'The accounts to point you to are those from the year we came down from the prem. The annual report and accounts for the year ended 30 June 2007. The bottom of page 27 and the top of page 28.
33,003,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Group) plus 6,513,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Company) plus 11,565,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due after more than 1 year.
I.E. Gross debt 51,081,000
As FloydandHarvey pointed out the accounts also had about 17,000,000 of Debtors mostly due to our player sales.''
Sure, those are the figures from two year ago. But does anybody believe the situation has so dramatically improved sinced then? Only about 13m is said to be so-called 'friendly' debt.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ChicagoAddick[/cite]What happens if the friendly debt becomes unfriendly? I think current members of the board have their own interests front and centre.[/quote]
Are we seriously going to belive that money owed to Murray & Simmons et al is suddenly going to become unfriendly?.
[cite]Posted By: ChicagoAddick[/cite]What happens if the friendly debt becomes unfriendly? I think current members of the board have their own interests front and centre.
Are we seriously going to belive that money owed to Murray & Simmons et al is suddenly going to become unfriendly?.
Sorry just don't buy it.
There are others apart from the two you mention. That could well be the problem if there is one.
As said above the Mail tends to be correct on matters Charlton as a general rule.
[cite]Posted By: ChicagoAddick[/cite]What happens if the friendly debt becomes unfriendly? I think current members of the board have their own interests front and centre.
Are we seriously going to belive that money owed to Murray & Simmons et al is suddenly going to become unfriendly?.
Sorry just don't buy it.
I hope you're right Clem, I really do but as Len said look beyond Murray & Simons
[quote][cite]Posted By: ChicagoAddick[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Clem_Snide[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: ChicagoAddick[/cite]What happens if the friendly debt becomes unfriendly? I think current members of the board have their own interests front and centre.[/quote]
Are we seriously going to belive that money owed to Murray & Simmons et al is suddenly going to become unfriendly?.
Sorry just don't buy it.[/quote]
I hope you're right Clem, I really do but as Len said look beyond Murray & Simons[/quote]
Even if "someone" isn't playing ball I genuinely think it won't be one of the major players.
Still, if we do go into administration we can trade 10 points for a Swiss Billionaire ;-)
''Still, if we do go into administration we can trade 10 points for a Swiss Billionaire ;-) ''
Probably not a bad deal, Clem...a billion ought to buy you three wins and a draw in div three pretty quick to get you back to evens - and then after that it's all a bonus !!!!
The last accounts that
were signed off in Dec 08 showed 'real' (i.e. money owed to
individuals/companies) of around 17m- of which most of this is to Directors.
The 40m figure seems way off unless the club took on much more debt in the
last 6 months or so.
The idea incidentally, that Southampton were a better bet for investors is
crazy. Our balance sheet looked much healthier, vrtually all short term debt
was paid off (at the last count we only owed 1.3m that needed to be paid in
2009/10) and we were (and think still are) a long way off from
Adminstration. Southampton could not pay the wages of their staff- that has
never to the best of my knowledge occurred here.
We're just going to have to wait and see, but the unattributed quotes is a cancer in journalism
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]Perfectly fair observation from Chicago.
And as Syrongima wrote three days ago :
'The accounts to point you to are those from the year we came down from the prem. The annual report and accounts for the year ended 30 June 2007. The bottom of page 27 and the top of page 28.
33,003,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Group) plus
6,513,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Company) plus
11,565,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due after more than 1 year.
I.E. Gross debt 51,081,000
As FloydandHarvey pointed out the accounts also had about 17,000,000 of Debtors mostly due to our player sales.''
Sure, those are the figures from two year ago. But does anybody believe the situation has so dramatically improved sinced then? Only about 13m is said to be so-called 'friendly' debt.
Nigel You have edited a key line from my post where I said I am not an accountant and I could be talking rubbish. Also a. there is a big difference between net debt and gross debt and b. there have been another set of accounts published since then which are far more relevant.
from the june 2008 accounts (Page 32)
NET Debt 23,001,000 of which 14,664,000 was corporate bonds i.e nowhere near the 40m the mail are quoting.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Lifted from the mailing list.
[i]The last accounts that were signed off in Dec 08 showed 'real' (i.e. money owed to individuals/companies) of around 17m- of which most of this is to Directors. The 40m figure seems way off unless the club took on much more debt in the last 6 months or so.
