[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
As a shareholder myself I'm losing out in two ways. The money I spent is gone but personally I didn't ever expect to see that back. More importantly imho I and every other shareholder lose access to the accounts and the AGMs.
I agree so why dont we sell the ground the training ground the houses etc to a supporters trust for £2. I can't see that Mr Murrey is putting up more than a promise of £1m above his current "worthless" shareholding to buy all of these.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
As a shareholder myself I'm losing out in two ways. The money I spent is gone but personally I didn't ever expect to see that back. More importantly imho I and every other shareholder lose access to the accounts and the AGMs.
I agree so why dont we sell the ground the training ground the houses etc to a supporters trust for £2. I can't see that Mr Murrey is putting up more than a promise of £1m above his current "worthless" shareholding to buy all of these.
You've got 14 days to put a Supporters Trust together, with a credible source of £1m plus (suspect RM's got more than £1m to put in though, even if not a fortune) and put the proposal to the EGM - actually there's been about 2 years to put a Supporters Trust together and hardly anyone gave a flying....
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]Is CA being wound up? My reading is that CA PLC will continue to exist and is the company that owns the freehold to the Valley and the training ground. The Directors have effectively exchanged their bonds for shares in this freehold. I would be surprised if Barton obtained the freehold to the Valley and the training ground for £2!
yes they are getting it all for £2 (thought it was £20 but not important) but have to take on all the liabilities (bank loans) and running costs (players wages, rent, rates etc) .
Which is where I started with my first post. Why when we had a crowd of 7,005 and temporary stands in 1993 was the club deemed to have value but now we are getting crowds of 10,000 plus is the club deemed to be worthless.
I have read my letter and confess to not understanding a word. I have a few hundred shares in the club (I think). Does it now mean I don't have any share at all in the club, do I bin my piece of paper with my shareholding on it?
I don't understand my position at all, do I now have no stake at all in the club?
[cite]Posted By: sygonrima[/cite]
Which is where I started with my first post. Why when we had a crowd of 7,005 and temporary stands in 1993 was the club deemed to have value but now we are getting crowds of 10,000 plus is the club deemed to be worthless.
also rent?
Because in between time we've pi**ed a shed load of money down the drain on crap players who didn't keep us in the Prem or the Championship, have spent a lot on other things like The Valley, got relegated with a massive squad wage burden, taken on a shed load of debt to plug the holes and are still running at a loss.
I'm doing your question a disservice (apoligies) because in 1993 the club was also effectively insolvent. So the real answer is that in 1993 there were a lot of people willing to put money in as equity even though the shares were worthless. They never expected to see it back. Now, having put huge sums in to no effect, the directors (except for RM) understandably don't have the appetite to keep throwing good money after bad.
But if you want to I'm sure RM will gladly take your call.
[cite]Posted By: sygonrima[/cite]
Which is where I started with my first post. Why when we had a crowd of 7,005 and temporary stands in 1993 was the club deemed to have value but now we are getting crowds of 10,000 plus is the club deemed to be worthless.
I imagine the change in running costs of the club may have something to do with it.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]Is CA being wound up? My reading is that CA PLC will continue to exist and is the company that owns the freehold to the Valley and the training ground. The Directors have effectively exchanged their bonds for shares in this freehold. I would be surprised if Barton obtained the freehold to the Valley and the training ground for £2!
peanuts will correct me but my understanding is that yes, CA PLC is to be wound up.
The assets of CAFC and CAH, including the training ground and Valley, will be transferred to Baton 2010.
yes they are getting it all for £2 (thought it was £20 but not important) but have to take on all the liabilities (bank loans) and running costs (players wages, rent, rates etc) plus pay the directors back if we get to the prem.
Bit like buying an old car for £5 but then having to pay for tax, insurance, repairs, petrol, new furry dice etc. It cost you £5 but you spend a lot more than that on it.
Technically Charlton Athletic PLC will be voluntarily struck off the Companies Register (i.e. wound up) as it will no longer have any assets or liabilities, having sold its assets to Baton and all of its liabilities having been discharged (in various ways).
