money which i thought we were told they no longer had!) with the assets as guarantee if the club cant pay it back?
Dont trust them. Poor businessmen making more poor decisions.
Because as it says this money has come out of trust funds to shore up our club and you cannot legally take that money out and lend it to someone at 0% interest, you have to have a tangible asset to replace it. I cannot believe how many negative posts about this. The club have an income shortfall and the four main directors have yet again filled that void in the best way they can despite lending the club £15m last year and receiving no interest at all. It is interesting to me that there is no viable alternative suggested.
My view.
And I dont see how deferring to take the interest on the Bonds can in any shape or form be considered asset stripping.
The letter says in regard to the asset sales that 'having taken appropriate independent advice as to the value of these assets'.
Its absolutely right that we should keep an open mind and treat these matters with concern but imho the knee jerk reaction on here was too negative.
cynical view - the club sell their assets to the directors for a knock down price and a market rent (could well be a 10% gross yield in this market so could be as much as £150K on a £1.5M val). The club then use the £1.5M to repay some of the Directors debt in the company!
I know, highly unlikely but I do think that an answer to 'where will the funds be used' is important before any vote to ensure this does not happen.
As for comments above that it is not a good time to sell or to buy...i would argue that it is always a good time for either if the price is in your favour but until an independent valuer advised of what the valuations were then this can't be answered. I assume an independent valuer would be hired as otherwise the club could be construed as selling the assets at 'undervalue' meaning they could I beleive be clawed back in future if the company went bust.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]Being an old cynic isn't now a good time to put some spare dosh into your pension fund just before the year end?
With tax relief added to your donation to your fund, wouldn't you only have to put in 75% of that yourself? - the rest coming from that nice Mr Brown.
If so not a bad deal for the Directors either.
Interesting to see that Chappell's was a straight 500k loan.
But aren't they taking money out of the pension/trust fund and swapping that for bits of land?
[cite]Posted By: valleyman[/cite]cynical view - the club sell their assets to the directors for a knock down price and a market rent (could well be a 10% gross yield in this market so could be as much as £150K on a £1.5M val). The club then use the £1.5M to repay some of the Directors debt in the company!
I know, highly unlikely but I do think that an answer to 'where will the funds be used' is important before any vote to ensure this does not happen.
As for comments above that it is not a good time to sell or to buy...i would argue that it is always a good time for either if the price is in your favour but until an independent valuer advised of what the valuations were then this can't be answered. I assume an independent valuer would be hired as otherwise the club could be construed as selling the assets at 'undervalue' meaning they could I beleive be clawed back in future if the company went bust.
I assume shareholders will be able to ask those questions at the General meeting on 15 April.
The letter says that the other board members, ie those not buying, have taken "appropriate independent advice as to the value of these assets" and that they feel the sales "represents good value for the Company".
No numbers but again that might become apparent at the General Meeting or even at the Fans' Forum meeting tonight.
If only they were contactable I could ask them to raise this ; - )
[cite]Posted By: FTP[/cite]It reminds me of a certain Mr Glikstein buying the Valley from the club. A bad route to go down. Has this club not learnt from history?
As for the comment about paying off Parky, no need, his contract expires end of season
his contact expires at the end of NEXT season, he was appointed Manager until the end of this season. If relieved of managerial duties he still has a year to run on his contract.
I have little if any financial accumen so this is just a Charlton supporters "gut feeling". Seems to me that once again the directors have looked at how best to make good the clubs monetary shortfall and come up with a creative way of getting money into the football clubs coffers with minimum damage. I trust them and and applaud them once again for putting their hands in their pockets for Charlton. Too many negatives been written I think.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I have little if any financial accumen so this is just a Charlton supporters "gut feeling". Seems to me that once again the directors have looked at how best to make good the clubs monetary shortfall and come up with a creative way of getting money into the football clubs coffers with minimum damage. I trust them and and applaud them once again for putting their hands in their pockets for Charlton. Too many negatives been written I think.
