I would say they're dashed. I would speculate it is about the price asked. If the club has £30 mil (?) of liabilities (balanced against unrealisable assets such as the Valley), and is losing 7 mil a season, then a buyer paying, say, £40mil for the club, is effectively paying £77mil to own us for one season, without any onward investment. If the club was sold recently for £1 plus the liabilities and running costs, a back of the envelope exercise is two seasons worth of losses (£14 mil), plus the £30mil liabilities is £44mil. So buying the club for £15 mil, plus taking on the liabilities/assets, would give Tony/Kevin/Michael a profit of £1mil for their two year effort. If the asking price is, say, £30 mil, then the present board would walk away with £15mil profit for their two year effort. I might have these figures, and indeed the thinking, very wrong.
I would say they're dashed. I would speculate it is about the price asked. If the club has £30 mil (?) of liabilities (balanced against unrealisable assets such as the Valley), and is losing 7 mil a season, then a buyer paying, say, £40mil for the club, is effectively paying £77mil to own us for one season, without any onward investment. If the club was sold recently for £1 plus the liabilities and running costs, a back of the envelope exercise is two seasons worth of losses (£14 mil), plus the £30mil liabilities is £44mil. So buying the club for £15 mil, plus taking on the liabilities/assets, would give Tony/Kevin/Michael a profit of £1mil for their two year effort. If the asking price is, say, £30 mil, then the present board would walk away with £15mil profit for their two year effort. I might have these figures, and indeed the thinking, very wrong.
I feel you're probably right in principle if not the exact figures
Come to think of it, why do the deals always collapse? DD means it's quite far along, doesn't it? And yet it never happens. It would be nice to know why the deals fail, although sometimes I think my preference would be for blissful ignorance of the whole boardroom thing.
It's important to bear in mind that both parties to a deal have hurdles to jump. The owners can't just sell to anyone they like, because the banks among others have a charge on the business and its assets.
Experience suggests that most people who appear to be looking to buy football clubs are a few pence short of a shilling. Most interest doesn't get as far as due diligence. All of which is why it's perfectly understandable that the club doesn't disclose interest being expressed or progressed, although that's not the same as claiming no willingness/intention to sell. It was a bit different when it was a public company.
What I've been told is that in this case the would-be buyers failed to measure up rather than the club. However, that line has ultimately come from the club itself, so whether it is true I don't know.
I would say they're dashed. I would speculate it is about the price asked If the club has £30 mil (?) of liabilities (balanced against unrealisable assets such as the Valley), and is losing 7 mil a season, then a buyer paying, say, £40mil for the club, is effectively paying £77mil to own us for one season, without any onward investment. If the club was sold recently for £1 plus the liabilities and running costs, a back of the envelope exercise is two seasons worth of losses (£14 mil), plus the £30mil liabilities is £44mil. So buying the club for £15 mil, plus taking on the liabilities/assets, would give Tony/Kevin/Michael a profit of £1mil for their two year effort. If the asking price is, say, £30 mil, then the present board would walk away with £15mil profit for their two year effort. I might have these figures, and indeed the thinking, very wrong.
The current owners might like to walk away with a profit, but it's really hard to see how they can achieve that. I can't even see why a buyer would be willing to repay all creditors and then pay off the loans from CAFCH. If somebody did pay anything for the Club's equity (i.e. a sum over and above the debt) then we should be worried. It would be a sign that they may not understand what they were getting into.
Even under FFP a new owner would need to continue to fund losses with the only way out an unlikely promotion to the Premier League so that, realistically, the Club has very little value. What might be possible is a deal structure under which the current owners receive little if anything upfront, but with the possibility of a "windfall" gain if the Club is promoted. Of course, this is very similar to what Richard Murray agreed with the then directors when he bought them out and formed Baton. (See CAS Trust News).
Will Jimenez et al be willing to sell on such terms? Who knows. However, Airman's comment above implies that the problem wasn't about price as far as this prospective sale was concerned, but again who knows.