The idea incidentally, that Southampton were a better bet for investors is crazy. Our balance sheet looked much healthier, vrtually all short term debt was paid off (at the last count we only owed 1.3m that needed to be paid in 2009/10) and we were (and think still are) a long way off from Adminstration. Southampton could not pay the wages of their staff- that has never to the best of my knowledge occurred here.[/i]
We're just going to have to wait and see, but the unattributed quotes is a cancer in journalism[/quote]
[quote][cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]and how many times in recent weeks have we read that Southampton were going to the wall, based on unattributed quotes?[/quote]
Good point...and we had the same sort of stories last summer (but whilst being in a bit of debt not entered administration)
Anyway hope for you guys it just a nasty rumour but it must hurt to think a few years your side were a decent Premiership club and now all this?
I wasn't really aware of you guys going mad and spending big either once Curbishley left?
Plus the crowds haven't dipped badly have they (ok might do now in League One)..
and the award for biggest brain hurting thread at 11.15pm on a saturday night goes to.... he he... thank god im sober and can just about get my head around all the figures..
[quote][cite]Posted By: sygonrima[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]Perfectly fair observation from Chicago.
And as Syrongima wrote three days ago :
'The accounts to point you to are those from the year we came down from the prem. The annual report and accounts for the year ended 30 June 2007. The bottom of page 27 and the top of page 28.
33,003,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Group) plus 6,513,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Company) plus 11,565,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due after more than 1 year.
I.E. Gross debt 51,081,000
As FloydandHarvey pointed out the accounts also had about 17,000,000 of Debtors mostly due to our player sales.''
Sure, those are the figures from two year ago. But does anybody believe the situation has so dramatically improved sinced then? Only about 13m is said to be so-called 'friendly' debt.[/quote]
Nigel You have edited a key line from my post where I said I am not an accountant and I could be talking rubbish. Also a. there is a big difference between net debt and gross debt and b. there have been another set of accounts published since then which are far more relevant.
from the 2008 accounts (Page 32) NET Debt 23,001,000 of which 14,664,000 was corporate bonds i.e nowhere near the 40m the mail are quoting.[/quote]
It would be improbable to think that the Daily Mail have embellished the facts!? I know nothing, I continue to know nothing, and reading the Daily Mail makes me none the wiser. Bring out the big guns like the News of The Screws and The Daily Express then I'll be interested ;) .
Someone on babes summed it up perfectly - southampton have just been taken over with debts that ARE higher than ours and having not paid their staff for nion two months. In this sense i doubt we should be worrying
not sure what to make of this. On one hand it makes no sense but on the other the Nationals havn't been interested up to now so why make up a story now. Although it may be wrong about the amount of debt and the fact we will go into admin it may be spot on that the deal is off. Unfortunately only time will tell. Without this takeover I fear we will just drift along waiting for another buyer to pop up and that is very unlikely in my opinion. The current Board have exhausted their funds, and why not they have done more than enough, but I'm not sure we are an attractive enough proposition.
Just been watching a film on the Beeb before taking a late night peek on here.
Sounds like our very own " Armaggedon" might not be too far away.....I don't profess to understand the figures being bandied about but after feeling very optimistic recently , I now feel rather sick.
A few days ago, a "reliable source" ( I know - you don't have to tell me how lame this sounds) whose work takes him into contact with The Valley, told a fellow Addick that the deal was all but signed & sealed BUT at the last minute, a serious hiccup had been encountered which was obviously delaying the announcement. The word was that there IS an Irish link up somewhere along the line, hence my earlier reference to blarney...
Wonder whether any Lifers making the trip to Ireland will hear any gossip or even better, anything definite ?
QUOTE:- What happens if the friendly debt becomes unfriendly? I think current members of the board have their own interests front and centre.
Not sure that the current board would have the ability to make the current debt unfriendly...what is in it for them. Say they stand up and say, no we are not prepared to wipe off our debt and the take over collapses...they then have the following options:
1. Continue to subsidise the club with yet more money 2. Allow the club to fall into adminisitration and in all liklihood lose it all anyway
I think the current Board are in a fairly poor position negotiation wise. As for this take over group pulling the plug due to our debt, if rumours are true that they have been tlaking about the takeover for as long as they have then I can't beleive they would only just have found out about this debt. Plus if RM is saying the Board will write down £30M then we would need to be £70M in debt now for this to be true.