I agree with you SHG but I'm still concerned about the long term future without either a buy-out/major investment or a dramatic upturn on the playing side that takes us back to the Prem.
Agree Henry that this weakens Charlton as a business because we have lost essential assets but we have to generate money from somewhere and it just strikes me that this does minimal damage. Worrying times though no doubt.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Agree Henry that this weakens Charlton as a business because we have lost essential assets but we have to generate money from somewhere and it just strikes me that this does minimal damage. Worrying times though no doubt.
Wouldn't say that we have quite lost them as they are still in "Charlton" hands - and it's hard to misplace a 27 acre training ground : - ) - but I know what you mean. It diminishes the Club slightly but it does bring in much need cash.
Let's hope it's a temporary "bridging loan" and we can move forward sooner rather than later.
BTW I blame the Fans' Forum. All gone downhill since they started up. What have they ever done? : - )
I think this is more of a defensive measure, i.e. if we are forced into administration these assets will not just be sold off to the highest bidder but remain within the fold although under the ownership of directors rather than the club itself. I'm no exper tho.
Comments
There is a joke going on here, and whatever the answer, the joke is on all of the supporters!
They tried ..... but there were no bids.
I received the letter this morning and read it as nothing but positive action being taken in what we all know is a desperate situation. In an environment where there is no cash about and banks arent lending we have:-
1) Murray and Hatter providing cash in exchange for certain properties
2) Whitehand doing similar with £300k
3) Chappell adding another £500k not related to the property deals
4) The Directors opting not to receive the dividend on the recent bond investment.
And all we get is whinge, whinge and more whingeing.
I wouldn't say that. I think people are concerned because:
1. Most don't really understand
2. Are unsure of what implications, if any
3. Have any knowledge of what is being agreed is a fair deal for the club or not.
We need more expert opinion to be honest.
oh fuck!
I've had a chance to consider the proposal being made by the club and a few things occur to me on what is basically a 'Sale and Leaseback' deal. First of all, what are the Board proposing?
a) The Aries Sports Ground and the Community Trust all weather facility to be sold to Richard Murray and Sir Maurice Hatter for 1m;
b) The Youth Academy ground to be sold to Robert Whitehand for 300k;
c) The two residential sites in Lansdowne Mews to be sold to Whitehand for 200k
In return, Murray and Whitehand would lease the grounds back to the club with minimum terms of 25 years where the club would pay them a commercial rent.
Looking at the Accounts, it is not wholly clear what the value of these properties are- Shareholders have not been told but reading between the lines, I suspect the value to be around the £5m mark.
The club needs money that is clear- at face value the Directors would be doing quite well with this proposal -if my figures are correct (and the valuation may be way out) then for 1.5m they will be picking up something that is worth 5m. Look at it another way:
Assuming that the commercial rent is say 7%, then over the life of the lease the club would pay the Directors 2.6m in rent (annual rent would be 105k) as well as them having properties worth maybe 10m at that time, but nobody is buying at the moment and even the sale of the Ariel Sports Ground is subject to Crown approval.
However the club would gain by this deal if it goes through -it would raise 1.5m (equal to 5,000 season tickets) to presumbly invest in the team or keep us afloat (the club aren't saying what it would use the money for from what I have seen), what we would lose is ownership of valuable assets, we could not sell the property for a better price later although we do have the option to buy them back and we would end up paying rent for something that we current own- in short, it's a kind of Equity Release scheme, except we are selling to people we know and who we like to think we can trust. It would also mean that our only assets would be The Valley and the Players.
As I have said, with Hatter, Murray and Whitehand not able to vote on these proposals, the 'ordinary' shareholder comes into their own here. My view for what it is worth, is that shareholders need to be told:
a) what the valuation of the properties are
b) what the rent will be
to make a proper judgement but my feeling is that it is a decent deal in the current climate.
Whether it's a necessary deal or not - I'm guessing "yes".