I disagree off it totally this was mentioned to some a few weeks ago things filter down and early this week others heard that there was potentially good news on the horizon
Now after the things that happend last season with people sharing info and getting bullshit aimed at them these conversations happen privately
Then if someone posts something and unfairly get a bit of unjust comments others say that they dont think its fair
Myself and AB have not always eye but i dont think he has done anything thst deserves criticism
Having read this discussion when it broke and reading the first 20 odd posts, had to attend to something. Then I come back and read further comments, both for and against Airman Brown. Personally I am very interested and grateful for Rick's comments. In my opinion a person with his knowledge and contacts both in and out of football, are always worth listening to. There's not too many people with the knowledge of Charlton that I would put into this bracket. But anyone who knows any Charlton fans that have been following the club for so many years are always worth listening to.
Anyone questions the sainted brethren on here and all the disciples rally round.
Brilliant.
Not sainted, far from it, a bloody awkward b***r sometimes, but then that's a quality that is much needed at times and, in the past, proved invaluable in getting us back to The Valley Sometimes you have to decide who to believe, especially when there's not a lot of facts to go on. So you look at track records and thus, for me, AB wins hands down every time. You just seem to hold a grudge against him, which is fine by me as well. Each to his own etc.
I would say they're dashed. I would speculate it is about the price asked If the club has £30 mil (?) of liabilities (balanced against unrealisable assets such as the Valley), and is losing 7 mil a season, then a buyer paying, say, £40mil for the club, is effectively paying £77mil to own us for one season, without any onward investment. If the club was sold recently for £1 plus the liabilities and running costs, a back of the envelope exercise is two seasons worth of losses (£14 mil), plus the £30mil liabilities is £44mil. So buying the club for £15 mil, plus taking on the liabilities/assets, would give Tony/Kevin/Michael a profit of £1mil for their two year effort. If the asking price is, say, £30 mil, then the present board would walk away with £15mil profit for their two year effort. I might have these figures, and indeed the thinking, very wrong.
The current owners might like to walk away with a profit, but it's really hard to see how they can achieve that. I can't even see why a buyer would be willing to repay all creditors and then pay off the loans from CAFCH. If somebody did pay anything for the Club's equity (i.e. a sum over and above the debt) then we should be worried. It would be a sign that they may not understand what they were getting into.
Even under FFP a new owner would need to continue to fund losses with the only way out an unlikely promotion to the Premier League so that, realistically, the Club has very little value. What might be possible is a deal structure under which the current owners receive little if anything upfront, but with the possibility of a "windfall" gain if the Club is promoted. Of course, this is very similar to what Richard Murray agreed with the then directors when he bought them out and formed Baton. (See CAS Trust News).
Will Jimenez et al be willing to sell on such terms? Who knows. However, Airman's comment above implies that the problem wasn't about price as far as this prospective sale was concerned, but again who knows.
I have long since assumed that the sort of deal you outline above would apply: a buyer would pay only part of the agreed price up front, with the remainder payable when promotion is achieved. The advantage of this deferred payment is that it frees up money for building a squad capable of gaining promotion sooner rather than later. If the current owners are unwilling or unable to invest in new players, and prospective buyers continue to falter - it's us, the fans, who will suffer poor performances on the pitch.
I would say they're dashed. I would speculate it is about the price asked If the club has £30 mil (?) of liabilities (balanced against unrealisable assets such as the Valley), and is losing 7 mil a season, then a buyer paying, say, £40mil for the club, is effectively paying £77mil to own us for one season, without any onward investment. If the club was sold recently for £1 plus the liabilities and running costs, a back of the envelope exercise is two seasons worth of losses (£14 mil), plus the £30mil liabilities is £44mil. So buying the club for £15 mil, plus taking on the liabilities/assets, would give Tony/Kevin/Michael a profit of £1mil for their two year effort. If the asking price is, say, £30 mil, then the present board would walk away with £15mil profit for their two year effort. I might have these figures, and indeed the thinking, very wrong.
The current owners might like to walk away with a profit, but it's really hard to see how they can achieve that. I can't even see why a buyer would be willing to repay all creditors and then pay off the loans from CAFCH. If somebody did pay anything for the Club's equity (i.e. a sum over and above the debt) then we should be worried. It would be a sign that they may not understand what they were getting into.
Even under FFP a new owner would need to continue to fund losses with the only way out an unlikely promotion to the Premier League so that, realistically, the Club has very little value. What might be possible is a deal structure under which the current owners receive little if anything upfront, but with the possibility of a "windfall" gain if the Club is promoted. Of course, this is very similar to what Richard Murray agreed with the then directors when he bought them out and formed Baton. (See CAS Trust News).
