I wish we could go back to not having to worry about this stuff and could just concentrate on watching/supprting the team on the field. But our catastrophic and rapid decline off the field as well as on it means that we have to be concerned - particularly if we have long memories and recall the crisis of 1985.
Id like to be more concerned about the sale of Nicky Bailey than a poxy derelict house in Lansdowne Mews. But of course, the two are related. Bailey will go to the first decent offer we get because we are looking at a 4.5 million operating deficit next year.
ah and it all happens again, the wholesale 'asset realisation' this summer will see us in league 2 the following season, and so on? And we will be encouraged to renew our season tickets before all the next sale of the century takes place, right? Call me cynical if you like
I am little disappointed that the fact that Derek Chappell has injected a further £500k into the club has been overshadowed by these asset deals. Dont think he has received the credit he deserves for this action.
Also the waiver/postponement of the bond interest is also a welcome step from the Board particularly when I recall some of the comments made on other threads about this subject.
Whatever the views on the other asset/cash deals these 2 aspects cannot be questioned as being anything other than good for the Football club.
In that I think the PR job could have been better but then I am sure that would be regarded as spin by many.
I think the level of distrust for the Board that has emerged is perhaps understandable but is nevertheless very disappointing.
I have a couple of questions that hopefully someone might have the answer to:
What is roughly the combined acreage of the Aries Sports Ground and Charlton Park rugby ground ?
Where is the Pippenhall Sports ground the youth academy use (is that the field the other side of the all-weather facility), and what is the acreage of that ?
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]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.
Nigel, Don't forget that the Club as a different legal entity is an asset of the PLC. If the PLC goes into administration (like Soton), the assets need to be sold to meet the outstanding creditors. The only real viable way for it to continue is if new investors come in, purchase the assets from the administrator. So my thoughts are:
1. First there has to be a viable or potentially viable business asset to purchase. (Bear in mind that the ground, I think, whilst owned by the PLC, is not owned directly by the club but by a separate subsidiary company).
2. As the Club and the ground are separate assets of the PLC, the administrator, who's duty is to the creditors, will look to sell the club and ground to the highest bidder (assuming any come along). If none arise then they will sell off what they can piecemeal. That could mean the Valley being sold for housing development. (I know that that would be subject to planning but don't be kidded into thinking that planning permission could never be granted).
3. The Directors as principle shareholders have millions tied up in the club. The tightrope they have to walk is keeping the club afloat long enough, either for the club to return to the heights of a couple of years ago, or so that other investors can buy them out, or both. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to see the club go into administration because firstly their shareholding will be worth zilch, and secondly as creditors (for the friendly debt) they are likely to get less.
4. There will be points deducted = Not good and makes the club worth even less
5. You can then add to that the local businesses which supply the club who would be shafted by wriggling out through administation. This was what Ipswich did a while ago, yet even with their "billionaire" new owner,, they still haven't really moved forward.
All in all, I don't think administration is the "smart" answer, all the while there are other options.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]I have a couple of questions that hopefully someone might have the answer to:
What is roughly the combined acreage of the Aries Sports Ground and Charlton Park rugby ground ?
Where is the Pippenhall Sports ground the youth academy use (is that the field the other side of the all-weather facility), and what is the acreage of that ?
I have the figure of 27 acres in my head for the whole "training ground" but no idea if that is accurate, how that is broken down or what percentage of the whole area is being sold.
Sorry, I know that doesn't help.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]I am little disappointed that the fact that Derek Chappell has injected a further £500k into the club has been overshadowed by these asset deals. Dont think he has received the credit he deserves for this action.
Also the waiver/postponement of the bond interest is also a welcome step from the Board particularly when I recall some of the comments made on other threads about this subject.
Whatever the views on the other asset/cash deals these 2 aspects cannot be questioned as being anything other than good for the Football club.
In that I think the PR job could have been better but then I am sure that would be regarded as spin by many.
I think the level of distrust for the Board that has emerged is perhaps understandable but is nevertheless very disappointing.
Overall a very sad situation.
Very good points peanut man especially about the Chairman putting in £0.5m as a loan without assets.
Bing, the mortgage as the club like to call it is presumably therefore a secured debt on the ground, so could it be reposessed. Is the other friendly debt not preferential over other creditors?
All the more reason not to go into administration then.
My understanding is that the Queen is the preferential creditor in the form of HM Customs and Revenue followed by "football debts" which have to be paid in full under FL rules ie outstanding transfer fees or wages.
After that come everyone else who get 10p or whatever in the £.
So the directors put in £16.5m and get back a fifth of £1.65m plus all there shares are worth next to nothing as well.
So Administration not a good idea for the club, the directors or the fans.
