[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]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.
But
1. We're not going into administration. We've just raised £2m in spending money.
2. If we were going into Administration selling the assets now that would not, if my understanding is correct, protect them because of the two year ruling mentioned higher up.
Would be interesting to hear the sums regarding the working capital.
I think I would really like to know how the sums stack up if we remain a League 1 club for a few years, which to be honest is my realistic view. Whats going to be the anticipated difference between Revenue and Costs. They must have a clear idea of the Squad payroll intended for League 1 next season but obviously wont know for some time the likely season ticket revenue.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]Think I might try and get to the meeting.
Would be interesting to hear the sums regarding the working capital.
I think I would really like to know how the sums stack up if we remain a League 1 club for a few years, which to be honest is my realistic view. Whats going to be the anticipated difference between Revenue and Costs. They must have a clear idea of the Squad payroll intended for League 1 next season but obviously wont know for some time the likely season ticket revenue.
[cite]Posted By: floydandharvey[/cite]Hmmm, this maybe ties in with what I was told a couple of days ago by a very reliable source: "A current junior director of Charlton is in the process of putting together the finance to buy out the club." Can't understand why anyone would want Third Division Charlton (although presumably we would be much cheaper than previously) but my source is adamant that the unnamed board member is a fair way down the line with this process. Sounds like the board (already seemingly far more split than they have been in decades) might be about to start scrapping amongst themselves over the corpse of the club.
[cite]Posted By: floydandharvey[/cite]Hmmm, this maybe ties in with what I was told a couple of days ago by a very reliable source: "A current junior director of Charlton is in the process of putting together the finance to buy out the club." Can't understand why anyone would want Third Division Charlton (although presumably we would be much cheaper than previously) but my source is adamant that the unnamed board member is a fair way down the line with this process. Sounds like the board (already seemingly far more split than they have been in decades) might be about to start scrapping amongst themselves over the corpse of the club.
I have to admit that I've heard that rumour too, and from the evidence that the "source" has revealed it would be good if it is true. But then again, any new money coming into the club would be good.
My further thoughts / concerns after 24 hours are as follows:
1) In theory, given that the directors are "connected persons" to the company, the transaction will have to take place at a commercial valuation to be allowable for taxation purposes.
However in the present climate the valuation of any land or property is problematic which in reality means that the directors can name their own price provided that an independent valuer can come up with a credible case to justify it to HM Revenue and Customs if asked.
Nevertheless (and this is simplistic before the points scorers come out of the woodwork to pick up on semantics) the estate agent in Charlton Church Lane was advertising one bedroomed converted flats for £180k a few weeks back. How then are HOUSES (with presumably two bedrooms minimum) only worth £100k? There maybe maintenance and repairs needed to those houses but £80k worth?
Given the above simplistic example how can we be sure that the land has not been similarly discounted in value? Bryan
A sale and leaseback can only be done once as I said higher up the thread. It is therefore essential to get as much as possible if it is going to be done. Bryan Matthew in his excellent analysis mentions a valuation of £5million. Rather more than £1.5 million even in the present climate.
2) Derek Chappell talks about the directors deferring interest. Defer means postpone not waive or cancel. That interest is therefore rolling up and will have to be paid out of any monies received if the Club or part thereof is sold in the future.
I suspect the agreed rate on the loans, bonds or whatever they are (I do not have access to the accounts points scorers!) is higher than can presently be obtained on the open market. Hence the willingness to roll up interest and leave the money in the Club.
3) Some other posters, Bing in particular, have suggested an updated Valley Investment Plan VIP.
I wonder whether the reason this has not been considered is because of potential complications in unravelling everything should a prospective purchaser emerge for the whole shebang.
5,000 fans stumping up £1,000 each or 10,000 £500 each would raise £5 million the market valuation tentatively suggested by Bryan Matthew. 1,500 fans stumping up £1,000 each would raise the £1.5 million on offer and furthermore would not necessarily put the Club under more financial pressure by charging a commercial rent since there would be no profit motive just a cost covering one.
I am not au fait with the Governing Instrument of the Community Trust before the points scorers start but, if the monies were forthcoming from fans, perhaps the Community Trust could takeover the training ground and properties up for sale. If that is unconstitutional for the Community Trust maybe a new Supporters Trust could be formed to purchase and thereby safeguard the assets of the Club.
Anyway just a few general thoughts. Apologies for the length of the post.
I've read the letter received yesterday now and have a few points.
With the meeting being on a Wednesday it is unlikely I will be able to attend - so to vote it will probably have to be by proxy. I don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision on the proposals.
