But in any case I doubt if the bank behind the north stand mortgage would have allowed the takeover to proceed on that basis and they would no doubt have a say in terms of the loan covenants, i.e. they could call in the loan if they don't like the look of the deal.
If the club were teetering on the brink of administration why did the previous owners pay fees for a number of players - I believe Benno, Abbott and Francis - a few months before the takeover - were they not of sound mind?
Why would (mostly) internal debt trigger administration?
My calculator can't add this up.
I make your first point a very good question
I think the second point is cos most of the debt was internal/friendly, I think if the unfriendly debt being the mortgage was unpaid it would result in repossession perhaps, rather than bankruptcy although one could lead to the other?
I think the point being made is that a potential new owner could simply watch the club go bust before purchasing, then come in for it for nowt and with far less (albeit restructured) debt, one assumes they would have to buy the North Stand which would be owned by the bank? Puzzling really perhaps the carrot of likely promotion.
If the club were teetering on the brink of administration why did the previous owners pay fees for a number of players - I believe Benno, Abbott and Francis - a few months before the takeover - were they not of sound mind? Why would (mostly) internal debt trigger administration? My calculator can't add this up.
Because short of a takeover the only hope of balancing the books was to gain promotion. If you didn't buy players then you would certainly go bust, because the club cannot be made viable at League One level.
I think the point being made is that a potential new owner could simply watch the club go bust before purchasing, then come in for it for nowt and with far less (albeit restructured) debt, one assumes they would have to buy the North Stand which would be owned by the bank? Puzzling really perhaps the carrot of likely promotion.
I'd suspect that the guarantee on the north stand cover the whole site.
Because short of a takeover the only hope of balancing the books was to gain promotion. If you didn't buy players then you would certainly go bust, because the club cannot be made viable at League One level.
So the takeover has given the club the wherewithal to maintain it's position in League 1, rather than desperately trying to get out of it, even to the point of buying in players... I think I would rather the club continued to go all out for promotion if I'm honest.
As Airman says the security interest of the bank in the charge over the North Stand would have to surely at least extend to the whole ground for it to be viable. If the club defaulted and the bank wanted to take possession there would be no point in only being able to enter the North Stand, they would have to have rights to possess the entire site or it would just be worth the concrete and metal it stands in and nothing else. They would want the right to possess and dispose of the entire ground or no bank worth anything would be lending the money.
I can't really believe what I am reading. There is pretty much no doubt that the club was on the brink of administration whether or not RM said he wouldn't let that happen.
The club fell from the Premier League at absolutely the wrong economic time, had one season to get back there, even then it had to shed costs massively. Remember also that making people redundant just deals with the ongoing costs, there is a huge one off hit in that year.
The club had a turnover and cost structure in the £30M plus bracket and now its turnover is in the £5M bracket yet some of its costs remain the same and some of its playing staff were paid at unsustainable levels.
The directors have written off or deferred huge amounts of debt and RM was still having to dip his hand in prior to the takeover. This was unsustainable. Read the good Airman words because he knows. The only hope was promotion before TJ and MS arrived. It is possible that the club may have bought itself just enough time with its creditors to have seen the season out like Norwich did the previous season, although I think this was increasingly unlikely.
We were staring into the abyss and we must recognise that TJ and MS have pulled us back from it (with RM as well).
But in practice in the event of administration the bank would have a mortgage on a stand (all be it with a charge over the whole plot) that is designated as a football stadium and has little or no value to any entity other than a football club that wants to use the stadium for playing matches. Thus if the mortgage was offered to be settles at 10p in the pound they could either wipe off 90% of the debt or they could reposes a football stadium that has no resale value and no rental income if Charlton are not playing there.
Unless I'm mistaken this is very similar to how Palace held RBS over a barrell and forced them to sell the £16m stadium to them for £3m. I don't know the full details of that, but that was the impression I got from the reporting at the time.
Clearly Murray would have lost his 'investment' in the club had it gone into administration, but as he said when the club was 'taken' from the fans, if the total value of the company is less than 0 those investments are wortless anyway.
I don't advocate that we should have gone into administration, nor do I hold anyone acountable for getting us into that position. I'm just suggesting that administration followed by a deal with the creditors would have made financial sense to those buying the club, especially if they knew back in December that we were going to finish outside of the playoff and be forced to play another season in this god forsaken division.
The directors have written off or deferred huge amounts of debt and RM was still having to dip his hand in prior to the takeover. This was unsustainable.
The club was budgetted to make a £4m loss last year, and yet some people still slagged off Muzzer...
Bing - I agree with that 100% so what is the point of PVclaiming that TJ and MS saved us from relegation too? I honestly don't believe that is the case but am still grateful for the relative stability that has been brought to the club. As for the earlier comment about rather us pushing for promotion - the strategy wasn't for Charlton to come 13th - the problem from my perspective was that Parky was sacked too early and he was doing a pretty good job with what little he had but it wasn't pretty on the eye and the new board wanted something different that Parky's squad with some additions wasn't collectively able to embrace - that's the truth.
It can come good - if Powell can bring in the players who are capable of playing the way the club want effectively and I do believe he can. I think had the club not been taken over- we would probably have finished higher - possibly in a play off place but we would have had to be lucky to do any better than last year and administration would have been staring us in the face now- but wouldn't have happened whilst we had a chance of promotion.
...or they could reposses a football stadium that has no resale value and no rental income if Charlton are not playing there.
-------------------------------------------------------------- A site like The Valley site would fetch millions from housing developers.
If we weren't playing there, & had no chance of going back(if we had to vacate due to poor financial management), that site would be snapped up & built on, quicker than McGraw!