So that leaves us two options really.
1. Sell out to mega-rich owners (if only)
2. Getting the club running on as close to a break even figure as possible which you do by slashing the major cost ie players wages (bye, bye, Nicky, ZZ, Darren, et al) and other cuts (making 25 blameless staff redundant) while getting as many fans as possible to buy season tickets.
And you still most likely end up selling one player a season to cover the shortfall cos that's what most clubs in league 1 and even the CCC do every year.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]I am little disappointed that the fact that Derek Chappell has injected a further £500k into the club has been overshadowed by these asset deals. Dont think he has received the credit he deserves for this action.
don't forget it's a loan not a cash injection. If they ask nicely I'll lend them some money until I need it back later in the year. ING are only paying 1% anyway so it's no big loss.
[cite]Posted By: floydandharvey[/cite]The billionaire is that guy who also owns a chunk of Blackpool, if I remember rightly (he's always in the top twenty richest people in football in the 442 annual supplement).
I agree that people are too scared of administration - loads of clubs that have gone into it have bounced back far stronger. People are similarly afraid of bankrupcty when I've been trying to get someone to make me bankrupt for two years (they finally initiated proceedings yesterday, yay)! It's what state you're in when you come out of it that matters.
The guy who had shares in Preston and who is the racehorse owner isn't one of our directors. He has a very small shareholding and no interest in increasing it.
Please name a club that has gone in Administration recently and that has come out of it stronger.
If you take the narrow position that survival was preferable to oblivion. On the other hand, surely the club is better off not going into administration, especially at the moment with little external debt and a benign Board?
Take Ipswich as an example, they totally screwed the local businesses with what they did and there is still bitterness in the area about it.
Leicester and Ipswich got away with it with out points deduction, the reason why that was introduced
My take on this is that there maybe an administration route thats preferable to outright bust but it's fraught with danger and should not be entered into lightly.
If you take the situation of Charlton in 1984, it was felt by potential investors that the best chance that the club had for survival was to go bust and then the investors could significantly boost the clubs finances. The FA/League insisted that the creditors be paid in full to stay in the league. In the end a deal was stuck in the high court for much of the debt to be paid, then the dash for FA/League agreement. Maybe it was always going to happen it just needed some brinkmanship, or maybe...........I shudder to think.
So the soft or easy option? For that reason and all the others, no I don't think so.
I think we are overlooking the directors waiving interest on the bonds. I think from memory the interest was 10% - if so they have waived £1.6M on top of the funds being injected or swapped for "assets".
I guess the club couldn't pay this in any case and I wonder if this is waived or accrued and due later?
[cite]Posted By: Maglor[/cite]I think we are overlooking the directors waiving interest on the bonds. I think from memory the interest was 10% - if so they have waived £1.6M on top of the funds being injected or swapped for "assets".
I guess the club couldn't pay this in any case and I wonder if this is waived or accrued and due later?
The word Derek Chappell has used is "deferred."
That means postpone as far as I know and on that basis the interest is presumably rolling up and will become payable eventually.
If your figure of 10% is correct then it is considerably more than can presently be earned on the open market.
It may well be rolled up terminally so it's dealt with in the event of a buy out or the bonds are paid up. (The club can't afford to pay them so effective deferred indefinitely)
Comments
I wish we could go back to not having to worry about this stuff and could just concentrate on watching/supprting the team on the field. But our catastrophic and rapid decline off the field as well as on it means that we have to be concerned - particularly if we have long memories and recall the crisis of 1985.
Id like to be more concerned about the sale of Nicky Bailey than a poxy derelict house in Lansdowne Mews. But of course, the two are related. Bailey will go to the first decent offer we get because we are looking at a 4.5 million operating deficit next year.
Try swimming instead A. Much more fun jumping in the deep end then : - )
:)
Also the waiver/postponement of the bond interest is also a welcome step from the Board particularly when I recall some of the comments made on other threads about this subject.
Whatever the views on the other asset/cash deals these 2 aspects cannot be questioned as being anything other than good for the Football club.
In that I think the PR job could have been better but then I am sure that would be regarded as spin by many.
I think the level of distrust for the Board that has emerged is perhaps understandable but is nevertheless very disappointing.
Overall a very sad situation.
What is roughly the combined acreage of the Aries Sports Ground and Charlton Park rugby ground ?
Where is the Pippenhall Sports ground the youth academy use (is that the field the other side of the all-weather facility), and what is the acreage of that ?
Nigel, Don't forget that the Club as a different legal entity is an asset of the PLC. If the PLC goes into administration (like Soton), the assets need to be sold to meet the outstanding creditors. The only real viable way for it to continue is if new investors come in, purchase the assets from the administrator. So my thoughts are:
1. First there has to be a viable or potentially viable business asset to purchase. (Bear in mind that the ground, I think, whilst owned by the PLC, is not owned directly by the club but by a separate subsidiary company).