Actually its not the assets of CAFC and CAH being transferred to Baton. The shares in CAFC and CAH (until now owned by CA PLC) are being sold to Baton. That means all of the assets and liabilities of CAFC and CAH will henceforth be Baton's. However, the loans (not bond obigations) due to directors by CA PLC are also being transferred to CAFC as part of the deal but will only be serviced as to interest in the Championship and as to capital and interest in the Prem.
Yes, I can see now that CA Plc will be struck off in March 2011. But why (and is it legal?) create £14 million pounds worth of new shares in the company if it is worthless? Why not just default on the bonds if the directors have agreed to completely write off those bonds.
Like many others here, I can't put my finger on exactly what is happening, but I get an uneasy feeling that things are being lined up for something bigger to happen.
I hope it is for the good of the club, but one person having sole control without any transparancy of accounting, or board decision making etc, doesn't sound good to me.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]I have read my letter and confess to not understanding a word. I have a few hundred shares in the club (I think). Does it now mean I don't have any share at all in the club, do I bin my piece of paper with my shareholding on it?
I don't understand my position at all, do I now have no stake at all in the club?
You still own approx 0.00015% of CA PLC which until 23 Aug will still own CAFC. You'll be able to vote for or against the proposed deal at the EGM (or by post) but it's a foregone conclusion as the board has already voted yes and hold 83% of the votes (50% + 1 vote neede to approve the deal).
After that might aswell frame the share cert and hang it in the karsi so as to remind you that it wasn't all a dream.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]I have read my letter and confess to not understanding a word. I have a few hundred shares in the club (I think). Does it now mean I don't have any share at all in the club, do I bin my piece of paper with my shareholding on it?
I don't understand my position at all, do I now have no stake at all in the club?
Pretty close.
At the EGM the Major shareholders will vote to transfer all the assets of the company that you own shares in to another company that you don't hold shares in and then eventually close down the one that you do hold shares in. They already have support of approx 90% of shareholders so all this will go through and the minor shareholders will end up with nothing.
If you believe that Mr Murrey is a philantropist who wants ho help Charlton be as successful as possible then this is a good thing.
If you believe that Mr Murrey is a business man who having brought a company to its knees is now trying to pull a fast one to take complete control then this may be a bad thing.
I tend towards the first but I'm always a bit of a sceptic.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
As a shareholder myself I'm losing out in two ways. The money I spent is gone but personally I didn't ever expect to see that back. More importantly imho I and every other shareholder lose access to the accounts and the AGMs.
I agree so why dont we sell the ground the training ground the houses etc to a supporters trust for £2. I can't see that Mr Murrey is putting up more than a promise of £1m above his current "worthless" shareholding to buy all of these.
You've got 14 days to put a Supporters Trust together, with a credible source of £1m plus (suspect RM's got more than £1m to put in though, even if not a fortune) and put the proposal to the EGM - actually there's been about 2 years to put a Supporters Trust together and hardly anyone gave a flying....
Too true peanuts, too true. This was just the sort of scenario where a Trust could have been invaluable as a legal entity with fund raising potential but that opportunity has now gone.
If my shares are now worth nothing and the company is being dissolved then so be it I guess. I haven't lost as much dough as some, obviously, but it does feel like a sad day to me. I had visions of me handing down my shares to my son, etc, and there was always the magical dream that I might get some dough back for them one day.
Now I guess it was all a bit for nothing in some respects, I gave them a few hundred quid (a hell of a lot of money for me back in my late teens/early twenties) which I guess was needed at the time, but now I will have nothing to show for it other than a piece of paper with my name on it. What a shame.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]If my shares are now worth nothing and the company is being dissolved then so be it I guess. I haven't lost as much dough as some, obviously, but it does feel like a sad day to me. I had visions of me handing down my shares to my son, etc, and there was always the magical dream that I might get some dough back for them one day.
Now I guess it was all a bit for nothing in some respects, I gave them a few hundred quid (a hell of a lot of money for me back in my late teens/early twenties) which I guess was needed at the time, but now I will have nothing to show for it other than a piece of paper with my name on it. What a shame.
Indeed.