For example, as you mentioned, the buildings and land in Lansdowne Mews are to be sold for £200K. Approval on pricing has been given by independent directors taking advice. Am I just to accept that? The freehold of the properties can be repurchased under certain circumstances and defined terms. What are these circumstances and terms?
The commercial - normal market rates - have been approved by the other directors but are these relevant to the current market? What are the rates as this will be an expense to the club that it didn't have before?
The assets are being sold `in house' to CAFC supporters and shareholders but will this always be the case in say 5, 10, 25 years time? Are we just to accept that the assets will remain in the hands of fans irrespective of unexpected events or deaths?
I accept that these are questions that may be asked and possibly answered at the meeting but for those who can't attend how do we know the answers?
Love the analysis towards the end of this thread - particular mention to Len who, in my view, has really done a good job.
One point though, inthis particular instance people should not get concern and caution confused with negativity.
My take on this thread is that, generally, people are rightly worried about the underlying message that is coming out, but most of us realise that this is probably the best of a bad lot.
Doesn't mean I'm happy mind you - but then when am I?
Some very interesting and insightful observations, here - not least from Len in his last post.
The honest truth is we don't know at this stage exactly what it means or all of the motives behind it. I don't think it is asset stripping (although I doubt it's totally an act of altruism, either). It could be rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic - or it could be a clever and sensible way to keep our heads above water as we enter a new tax year in which we are projected to make a £4.5m operating deficit.
At best though, it's a piece of sticking plaster for the one thing we do know is that Henry is surely right when he says:
''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.''
The problem is that it probaly isn't an either/or. The second half of Henry's equation is almost certainly contingent on the first half. In other words, Charlton will only prosper and thrive again as a club when it's owned by diferent people than those who currently have the majorioty share-holding.
Whch brings me to my final point which is a piece of 'blue sky thinking' . We're all so terrified of administration - because we equate the word with meaning the death of Charlton. But it might not necessarily be the worst thing that could happen. My brother-in-law, who owns an interior design company in Paris, is going into the French equivalent of administration and it's all structured so that he won't lose a franc. All his assets are in his name and his wife's name, not the company. It's actually going to liberate him.
These lawyers and accountants are clever chaps and if if it could be arranged in a way that didn't directly affect the running of the club, like Southampton, who knows? Different set up on the South Coast, I know, but a lot of people seem to be saying what has just happened there will actually benefit the football club in the long run.
I think Charlton are about to enter uncharted waters and we shouldn't really rule anything out. Apart, perhaps, from a takeover by Glasgow Rangers!
We are being asked to trust the directors but in todays climate, trust is a somewhat tarnished commodity and consequently the news is bound to further un-settle people. I suddenly feel very weary, all I really want is to watch my club play some decent wholehearted football with a different manager. Instead, we have this news, fears of asset stripping are inevitable. I would have expected any business to expand upon its proposals. Instead, no explanations are given, no overall feel of direction, no sense of positive change yet fans are urged to renew their season tickets. It's not very inspiring is it?
the "two" properties in Landsdowne Mews are in fact 1 house and a plot of land where a house once existed. Next home match take a walk round and have a look and see how much you'd have paid for it. In the current market on paper and not know what the houses are like, it sounds like a bargain, but seriously, its a dump. (and thats just from the outside)
i also think its worth noting that although i don't know a lot about the Gliksten days, that was just a couple of owners in one family that inherited the club rather than loved it like the current board do (I am happy to be corrected). This deal has had to meet the approval of independent directors on the board, plus the other directors that make up the board, who all love charlton and have put money in in the past, and I don't think they'd allow the club to be stitched up as some are suggesting.
Just out of interest the Aries Sports Ground off Sparrows Lane was acquired for £500,000 by Roger Alwen and Michael Norris in February 1987. The ground was totally refurbished and officially opened on 4 October 1987 by Minister of Sport Colin Moynihan.
Thanks to Richard Redden via his book The History of Charlton Athletic Valley of Tears Valley of Joy for the above.
According to the Mirror, you can add Nick Bailey to the mix. Apparently Birmingham are favourites to land him in a £1,3 million deal.
Shame as he is one of the few players that has impressed with his work rate and attitude and probably one of the highest scoring midfielders in the Championship.