Will Jimenez et al be willing to sell on such terms? Who knows. However, Airman's comment above implies that the problem wasn't about price as far as this prospective sale was concerned, but again who knows.
I have long since assumed that the sort of deal you outline above would apply: a buyer would pay only part of the agreed price up front, with the remainder payable when promotion is achieved. The advantage of this deferred payment is that it frees up money for building a squad capable of gaining promotion sooner rather than later. If the current owners are unwilling or unable to invest in new players, and prospective buyers continue to falter - it's us, the fans, who will suffer poor performances on the pitch.
Exactly. It also reduces the buyer's risk and that's likely to be a critical consideration.
It's not just we fans that lose though if the current owners are unable to fund losses and, hence, build a competitive playing squad. The owners lose too. They badly need success on the field - relegation, God forbid, would be a financial disaster for them. They have a real dilemma. It's a game of brinkmanship. Let's hope that Jimenez doesn't overplay his hand - we all stand to lose if he does.
Off it - as far as most on here are concerned AB, for better or worse, long ago earned his stripes and has nothing to prove to anyone. You ??
Believe me GHF, off it has earned his stripes over and over again. He sits with three generations of Addicks, has been a shareholder, done at least three full seasons home and away and has plenty of other history under his belt as lots on here know. Fair enough if you want to criticise his posts but don't question his credentials.
A little bird just told me the deals back on after some DD was shown in the BR by the CEO and the new MSH! I wait for the Socialist Worker to confirm......
I would say they're dashed. I would speculate it is about the price asked If the club has £30 mil (?) of liabilities (balanced against unrealisable assets such as the Valley), and is losing 7 mil a season, then a buyer paying, say, £40mil for the club, is effectively paying £77mil to own us for one season, without any onward investment. If the club was sold recently for £1 plus the liabilities and running costs, a back of the envelope exercise is two seasons worth of losses (£14 mil), plus the £30mil liabilities is £44mil. So buying the club for £15 mil, plus taking on the liabilities/assets, would give Tony/Kevin/Michael a profit of £1mil for their two year effort. If the asking price is, say, £30 mil, then the present board would walk away with £15mil profit for their two year effort. I might have these figures, and indeed the thinking, very wrong.
The current owners might like to walk away with a profit, but it's really hard to see how they can achieve that. I can't even see why a buyer would be willing to repay all creditors and then pay off the loans from CAFCH. If somebody did pay anything for the Club's equity (i.e. a sum over and above the debt) then we should be worried. It would be a sign that they may not understand what they were getting into.
Even under FFP a new owner would need to continue to fund losses with the only way out an unlikely promotion to the Premier League so that, realistically, the Club has very little value. What might be possible is a deal structure under which the current owners receive little if anything upfront, but with the possibility of a "windfall" gain if the Club is promoted. Of course, this is very similar to what Richard Murray agreed with the then directors when he bought them out and formed Baton. (See CAS Trust News).
Will Jimenez et al be willing to sell on such terms? Who knows. However, Airman's comment above implies that the problem wasn't about price as far as this prospective sale was concerned, but again who knows.
I have long since assumed that the sort of deal you outline above would apply: a buyer would pay only part of the agreed price up front, with the remainder payable when promotion is achieved. The advantage of this deferred payment is that it frees up money for building a squad capable of gaining promotion sooner rather than later. If the current owners are unwilling or unable to invest in new players, and prospective buyers continue to falter - it's us, the fans, who will suffer poor performances on the pitch.
Exactly. It also reduces the buyer's risk and that's likely to be a critical consideration.
It's not just we fans that lose though if the current owners are unable to fund losses and, hence, build a competitive playing squad. The owners lose too. They badly need success on the field - relegation, God forbid, would be a financial disaster for them. They have a real dilemma. It's a game of brinkmanship. Let's hope that Jimenez doesn't overplay his hand - we all stand to lose if he does.
'Let's hope that Jimenez doesn't overplay his hand - we all stand to lose if he does.' Why does that observation fill me with dread?
If somebody knows something, i'd like them to share it on the site, but having done so myself on one past occasion - you get too much grief! Won't do it again. If Airman offers us information to make us better informed, we should be thanking him - whether he tells us what we want to hear or not!!!! I just don't unerstand some people's attitudes!