Love the accurate analysis above - nice to know it's not all knee-jerk or self promotion on here.
For what it's worth, in a professional capacity - albeit somewhat squiffy - Bryan nails exactly what I'm thinking on this. Give me til the morning and I might think of more, but in the meantime that will do for me.
Uhmm, sounds like they looked for a purchaser but couldn't find one. Where would that have left us ?
I have to say, that the way this came out could perhaps have been handled smarter, i.e. an earlier statement on the OS. I do think though, whilst understanding the concerns, this is the least worst option, if no other investers were available. Because much of the money to purchase the assets appears tied up in pension or other trust arrangements, this may have been the only way that the Directors could get money into the club.
Cautiously I welcome it but I have posted elsewhere that perhaps, isn't the time for a new VIP scheme, so that fans can assist the club in re-building itself. The previous VIP scheme straddled a recession yet raised over £1M. Coincidentally a simliar amount as being raised by this sale of assets.
Dont trust them. Poor businessmen making more poor decisions.
Because as it says this money has come out of trust funds to shore up our club and you cannot legally take that money out and lend it to someone at 0% interest, you have to have a tangible asset to replace it. I cannot believe how many negative posts about this. The club have an income shortfall and the four main directors have yet again filled that void in the best way they can despite lending the club £15m last year and receiving no interest at all. It is interesting to me that there is no viable alternative suggested.
Got my letter yesterday afternoon, and, read all the above.
Still not sure if its a
;-) or a ;-(
but a : - ) that the directors are willing to put money in either as loans (Chappell) or by buying and leasing back assets (Murray/Hatter/Whitehand)
Also, as Brunello says, a : - ) that the directors mentioned and David Summers have deferred the interest payment.
This all raises money for the new season ahaead.
What happens the season after ?
What else do we have left to sell or re mortgage?
My view.
And I dont see how deferring to take the interest on the Bonds can in any shape or form be considered asset stripping.
The letter says in regard to the asset sales that 'having taken appropriate independent advice as to the value of these assets'.
Its absolutely right that we should keep an open mind and treat these matters with concern but imho the knee jerk reaction on here was too negative.
I know, highly unlikely but I do think that an answer to 'where will the funds be used' is important before any vote to ensure this does not happen.
As for comments above that it is not a good time to sell or to buy...i would argue that it is always a good time for either if the price is in your favour but until an independent valuer advised of what the valuations were then this can't be answered. I assume an independent valuer would be hired as otherwise the club could be construed as selling the assets at 'undervalue' meaning they could I beleive be clawed back in future if the company went bust.
With tax relief added to your donation to your fund, wouldn't you only have to put in 75% of that yourself? - the rest coming from that nice Mr Brown.
If so not a bad deal for the Directors either.
Interesting to see that Chappell's was a straight 500k loan.
But aren't they taking money out of the pension/trust fund and swapping that for bits of land?
I assume shareholders will be able to ask those questions at the General meeting on 15 April.
The letter says that the other board members, ie those not buying, have taken "appropriate independent advice as to the value of these assets" and that they feel the sales "represents good value for the Company".
No numbers but again that might become apparent at the General Meeting or even at the Fans' Forum meeting tonight.
If only they were contactable I could ask them to raise this ; - )
his contact expires at the end of NEXT season, he was appointed Manager until the end of this season. If relieved of managerial duties he still has a year to run on his contract.
Not sure if this has been put up yet.
I agree with you SHG but I'm still concerned about the long term future without either a buy-out/major investment or a dramatic upturn on the playing side that takes us back to the Prem.
Wouldn't say that we have quite lost them as they are still in "Charlton" hands - and it's hard to misplace a 27 acre training ground : - ) - but I know what you mean. It diminishes the Club slightly but it does bring in much need cash.
Let's hope it's a temporary "bridging loan" and we can move forward sooner rather than later.
BTW I blame the Fans' Forum. All gone downhill since they started up. What have they ever done? : - )