2. As the Club and the ground are separate assets of the PLC, the administrator, who's duty is to the creditors, will look to sell the club and ground to the highest bidder (assuming any come along). If none arise then they will sell off what they can piecemeal. That could mean the Valley being sold for housing development. (I know that that would be subject to planning but don't be kidded into thinking that planning permission could never be granted).
3. The Directors as principle shareholders have millions tied up in the club. The tightrope they have to walk is keeping the club afloat long enough, either for the club to return to the heights of a couple of years ago, or so that other investors can buy them out, or both. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to see the club go into administration because firstly their shareholding will be worth zilch, and secondly as creditors (for the friendly debt) they are likely to get less.
4. There will be points deducted = Not good and makes the club worth even less
5. You can then add to that the local businesses which supply the club who would be shafted by wriggling out through administation. This was what Ipswich did a while ago, yet even with their "billionaire" new owner,, they still haven't really moved forward.
All in all, I don't think administration is the "smart" answer, all the while there are other options.
I have the figure of 27 acres in my head for the whole "training ground" but no idea if that is accurate, how that is broken down or what percentage of the whole area is being sold.
Sorry, I know that doesn't help.
Very good points peanut man especially about the Chairman putting in £0.5m as a loan without assets.
My understanding is that the Queen is the preferential creditor in the form of HM Customs and Revenue followed by "football debts" which have to be paid in full under FL rules ie outstanding transfer fees or wages.
After that come everyone else who get 10p or whatever in the £.
So the directors put in £16.5m and get back a fifth of £1.65m plus all there shares are worth next to nothing as well.
So Administration not a good idea for the club, the directors or the fans.
So that leaves us two options really.
1. Sell out to mega-rich owners (if only)
2. Getting the club running on as close to a break even figure as possible which you do by slashing the major cost ie players wages (bye, bye, Nicky, ZZ, Darren, et al) and other cuts (making 25 blameless staff redundant) while getting as many fans as possible to buy season tickets.
And you still most likely end up selling one player a season to cover the shortfall cos that's what most clubs in league 1 and even the CCC do every year.
Not nice
(getting desperate now)
He hasn't brought his lottery ticket yet!
Well, he's keeping it a bloody good secret if he is. We know who all the directors are and we'd know if any of them were really that rich.
Where did you see this rumour? Don't tell me it's from a "reliable source"
I thought Henry wasn't on the board any more? !!!
The price of wool & buttons have fallen through the floor, and he has lost all his money.;-0
don't forget it's a loan not a cash injection. If they ask nicely I'll lend them some money until I need it back later in the year. ING are only paying 1% anyway so it's no big loss.
The guy who had shares in Preston and who is the racehorse owner isn't one of our directors. He has a very small shareholding and no interest in increasing it.
Please name a club that has gone in Administration recently and that has come out of it stronger.
That's why I said recently.
Post Leicester the rules were changed so that teams would suffer a points deduction and not get away with the unfair advantage that Leicester did.
And I think Leicester were then relegated the next season and are now in League 1 albeit about to come back up again.
Leicester see above.
Leeds are still in League 1 their lowest ever league position.
Crawley - no idea.
As for teams that haven't come out stronger.
Palace
Luton - in Admin for the second time
Darlington - Ditto
Rotherham - Ditto and playing in Sheffield
Bournemouth
Bradford
Halifax
Boston
and Scarborough who I don't think exist anymore.
Good Point : - )
Take Ipswich as an example, they totally screwed the local businesses with what they did and there is still bitterness in the area about it.
Leicester and Ipswich got away with it with out points deduction, the reason why that was introduced
My take on this is that there maybe an administration route thats preferable to outright bust but it's fraught with danger and should not be entered into lightly.
If you take the situation of Charlton in 1984, it was felt by potential investors that the best chance that the club had for survival was to go bust and then the investors could significantly boost the clubs finances. The FA/League insisted that the creditors be paid in full to stay in the league. In the end a deal was stuck in the high court for much of the debt to be paid, then the dash for FA/League agreement. Maybe it was always going to happen it just needed some brinkmanship, or maybe...........I shudder to think.
So the soft or easy option? For that reason and all the others, no I don't think so.
I guess the club couldn't pay this in any case and I wonder if this is waived or accrued and due later?
The word Derek Chappell has used is "deferred."
That means postpone as far as I know and on that basis the interest is presumably rolling up and will become payable eventually.
If your figure of 10% is correct then it is considerably more than can presently be earned on the open market.