IMO The Mail guessed right the first time with Zabeel and have decided to have another go. Not worried in the slightest.
My understanding is that a viable offer was made for the club, which was hoped to be concluded on Friday. However, additional debt surfaced during the due diligence period. Perhaps as much as 5-10m additional debt, but the total considerably less than the figure quoted by The Mail..
The potential buyers want to reduce the purchase price by the additional debt.
The board want to get as much of their investment back as possible.
If that really is the case, you can't blame either side.
But where is it now, and where does it go?
The board is tapped out, and need to sell.
Both for their own bank balances and for the club's future. The longer they hang on, the more likely it is that their losses will grow. And they be selling off more and more assets, the longer they hold on.
Potentially everyone and everything, from Shelvey to The Valley itself.
So how much of a loss on their initial investments can they afford? And can they afford to take on even more debt (answer: not really), potentially driving the inevitable price down and their personal losses up?
What are the potential buyers willing to pay, or can and will they wait for the price to drop even further? And as it does, will they maintain their interest in buying a more damaged and less valuable club?
The club is at a crossroads. Perhaps the most important and dangerous crossroads since the move to Selhurst.
We can rightly moan about Parky, inept management, executive salaries, good players leaving, dross potentially coming in, and the flimsiness of the new kit.
But what is happening behind closed doors is much more crucial to the short and long term future viability of the club.
We need to keep our fingers crossed that something comes of this. The alternative is too painful to consider.
From where we started, to the heights that were reached, to where we stand now, is a truly amazing rollercoaster of a tale.
Let's hope there is no unhappy ending.
Bloody hell, I don't want the pink oboe gang to be right either. I think that old gang need to look at their own conduct in the past 12/18 months, dropping in on message boards to stir stuff when the damage had already been done.
But hey, a crisis demands unity. And no f**king silly photos.
Here's how I see it. I've returned too late from the pub to add much new, but hopefully this brings some threads together.
1. As Oggy and Rothko have said, the Mail on Sunday has impeccable contacts within and around Charlton Athletic.
2. Unattributed quotes *often* come from journalists' keyboards. Nobody will say anything on record, but a hack can cobble together a quote based on what s/he knows and attribute it to a "source" or a "friend". It may well be close to what someone's said. But don't imagine someone's rang someone up out of the blue - the MoS has great contacts, and that quote is *probably* the result of at least one conversation which didn't include those exact words.
3. But why would this story appear? Yes, horrors could have shown up in due diligence. But Richard Murray - who, yes, is responsible for past sins, but also knows the books inside out, is on record as saying we will not go into administration. The SLP, Murray's trumpet of choice, reported the board was ready to write off £30million to ease the takeover.
4. So if we were going to write off that debt anyway... is a board member not playing ball? As is mentioned above, when does friendly debt become unfriendly? Or, as is pointed out elsewhere... is this brinkmanship from the consortium? And in any case, who is this "consortium of local businessmen"?
I'm worried. But I think the best thing is to think about *why* that three-paragraph story appeared. If we really were in such very deep shit, it could be a bigger story. Fingers crossed it isn't.
I have to say that my heart sank to read the start of this thread, but the more I read, the more skeptical I found myself feeling. There have been so many figures bandied about, and there's no reason to believe these ones in particular. Of course due diligence could have turned something up, but one would think that would go to price rather than being permitted to result in most if not all of the board's investment being lost...the proof is in the pudding as they say, so I'm saving my panic for later, if and when more facts arise. Naive? Perhaps, but nothing on the OS yet!
Comments
And as Syrongima wrote three days ago :
'The accounts to point you to are those from the year we came down from the prem. The annual report and accounts for the year ended 30 June 2007. The bottom of page 27 and the top of page 28.
33,003,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Group) plus
6,513,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Company) plus
11,565,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due after more than 1 year.
I.E. Gross debt 51,081,000
As FloydandHarvey pointed out the accounts also had about 17,000,000 of Debtors mostly due to our player sales.''
Sure, those are the figures from two year ago. But does anybody believe the situation has so dramatically improved sinced then? Only about 13m is said to be so-called 'friendly' debt.
Are we seriously going to belive that money owed to Murray & Simmons et al is suddenly going to become unfriendly?.