Not for nothing as you and I and many others played a (smallish) part in paying for the rebuilding of the Valley and the team in the 90s. That was worthwhile.
[cite]Posted By: sygonrima[/cite]
Which is where I started with my first post. Why when we had a crowd of 7,005 and temporary stands in 1993 was the club deemed to have value but now we are getting crowds of 10,000 plus is the club deemed to be worthless.
also rent?
Because in between time we've pi**ed a shed load of money down the drain on crap players who didn't keep us in the Prem or the Championship, have spent a lot on other things like The Valley, got relegated with a massive squad wage burden, taken on a shed load of debt to plug the holes and are still running at a loss.
I'm doing your question a disservice (apoligies) because in 1993 the club was also effectively insolvent. So the real answer is that in 1993 there were a lot of people willing to put money in as equity even though the shares were worthless. They never expected to see it back. Now, having put huge sums in to no effect, the directors (except for RM) understandably don't have the appetite to keep throwing good money after bad.
But if you want to I'm sure RM will gladly take your call.
Thanks for coming back with a more considered answer (although I know the first answer feels more from the heart). I'm fairly sure that at the time, the AIM was backed by an investment house and a number of companies didn't see us as insolvent. My feeling is that with the now more suitable Squad size and budget, we should be a solvent club after the debt's have been converted. I will miss my insight into the running of the club which for the last 15 years has been literally 'my club' and I appriciate that removing me from the loop will save time and money going forward but it is still with a heavey heart that this morning I feel a little bit less Charlton. About to set off for the game and hope that by 5:45 I am fickle enough to have let it all go.
You can still get a set of company accounts for the new co from companies house every year on payment of one english pound. They wont tell you much, though, as these privately held cos directors reports are pretty banal generally.
This is pretty significant stuff - arguably way, way more important than what happens on the pitch this afternoon.
Thanks for putting this up Peanuts (and explaining it to financial illiterates such as myself).
Am I right in assuming that the bonds are written off, but the loans made in recent years are deferred until better times (hopefully) come around again?
Whatever the score, it appears that, whatever people's thoughts about RM and his effectively assuming control....we simply have no other option and we should be grateful that he is effectively sinking more of his personal wealth into securing the future of our club. For that he has my gratitude (not for the first time), as do the other directors (for writing off a considerable amount, if I understand it correctly) and all the shareholders (such as offit, sygonrima, henry and others) who did their bit to ensure the survival of our club when the chips were down (and let's not forget how down they were).
As another note, RM being in sole charge of the club was intended to simplify any negotiations etc with potential investors, that's why there is no proposal to create other bodies (including, for better or for worse, supporters trusts etc.) that will only serve to defeat one of the main purposes of this exercise, which is increasing our appeal to potential investors. At the end of the day, it's about trusting RM to do the right thing for CAFC (even if we have no choice)...I would think that the vast majority of Charlton fans (including myself), certainly do. He has earnt the right to expect that trust IMHO.
Let's hope that this is another part of the process whereby our woes are put behind us (what happens in SE7 today is another part) and we can rise again........COYR
[cite]Posted By: sygonrima[/cite]
Which is where I started with my first post. Why when we had a crowd of 7,005 and temporary stands in 1993 was the club deemed to have value but now we are getting crowds of 10,000 plus is the club deemed to be worthless.
also rent?
Because in between time we've pi**ed a shed load of money down the drain on crap players who didn't keep us in the Prem or the Championship, have spent a lot on other things like The Valley, got relegated with a massive squad wage burden, taken on a shed load of debt to plug the holes and are still running at a loss.
I'm doing your question a disservice (apoligies) because in 1993 the club was also effectively insolvent. So the real answer is that in 1993 there were a lot of people willing to put money in as equity even though the shares were worthless. They never expected to see it back. Now, having put huge sums in to no effect, the directors (except for RM) understandably don't have the appetite to keep throwing good money after bad.
But if you want to I'm sure RM will gladly take your call.