But in practice in the event of administration the bank would have a mortgage on a stand (all be it with a charge over the whole plot) that is designated as a football stadium and has little or no value to any entity other than a football club that wants to use the stadium for playing matches. Thus if the mortgage was offered to be settles at 10p in the pound they could either wipe off 90% of the debt or they could reposes a football stadium that has no resale value and no rental income if Charlton are not playing there.
Unless I'm mistaken this is very similar to how Palace held RBS over a barrell and forced them to sell the £16m stadium to them for £3m. I don't know the full details of that, but that was the impression I got from the reporting at the time.
Clearly Murray would have lost his 'investment' in the club had it gone into administration, but as he said when the club was 'taken' from the fans, if the total value of the company is less than 0 those investments are wortless anyway.
I don't advocate that we should have gone into administration, nor do I hold anyone acountable for getting us into that position. I'm just suggesting that administration followed by a deal with the creditors would have made financial sense to those buying the club, especially if they knew back in December that we were going to finish outside of the playoff and be forced to play another season in this god forsaken division.
I don't accept this.
The new owners would have to weigh up the costs of bailing the club out without liquidation and the costs of allowing the club to go that way. They may have deduced for example that the squad of players available to be sold off upon administration may leave them having a much greater investment requirement than if they stepped in prior.
They may have had to accept that the fall out of administration would have guaranteed no promotion and a strong relegation possibility and that was a unquantifiable cost versus a known cost of keeping the club together with a chance of promotion.
There may have been other consortia around who were hovering vulture-like waiting for us to go into administration and they made a pre-emptive strike.
The Palarse situation is different because they were forced into Administration against the wishes of Tangoman. The only outcome then was finding a way back post points deduction.
Going back to the original post - I also commented on the Facebook fans page that it's insulting to suggest that we'd need a calculator to work out 59 - 10. And, just like on here, somebody replied by missing the point.
Another thing is -if you want to argue that BWPs goals kept us up - you would have to ignore the fact that before he arrived we scored goals and were in the play off places. Not saying he was a poor signing but we are not simpletons.
Going back to the original post - I also commented on the Facebook fans page that it's insulting to suggest that we'd need a calculator to work out 59 - 10. And, just like on here, somebody replied by missing the point.
At least some misguided contributor didnt tell you to chill out!
If the new owners lead us to administration is that ok ? Let's hope these people aren't so poor at making decisions and won't just piss money down the drain on wank managers and players after turning down a year of management and help in chosing a new manager from Curbishley ....
Comments
Because short of a takeover the only hope of balancing the books was to gain promotion. If you didn't buy players then you would certainly go bust, because the club cannot be made viable at League One level.
I'd suspect that the guarantee on the north stand cover the whole site.Well this is tedious!!!!!
We are in League one.
End of story.
But in practice in the event of administration the bank would have a mortgage on a stand (all be it with a charge over the whole plot) that is designated as a football stadium and has little or no value to any entity other than a football club that wants to use the stadium for playing matches. Thus if the mortgage was offered to be settles at 10p in the pound they could either wipe off 90% of the debt or they could reposes a football stadium that has no resale value and no rental income if Charlton are not playing there.
Unless I'm mistaken this is very similar to how Palace held RBS over a barrell and forced them to sell the £16m stadium to them for £3m. I don't know the full details of that, but that was the impression I got from the reporting at the time.
Clearly Murray would have lost his 'investment' in the club had it gone into administration, but as he said when the club was 'taken' from the fans, if the total value of the company is less than 0 those investments are wortless anyway.
I don't advocate that we should have gone into administration, nor do I hold anyone acountable for getting us into that position. I'm just suggesting that administration followed by a deal with the creditors would have made financial sense to those buying the club, especially if they knew back in December that we were going to finish outside of the playoff and be forced to play another season in this god forsaken division.
The directors have written off or deferred huge amounts of debt and RM was still having to dip his hand in prior to the takeover. This was unsustainable.
The club was budgetted to make a £4m loss last year, and yet some people still slagged off Muzzer...
Bing - I agree with that 100% so what is the point of PVclaiming that TJ and MS saved us from relegation too? I honestly don't believe that is the case but am still grateful for the relative stability that has been brought to the club. As for the earlier comment about rather us pushing for promotion - the strategy wasn't for Charlton to come 13th - the problem from my perspective was that Parky was sacked too early and he was doing a pretty good job with what little he had but it wasn't pretty on the eye and the new board wanted something different that Parky's squad with some additions wasn't collectively able to embrace - that's the truth.
It can come good - if Powell can bring in the players who are capable of playing the way the club want effectively and I do believe he can. I think had the club not been taken over- we would probably have finished higher - possibly in a play off place but we would have had to be lucky to do any better than last year and administration would have been staring us in the face now- but wouldn't have happened whilst we had a chance of promotion.
A site like The Valley site would fetch millions from housing developers.
If we weren't playing there, & had no chance of going back(if we had to vacate due to poor financial management), that site would be snapped up & built on, quicker than McGraw!
The new owners would have to weigh up the costs of bailing the club out without liquidation and the costs of allowing the club to go that way. They may have deduced for example that the squad of players available to be sold off upon administration may leave them having a much greater investment requirement than if they stepped in prior.
They may have had to accept that the fall out of administration would have guaranteed no promotion and a strong relegation possibility and that was a unquantifiable cost versus a known cost of keeping the club together with a chance of promotion.
There may have been other consortia around who were hovering vulture-like waiting for us to go into administration and they made a pre-emptive strike.
The Palarse situation is different because they were forced into Administration against the wishes of Tangoman. The only outcome then was finding a way back post points deduction.
Let's hope these people aren't so poor at making decisions and won't just piss money down the drain on wank managers and players after turning down a year of management and help in chosing a new manager from Curbishley ....
Just checked my relaxo-meter my parole officer gave me and on a scale of 1 to 10, I have spent the past week at 11. Extraordinary!