Assuming Birmingham are promoted, I see the premiership as a bit above his current level, but sure he would relish the opportunity.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]the "two" properties in Landsdowne Mews are in fact 1 house and a plot of land where a house once existed. Next home match take a walk round and have a look and see how much you'd have paid for it. In the current market on paper and not know what the houses are like, it sounds like a bargain, but seriously, its a dump. (and thats just from the outside)
i also think its worth noting that although i don't know a lot about the Gliksten days, that was just a couple of owners in one family that inherited the club rather than loved it like the current board do (I am happy to be corrected). This deal has had to meet the approval of independent directors on the board, plus the other directors that make up the board, who all love charlton and have put money in in the past, and I don't think they'd allow the club to be stitched up as some are suggesting.
Thanks Suzi,
If it is one house, and as you say it is a bit of a dump if it is the one the stewards use, then that makes sense. £200k for one house in Charlton seems about right to me considering it is next to an industrial estate and a football ground.
Shows how easy it is for us to leap to the wrong conclusion, me included, when not having all the information.
[cite]Posted By: c4fcdenmark[/cite]According to the Mirror, you can add Nick Bailey to the mix. Apparently Birmingham are favourites to land him in a £1,3 million deal.
Shame as he is one of the few players that has impressed with his work rate and attitude and probably one of the highest scoring midfielders in the Championship.
Assuming Birmingham are promoted, I see the premiership as a bit above his current level, but sure he would relish the opportunity.
Then again, it was the Mirror...
Papertalk as you say but I would be surprised if no one was interested. Still that's a 900k profit minus any sell on fees to Southend in less than 12 months.
it is however sold as 2 houses because of the address I believe and we own both of them, but one isn't there.... bit complicated for my tiny mind but thats as I understand it.
This is one of the most major off-field developments there has been for a long-time, and to say that the release, the way it was released and information given were botched, is a bit of an understatement.
I've no doubts on the reasons why this is being done, and the need to do it, but i don't think so far it has been handled very well.
Papertalk as you say but I would be surprised if no one was interested. Still that's a 900k profit minus any sell on fees to Southend in less than 12 months.
"higher, higher"
A rare bit of 'good business' by the club in last two or three years. Shame that £900,000 has little chance of going anywhere other than a black hole. If there is interest, we should do all to encourage a bidding war for the highest possible bid, its not like we dont need the money.
However, I would rather see him as our club captain and setting league one on fire. He has the qualities to be a real force in league one.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Shows how easy it is for us to leap to the wrong conclusion, me included, when not having all the information.
Yes, count me in on that note of contrition too. But AFKA's also right, the communication has not helped this news to be received in the positive light that it probably deserves.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]I can understand people's initial scepticism.
This is one of the most major off-field developments there has been for a long-time, and to say that the release, the way it was released and information given were botched, is a bit of an understatement.
I've no doubts on the reasons why this is being done, and the need to do it, but i don't think so far it has been handled very well.
I can see what you mean but at the same time it has to be done in a legal, AGM way to inform shareholders and stick to the rules.
It did leave it open to speculation about the "real" value but the letter does say that independent valuations were sought.
The leap to "asset striping" was huge but taken very quickly and by some people who hadn't even read the letter.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]it is however sold as 2 houses because of the address I believe and we own both of them, but one isn't there.... bit complicated for my tiny mind but thats as I understand it.
Well it confused me as I was trying to picture in my minds eye where the other house was as I walk past the 1 house every match.
I heard it would have been worth £300k until they found out the type of people who live nearby and overlook the house.
The Landsdowne Mews properties/plots will be listed as two seperare entries in the land registry, which explains why they have to be shown as two seperate transactions, and not as one house with an adjoining vacant plot of land, even though they share the same owner and the same buyer.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Shows how easy it is for us to leap to the wrong conclusion, me included, when not having all the information.
Yes, count me in on that note of contrition too. But AFKA's also right, the communication has not helped this news to be received in the positive light that it probably deserves.
I agree but I think that there is a degree of cynicism that means any news will be spun by some into a negative.
Perhaps that cynicism is only to be expected given what we have been through recently but while it is good to be critical that should be balanced with some praise when due and at least an attempt to understand the reasoning behind an action before leaping to a conclusion.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]I can understand people's initial scepticism.
This is one of the most major off-field developments there has been for a long-time, and to say that the release, the way it was released and information given were botched, is a bit of an understatement.
I've no doubts on the reasons why this is being done, and the need to do it, but i don't think so far it has been handled very well.
I couldn't agree more AFKA - there seems to be an inclination for some to jump to the Board's defence whenever criticism is perceived to be happening.
I don't think anyone could criticise the Board for the funds they have contributed to the club over the years - other than we wish they had even more money to pump in but don't we all!