Thanks for coming back with a more considered answer (although I know the first answer feels more from the heart). I'm fairly sure that at the time, the AIM was backed by an investment house and a number of companies didn't see us as insolvent. My feeling is that with the now more suitable Squad size and budget, we should be a solvent club after the debt's have been converted. I will miss my insight into the running of the club which for the last 15 years has been literally 'my club' and I appriciate that removing me from the loop will save time and money going forward but it is still with a heavey heart that this morning I feel a little bit less Charlton. About to set off for the game and hope that by 5:45 I am fickle enough to have let it all go.
We'll definitely all miss the info that shareholders have rec'd over the years - no obligation on RM's part to be as forthcoming though i don;t think it's his style to bring the shutters down completely. He knows the keen interest that CAFC fans have always taken in the club and, now that there is only him to blame, the importance of goodwill with supporters. I suspect he will continue to make himself available for meetings with us from time to time but nonetheless it's a shame, as others have said, that the modium of fan ownership that CA PLC represented will be no more. When the original share issue was launched in 1994 there was 2,000+ fans that became shareholders. Funnily enough I recall that RM, Martin SImons, Roger Alwen and Mike Stevens all agreed at that time to convert their loans to the Club into (effectively worthless) shares as part of their contribution to the recapitalisation of the Club and share-issuance to fans. So the current proposal is not the first time that directors (present and of the recent past) have extinguished debts due to them.
Going back to the AIM listing and, thereby, the share-issuance to some City institutions (but mainly infact to RM an others such as Bob Whitehand) in 1997. The proceeds were to continue to redevelop The Valley (specifically the West Stand) which since 1993 had seen completion of the East Stand (in fact the liquidity that the '97 capital-raising provided financed the purchase of Mendonca and, arguably, thereby the first promotion to the Prem) and the shares at that time had acquired a modicum of value as compared to '93.
Moreover, the AIM listing was made possible because investment in football clubs had become a hot thing in the City as it saw Sky paying so much for TV rights and assumed that well-managed clubs, even outside the Prem, might be a good punt (lots of clubs listed then and subsequently delisted years later when the City came to its senses). Seems a long time ago!
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]
Am I right in assuming that the bonds are written off, but the loans made in recent years are deferred until better times (hopefully) come around again?
That's the way I read it but you put it very succinctly bigstemarra.
And from what I can see the bonds (approx £14.9m) represent the bulk of what is owed to the directors.
According to the 2009 accounts: Murray & Bolistrom (his company) held £4.1m of the bonds
Derek Chappell £4.1m
Sir Mo Hatter £3.1m
Bob Whitehand £1.7m
David Sumners £1m
Total £14m at June 2009 but maybe someone stuck a little more in or possiby they've added interest that's been deferred to come up with the £14.9m figure today.
Some or all of these guys (plus David White & Dave Hughes?) would also be the providers of the loans that have been novated (i.e transferred) to CAFC, to be serviced only in better times.
BTW, also according to the last accounts, Messrs Murray, Chappell, Simons, Sumners, Whitehand had given personal guarantees to the bank in order for the club to get around £2m of overdraft and other credit facilities.
Easy (and justifiable) to criticise these guys for the decisions made over recent years and to be disappointed with some of the consequences of the proposed deal but we shouldn't overlook what they have done to keep the show on the road for so long to try to make amends for the horror story post-Curbs.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite] ....At the end of the day, it's about trusting RM to do the right thing for CAFC (even if we have no choice)...I would think that the vast majority of Charlton fans (including myself), certainly do. He has earnt the right to expect that trust IMHO.....
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Thanks for that Peanuts. It just shows how much money people have effectively gifted to the club over the years. They have my gratitude.
Only a back of the envelope calculation but these guys have also invested approx £25m of equity between them over the years - like the investments by all CA PLC shareholders down the toilet (along with the bond holdings). They made some expensive mistakes but, as you say, hopefully this is the start of a new chapter.
Comments
I agree so why dont we sell the ground the training ground the houses etc to a supporters trust for £2. I can't see that Mr Murrey is putting up more than a promise of £1m above his current "worthless" shareholding to buy all of these.