Sorry just don't buy it.
There are others apart from the two you mention. That could well be the problem if there is one.
As said above the Mail tends to be correct on matters Charlton as a general rule.
I hope you're right Clem, I really do but as Len said look beyond Murray & Simons
Are we seriously going to belive that money owed to Murray & Simmons et al is suddenly going to become unfriendly?.
Sorry just don't buy it.[/quote]
I hope you're right Clem, I really do but as Len said look beyond Murray & Simons[/quote]
Even if "someone" isn't playing ball I genuinely think it won't be one of the major players.
Still, if we do go into administration we can trade 10 points for a Swiss Billionaire ;-)
Probably not a bad deal, Clem...a billion ought to buy you three wins and a draw in div three pretty quick to get you back to evens - and then after that it's all a bonus !!!!
The last accounts that
were signed off in Dec 08 showed 'real' (i.e. money owed to
individuals/companies) of around 17m- of which most of this is to Directors.
The 40m figure seems way off unless the club took on much more debt in the
last 6 months or so.
The idea incidentally, that Southampton were a better bet for investors is
crazy. Our balance sheet looked much healthier, vrtually all short term debt
was paid off (at the last count we only owed 1.3m that needed to be paid in
2009/10) and we were (and think still are) a long way off from
Adminstration. Southampton could not pay the wages of their staff- that has
never to the best of my knowledge occurred here.
We're just going to have to wait and see, but the unattributed quotes is a cancer in journalism
Nigel You have edited a key line from my post where I said I am not an accountant and I could be talking rubbish. Also a. there is a big difference between net debt and gross debt and b. there have been another set of accounts published since then which are far more relevant.
from the june 2008 accounts (Page 32)
NET Debt 23,001,000 of which 14,664,000 was corporate bonds i.e nowhere near the 40m the mail are quoting.
[i]The last accounts that
were signed off in Dec 08 showed 'real' (i.e. money owed to
individuals/companies) of around 17m- of which most of this is to Directors.
The 40m figure seems way off unless the club took on much more debt in the
last 6 months or so.
The idea incidentally, that Southampton were a better bet for investors is
crazy. Our balance sheet looked much healthier, vrtually all short term debt
was paid off (at the last count we only owed 1.3m that needed to be paid in
2009/10) and we were (and think still are) a long way off from
Adminstration. Southampton could not pay the wages of their staff- that has
never to the best of my knowledge occurred here.[/i]
We're just going to have to wait and see, but the unattributed quotes is a cancer in journalism[/quote]
Looks like an unattributed lift to me......;-)
Good point...and we had the same sort of stories last summer (but whilst being in a bit of debt not entered administration)
Anyway hope for you guys it just a nasty rumour but it must hurt to think a few years your side were a decent Premiership club and now all this?
I wasn't really aware of you guys going mad and spending big either once Curbishley left?
Plus the crowds haven't dipped badly have they (ok might do now in League One)..
And as Syrongima wrote three days ago :
'The accounts to point you to are those from the year we came down from the prem. The annual report and accounts for the year ended 30 June 2007. The bottom of page 27 and the top of page 28.
33,003,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Group) plus
6,513,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due within 1 year (Company) plus
11,565,000 - Creditors: amounts falling due after more than 1 year.
I.E. Gross debt 51,081,000
As FloydandHarvey pointed out the accounts also had about 17,000,000 of Debtors mostly due to our player sales.''
Sure, those are the figures from two year ago. But does anybody believe the situation has so dramatically improved sinced then? Only about 13m is said to be so-called 'friendly' debt.[/quote]
Nigel You have edited a key line from my post where I said I am not an accountant and I could be talking rubbish. Also a. there is a big difference between net debt and gross debt and b. there have been another set of accounts published since then which are far more relevant.
from the 2008 accounts (Page 32)
NET Debt 23,001,000 of which 14,664,000 was corporate bonds i.e nowhere near the 40m the mail are quoting.[/quote]
I thank you.......
Now can we all go to bed and not worry about it?.
Seth might know:-)
So much so that I woke my wife who was asleep on the sofa and dribbled budweiser all over myself.
"How much debt ....? said the Mail reporter.
The informant replied, "£14million owed to the ....". as the line broke up and went dead.
The Mail hack wrote in his notebook £40 million.
Well it was a bad line.