My problem is the lack of detailed information given to shareholders and the feeling that trust in the Board can be taken for granted without it. As somebody says on another thread they are the majority shareholders so it's basically their property that they are selling to themselves but that totally ignores the rights of other shareholders large or small and I feel they are entitled to have the whole picture!
Ive briefly updated the Fans Forum meeting thread if anybody is interested, we will follow up with full minutes when they have been compiled. PR was discussed last night as well....
Comments
But
1. We're not going into administration. We've just raised £2m in spending money.
2. If we were going into Administration selling the assets now that would not, if my understanding is correct, protect them because of the two year ruling mentioned higher up.
Would be interesting to hear the sums regarding the working capital.
I think I would really like to know how the sums stack up if we remain a League 1 club for a few years, which to be honest is my realistic view. Whats going to be the anticipated difference between Revenue and Costs. They must have a clear idea of the Squad payroll intended for League 1 next season but obviously wont know for some time the likely season ticket revenue.
see you there then.
Its true then??
What about sheerer and new carstle!??! was that a lie or truth!! I just dont know who to trust anymore!!
Hate april fool day!!
Wow!
Reliable source?
Junior director?
Buy out?
Scrapping?
Corpse?
1) In theory, given that the directors are "connected persons" to the company, the transaction will have to take place at a commercial valuation to be allowable for taxation purposes.
However in the present climate the valuation of any land or property is problematic which in reality means that the directors can name their own price provided that an independent valuer can come up with a credible case to justify it to HM Revenue and Customs if asked.
Nevertheless (and this is simplistic before the points scorers come out of the woodwork to pick up on semantics) the estate agent in Charlton Church Lane was advertising one bedroomed converted flats for £180k a few weeks back. How then are HOUSES (with presumably two bedrooms minimum) only worth £100k? There maybe maintenance and repairs needed to those houses but £80k worth?
Given the above simplistic example how can we be sure that the land has not been similarly discounted in value? Bryan
A sale and leaseback can only be done once as I said higher up the thread. It is therefore essential to get as much as possible if it is going to be done. Bryan Matthew in his excellent analysis mentions a valuation of £5million. Rather more than £1.5 million even in the present climate.
2) Derek Chappell talks about the directors deferring interest. Defer means postpone not waive or cancel. That interest is therefore rolling up and will have to be paid out of any monies received if the Club or part thereof is sold in the future.
I suspect the agreed rate on the loans, bonds or whatever they are (I do not have access to the accounts points scorers!) is higher than can presently be obtained on the open market. Hence the willingness to roll up interest and leave the money in the Club.
3) Some other posters, Bing in particular, have suggested an updated Valley Investment Plan VIP.
I wonder whether the reason this has not been considered is because of potential complications in unravelling everything should a prospective purchaser emerge for the whole shebang.
5,000 fans stumping up £1,000 each or 10,000 £500 each would raise £5 million the market valuation tentatively suggested by Bryan Matthew. 1,500 fans stumping up £1,000 each would raise the £1.5 million on offer and furthermore would not necessarily put the Club under more financial pressure by charging a commercial rent since there would be no profit motive just a cost covering one.
I am not au fait with the Governing Instrument of the Community Trust before the points scorers start but, if the monies were forthcoming from fans, perhaps the Community Trust could takeover the training ground and properties up for sale. If that is unconstitutional for the Community Trust maybe a new Supporters Trust could be formed to purchase and thereby safeguard the assets of the Club.
Anyway just a few general thoughts. Apologies for the length of the post.
I've read the letter received yesterday now and have a few points.
With the meeting being on a Wednesday it is unlikely I will be able to attend - so to vote it will probably have to be by proxy. I don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision on the proposals.
For example, as you mentioned, the buildings and land in Lansdowne Mews are to be sold for £200K. Approval on pricing has been given by independent directors taking advice. Am I just to accept that? The freehold of the properties can be repurchased under certain circumstances and defined terms. What are these circumstances and terms?
The commercial - normal market rates - have been approved by the other directors but are these relevant to the current market? What are the rates as this will be an expense to the club that it didn't have before?
The assets are being sold `in house' to CAFC supporters and shareholders but will this always be the case in say 5, 10, 25 years time? Are we just to accept that the assets will remain in the hands of fans irrespective of unexpected events or deaths?
I accept that these are questions that may be asked and possibly answered at the meeting but for those who can't attend how do we know the answers?
One point though, inthis particular instance people should not get concern and caution confused with negativity.
My take on this thread is that, generally, people are rightly worried about the underlying message that is coming out, but most of us realise that this is probably the best of a bad lot.
Doesn't mean I'm happy mind you - but then when am I?