You've got 14 days to put a Supporters Trust together, with a credible source of £1m plus (suspect RM's got more than £1m to put in though, even if not a fortune) and put the proposal to the EGM - actually there's been about 2 years to put a Supporters Trust together and hardly anyone gave a flying....
Which is where I started with my first post. Why when we had a crowd of 7,005 and temporary stands in 1993 was the club deemed to have value but now we are getting crowds of 10,000 plus is the club deemed to be worthless.
also rent?
I don't understand my position at all, do I now have no stake at all in the club?
Because in between time we've pi**ed a shed load of money down the drain on crap players who didn't keep us in the Prem or the Championship, have spent a lot on other things like The Valley, got relegated with a massive squad wage burden, taken on a shed load of debt to plug the holes and are still running at a loss.
I'm doing your question a disservice (apoligies) because in 1993 the club was also effectively insolvent. So the real answer is that in 1993 there were a lot of people willing to put money in as equity even though the shares were worthless. They never expected to see it back. Now, having put huge sums in to no effect, the directors (except for RM) understandably don't have the appetite to keep throwing good money after bad.
But if you want to I'm sure RM will gladly take your call.
I imagine the change in running costs of the club may have something to do with it.
Yes, I can see now that CA Plc will be struck off in March 2011. But why (and is it legal?) create £14 million pounds worth of new shares in the company if it is worthless? Why not just default on the bonds if the directors have agreed to completely write off those bonds.
I hope it is for the good of the club, but one person having sole control without any transparancy of accounting, or board decision making etc, doesn't sound good to me.
You still own approx 0.00015% of CA PLC which until 23 Aug will still own CAFC. You'll be able to vote for or against the proposed deal at the EGM (or by post) but it's a foregone conclusion as the board has already voted yes and hold 83% of the votes (50% + 1 vote neede to approve the deal).
After that might aswell frame the share cert and hang it in the karsi so as to remind you that it wasn't all a dream.
Pretty close.
At the EGM the Major shareholders will vote to transfer all the assets of the company that you own shares in to another company that you don't hold shares in and then eventually close down the one that you do hold shares in. They already have support of approx 90% of shareholders so all this will go through and the minor shareholders will end up with nothing.
If you believe that Mr Murrey is a philantropist who wants ho help Charlton be as successful as possible then this is a good thing.
If you believe that Mr Murrey is a business man who having brought a company to its knees is now trying to pull a fast one to take complete control then this may be a bad thing.
I tend towards the first but I'm always a bit of a sceptic.
Simply put, they havnt agreed anything like that.
So in agreeing to having their bonds converted into shares in a worthless company what have they agreed to?
To hold loans which can have the interest serviced upon our return to the champ and capital when we're in the prem.
You are confusing the Director Loans and the bonds.
Too true peanuts, too true. This was just the sort of scenario where a Trust could have been invaluable as a legal entity with fund raising potential but that opportunity has now gone.
Now I guess it was all a bit for nothing in some respects, I gave them a few hundred quid (a hell of a lot of money for me back in my late teens/early twenties) which I guess was needed at the time, but now I will have nothing to show for it other than a piece of paper with my name on it. What a shame.
Indeed.
Not for nothing as you and I and many others played a (smallish) part in paying for the rebuilding of the Valley and the team in the 90s. That was worthwhile.
but that was then, this is now.
So I am! So then they have agreed to write off the money the owe the club.
Thanks for coming back with a more considered answer (although I know the first answer feels more from the heart). I'm fairly sure that at the time, the AIM was backed by an investment house and a number of companies didn't see us as insolvent. My feeling is that with the now more suitable Squad size and budget, we should be a solvent club after the debt's have been converted. I will miss my insight into the running of the club which for the last 15 years has been literally 'my club' and I appriciate that removing me from the loop will save time and money going forward but it is still with a heavey heart that this morning I feel a little bit less Charlton. About to set off for the game and hope that by 5:45 I am fickle enough to have let it all go.
(5 and 6 hours behind, so just having breakfast)
Thanks for putting this up Peanuts (and explaining it to financial illiterates such as myself).
Am I right in assuming that the bonds are written off, but the loans made in recent years are deferred until better times (hopefully) come around again?