Anyways, it was great thanks for asking and now I'm turning in for the night as I can't believe what I'm reading here.
Thank God I'm pissed as I wouldn't like to read this sober.
NB Murray promised we wouldn't go into administration :-)
Sounds like our very own " Armaggedon" might not be too far away.....I don't profess to understand the figures being bandied about but after feeling very optimistic recently , I now feel rather sick.
A few days ago, a "reliable source" ( I know - you don't have to tell me how lame this sounds) whose work takes him into contact with The Valley, told a fellow Addick that the deal was all but signed & sealed BUT at the last minute, a serious hiccup had been encountered which was obviously delaying the announcement. The word was that there IS an Irish link up somewhere along the line, hence my earlier reference to blarney...
Wonder whether any Lifers making the trip to Ireland will hear any gossip or even better, anything definite ?
Not sure that the current board would have the ability to make the current debt unfriendly...what is in it for them. Say they stand up and say, no we are not prepared to wipe off our debt and the take over collapses...they then have the following options:
1. Continue to subsidise the club with yet more money
2. Allow the club to fall into adminisitration and in all liklihood lose it all anyway
I think the current Board are in a fairly poor position negotiation wise. As for this take over group pulling the plug due to our debt, if rumours are true that they have been tlaking about the takeover for as long as they have then I can't beleive they would only just have found out about this debt. Plus if RM is saying the Board will write down £30M then we would need to be £70M in debt now for this to be true.
IMO The Mail guessed right the first time with Zabeel and have decided to have another go. Not worried in the slightest.
I am, but then I'm a Charlton fan ;-)
Seriously reckon these next two days could be very, very important in the history of our club.
The potential buyers want to reduce the purchase price by the additional debt.
The board want to get as much of their investment back as possible.
If that really is the case, you can't blame either side.
But where is it now, and where does it go?
The board is tapped out, and need to sell.
Both for their own bank balances and for the club's future. The longer they hang on, the more likely it is that their losses will grow. And they be selling off more and more assets, the longer they hold on.
Potentially everyone and everything, from Shelvey to The Valley itself.
So how much of a loss on their initial investments can they afford? And can they afford to take on even more debt (answer: not really), potentially driving the inevitable price down and their personal losses up?
What are the potential buyers willing to pay, or can and will they wait for the price to drop even further? And as it does, will they maintain their interest in buying a more damaged and less valuable club?
The club is at a crossroads. Perhaps the most important and dangerous crossroads since the move to Selhurst.
We can rightly moan about Parky, inept management, executive salaries, good players leaving, dross potentially coming in, and the flimsiness of the new kit.
But what is happening behind closed doors is much more crucial to the short and long term future viability of the club.
We need to keep our fingers crossed that something comes of this. The alternative is too painful to consider.
From where we started, to the heights that were reached, to where we stand now, is a truly amazing rollercoaster of a tale.
Let's hope there is no unhappy ending.
I am at my lasy knockings of hope
But you know what, my Charlton, will always be my Charlton.....come what may
for its my life, my family and my future
But hey, a crisis demands unity. And no f**king silly photos.
Here's how I see it. I've returned too late from the pub to add much new, but hopefully this brings some threads together.
1. As Oggy and Rothko have said, the Mail on Sunday has impeccable contacts within and around Charlton Athletic.
2. Unattributed quotes *often* come from journalists' keyboards. Nobody will say anything on record, but a hack can cobble together a quote based on what s/he knows and attribute it to a "source" or a "friend". It may well be close to what someone's said. But don't imagine someone's rang someone up out of the blue - the MoS has great contacts, and that quote is *probably* the result of at least one conversation which didn't include those exact words.
3. But why would this story appear? Yes, horrors could have shown up in due diligence. But Richard Murray - who, yes, is responsible for past sins, but also knows the books inside out, is on record as saying we will not go into administration. The SLP, Murray's trumpet of choice, reported the board was ready to write off £30million to ease the takeover.
4. So if we were going to write off that debt anyway... is a board member not playing ball? As is mentioned above, when does friendly debt become unfriendly? Or, as is pointed out elsewhere... is this brinkmanship from the consortium? And in any case, who is this "consortium of local businessmen"?
I'm worried. But I think the best thing is to think about *why* that three-paragraph story appeared. If we really were in such very deep shit, it could be a bigger story. Fingers crossed it isn't.