The honest truth is we don't know at this stage exactly what it means or all of the motives behind it. I don't think it is asset stripping (although I doubt it's totally an act of altruism, either). It could be rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic - or it could be a clever and sensible way to keep our heads above water as we enter a new tax year in which we are projected to make a £4.5m operating deficit.
At best though, it's a piece of sticking plaster for the one thing we do know is that Henry is surely right when he says:
''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.''
The problem is that it probaly isn't an either/or. The second half of Henry's equation is almost certainly contingent on the first half. In other words, Charlton will only prosper and thrive again as a club when it's owned by diferent people than those who currently have the majorioty share-holding.
Whch brings me to my final point which is a piece of 'blue sky thinking' . We're all so terrified of administration - because we equate the word with meaning the death of Charlton. But it might not necessarily be the worst thing that could happen. My brother-in-law, who owns an interior design company in Paris, is going into the French equivalent of administration and it's all structured so that he won't lose a franc. All his assets are in his name and his wife's name, not the company. It's actually going to liberate him.
These lawyers and accountants are clever chaps and if if it could be arranged in a way that didn't directly affect the running of the club, like Southampton, who knows? Different set up on the South Coast, I know, but a lot of people seem to be saying what has just happened there will actually benefit the football club in the long run.
I think Charlton are about to enter uncharted waters and we shouldn't really rule anything out. Apart, perhaps, from a takeover by Glasgow Rangers!
i also think its worth noting that although i don't know a lot about the Gliksten days, that was just a couple of owners in one family that inherited the club rather than loved it like the current board do (I am happy to be corrected). This deal has had to meet the approval of independent directors on the board, plus the other directors that make up the board, who all love charlton and have put money in in the past, and I don't think they'd allow the club to be stitched up as some are suggesting.
Thanks to Richard Redden via his book The History of Charlton Athletic Valley of Tears Valley of Joy for the above.
Shame as he is one of the few players that has impressed with his work rate and attitude and probably one of the highest scoring midfielders in the Championship.
Assuming Birmingham are promoted, I see the premiership as a bit above his current level, but sure he would relish the opportunity.
Then again, it was the Mirror...
Thanks Suzi,
If it is one house, and as you say it is a bit of a dump if it is the one the stewards use, then that makes sense. £200k for one house in Charlton seems about right to me considering it is next to an industrial estate and a football ground.
Shows how easy it is for us to leap to the wrong conclusion, me included, when not having all the information.
Papertalk as you say but I would be surprised if no one was interested. Still that's a 900k profit minus any sell on fees to Southend in less than 12 months.
"higher, higher"
This is one of the most major off-field developments there has been for a long-time, and to say that the release, the way it was released and information given were botched, is a bit of an understatement.
I've no doubts on the reasons why this is being done, and the need to do it, but i don't think so far it has been handled very well.
"higher, higher"
A rare bit of 'good business' by the club in last two or three years. Shame that £900,000 has little chance of going anywhere other than a black hole. If there is interest, we should do all to encourage a bidding war for the highest possible bid, its not like we dont need the money.
However, I would rather see him as our club captain and setting league one on fire. He has the qualities to be a real force in league one.
Yes, count me in on that note of contrition too. But AFKA's also right, the communication has not helped this news to be received in the positive light that it probably deserves.
I can see what you mean but at the same time it has to be done in a legal, AGM way to inform shareholders and stick to the rules.
It did leave it open to speculation about the "real" value but the letter does say that independent valuations were sought.
The leap to "asset striping" was huge but taken very quickly and by some people who hadn't even read the letter.
Well it confused me as I was trying to picture in my minds eye where the other house was as I walk past the 1 house every match.
I heard it would have been worth £300k until they found out the type of people who live nearby and overlook the house.
: - )
I agree but I think that there is a degree of cynicism that means any news will be spun by some into a negative.
Perhaps that cynicism is only to be expected given what we have been through recently but while it is good to be critical that should be balanced with some praise when due and at least an attempt to understand the reasoning behind an action before leaping to a conclusion.
I couldn't agree more AFKA - there seems to be an inclination for some to jump to the Board's defence whenever criticism is perceived to be happening.
I don't think anyone could criticise the Board for the funds they have contributed to the club over the years - other than we wish they had even more money to pump in but don't we all!
My problem is the lack of detailed information given to shareholders and the feeling that trust in the Board can be taken for granted without it. As somebody says on another thread they are the majority shareholders so it's basically their property that they are selling to themselves but that totally ignores the rights of other shareholders large or small and I feel they are entitled to have the whole picture!