Whatever the score, it appears that, whatever people's thoughts about RM and his effectively assuming control....we simply have no other option and we should be grateful that he is effectively sinking more of his personal wealth into securing the future of our club. For that he has my gratitude (not for the first time), as do the other directors (for writing off a considerable amount, if I understand it correctly) and all the shareholders (such as offit, sygonrima, henry and others) who did their bit to ensure the survival of our club when the chips were down (and let's not forget how down they were).
As another note, RM being in sole charge of the club was intended to simplify any negotiations etc with potential investors, that's why there is no proposal to create other bodies (including, for better or for worse, supporters trusts etc.) that will only serve to defeat one of the main purposes of this exercise, which is increasing our appeal to potential investors. At the end of the day, it's about trusting RM to do the right thing for CAFC (even if we have no choice)...I would think that the vast majority of Charlton fans (including myself), certainly do. He has earnt the right to expect that trust IMHO.
Let's hope that this is another part of the process whereby our woes are put behind us (what happens in SE7 today is another part) and we can rise again........COYR
Charlton are still at The Valley.
Everyone who has invested in the club should be appreciated.
Thanks for your money but it is time to look forward.
Good luck to the players.
We'll definitely all miss the info that shareholders have rec'd over the years - no obligation on RM's part to be as forthcoming though i don;t think it's his style to bring the shutters down completely. He knows the keen interest that CAFC fans have always taken in the club and, now that there is only him to blame, the importance of goodwill with supporters. I suspect he will continue to make himself available for meetings with us from time to time but nonetheless it's a shame, as others have said, that the modium of fan ownership that CA PLC represented will be no more. When the original share issue was launched in 1994 there was 2,000+ fans that became shareholders. Funnily enough I recall that RM, Martin SImons, Roger Alwen and Mike Stevens all agreed at that time to convert their loans to the Club into (effectively worthless) shares as part of their contribution to the recapitalisation of the Club and share-issuance to fans. So the current proposal is not the first time that directors (present and of the recent past) have extinguished debts due to them.
Going back to the AIM listing and, thereby, the share-issuance to some City institutions (but mainly infact to RM an others such as Bob Whitehand) in 1997. The proceeds were to continue to redevelop The Valley (specifically the West Stand) which since 1993 had seen completion of the East Stand (in fact the liquidity that the '97 capital-raising provided financed the purchase of Mendonca and, arguably, thereby the first promotion to the Prem) and the shares at that time had acquired a modicum of value as compared to '93.
Moreover, the AIM listing was made possible because investment in football clubs had become a hot thing in the City as it saw Sky paying so much for TV rights and assumed that well-managed clubs, even outside the Prem, might be a good punt (lots of clubs listed then and subsequently delisted years later when the City came to its senses). Seems a long time ago!
That's the way I read it but you put it very succinctly bigstemarra.
And from what I can see the bonds (approx £14.9m) represent the bulk of what is owed to the directors.
According to the 2009 accounts: Murray & Bolistrom (his company) held £4.1m of the bonds
Derek Chappell £4.1m
Sir Mo Hatter £3.1m
Bob Whitehand £1.7m
David Sumners £1m
Total £14m at June 2009 but maybe someone stuck a little more in or possiby they've added interest that's been deferred to come up with the £14.9m figure today.
Some or all of these guys (plus David White & Dave Hughes?) would also be the providers of the loans that have been novated (i.e transferred) to CAFC, to be serviced only in better times.
BTW, also according to the last accounts, Messrs Murray, Chappell, Simons, Sumners, Whitehand had given personal guarantees to the bank in order for the club to get around £2m of overdraft and other credit facilities.
Easy (and justifiable) to criticise these guys for the decisions made over recent years and to be disappointed with some of the consequences of the proposed deal but we shouldn't overlook what they have done to keep the show on the road for so long to try to make amends for the horror story post-Curbs.
Well said.
Only a back of the envelope calculation but these guys have also invested approx £25m of equity between them over the years - like the investments by all CA PLC shareholders down the toilet (along with the bond holdings). They made some expensive mistakes but, as you say, hopefully this is the start of a new chapter.