Sounds like the club is for sale - do we just sit and wait? And hope that future owners have the wealth and competence to carry the Baton. Do we come on here to tune into gossip / release pieces of information and speculate?
Or do we do something concrete? For I am certain of one thing... the fans need a collective voice and to nominate their representatives to sit down with the club to ensure that the journey continues as well as it has for the last two seasons. The supporters Trust is fast approaching 600 members and has 3,000 supporter connections which is where it wanted to be by now.
When (not if) it gets to 1,000 members it will be the first Trust to do this without the need for crisis like Palace, Portsmouth etc. And as it continues to grow it will be able to support and even suggest solutions as to how to run CAFC in a way that will ensure it will continue on the journey back to the Premier League - where the cash is and where anyone owed money can get their money back.
AFKA - whether it is one person or a minority, surely a discussion about the leaking of information into the public domain is very relevant when it comes to possible takeovers?
I think Airman saved this thread from another 500 posts - I praise him for saving precious minutes of my life not trailing through here reading wild stab in the dark conjecture trying to weed out some slither of info that could allude me to believe that we'd be owned by some happy go lucky here's my money oil barren from Russia who's mad enough to spend his billionaire fortune on propelling us back the premier league, which is sadly motivated by the fact I could stomach a pint with a palace fan in the not too distance future - I'm going back to my ex reality, she's fat and ugly but least I know where I stand with her
I'm looking forward to some modest but well researched signings to come- some young players breaking through, and a thoroughly entertaining league campaign at what is a decent price. Not so bad!
Comments
I would speculate it is about the price asked.
If the club has £30 mil (?) of liabilities (balanced against unrealisable assets such as the Valley), and is losing 7 mil a season, then a buyer paying, say, £40mil for the club, is effectively paying £77mil to own us for one season, without any onward investment.
If the club was sold recently for £1 plus the liabilities and running costs, a back of the envelope exercise is two seasons worth of losses (£14 mil), plus the £30mil liabilities is £44mil.
So buying the club for £15 mil, plus taking on the liabilities/assets, would give Tony/Kevin/Michael a profit of £1mil for their two year effort.
If the asking price is, say, £30 mil, then the present board would walk away with £15mil profit for their two year effort.
I might have these figures, and indeed the thinking, very wrong.
Even under FFP a new owner would need to continue to fund losses with the only way out an unlikely promotion to the Premier League so that, realistically, the Club has very little value. What might be possible is a deal structure under which the current owners receive little if anything upfront, but with the possibility of a "windfall" gain if the Club is promoted. Of course, this is very similar to what Richard Murray agreed with the then directors when he bought them out and formed Baton. (See CAS Trust News).
Will Jimenez et al be willing to sell on such terms? Who knows. However, Airman's comment above implies that the problem wasn't about price as far as this prospective sale was concerned, but again who knows.
Anyone questions the sainted brethren on here and all the disciples rally round.
Brilliant.
Now after the things that happend last season with people sharing info and getting bullshit aimed at them these conversations happen privately
Then if someone posts something and unfairly get a bit of unjust comments others say that they dont think its fair
Myself and AB have not always eye but i dont think he has done anything thst deserves criticism
Personally I am very interested and grateful for Rick's comments. In my opinion a person with his knowledge and contacts both in and out of football, are always worth listening to. There's not too many people with the knowledge of Charlton that I would put into this bracket. But anyone who knows any Charlton fans that have been following the club for so many years are always worth listening to.
This one was a bit too quick for me to build sufficient excitment to then feel the pain of dissapointment when it all collapsed 2 hours later!
I am a very trustworthy chap.
It's not just we fans that lose though if the current owners are unable to fund losses and, hence, build a competitive playing squad. The owners lose too. They badly need success on the field - relegation, God forbid, would be a financial disaster for them. They have a real dilemma. It's a game of brinkmanship. Let's hope that Jimenez doesn't overplay his hand - we all stand to lose if he does.
I guess that makes us equal then.
Or do we do something concrete? For I am certain of one thing... the fans need a collective voice and to nominate their representatives to sit down with the club to ensure that the journey continues as well as it has for the last two seasons. The supporters Trust is fast approaching 600 members and has 3,000 supporter connections which is where it wanted to be by now.
When (not if) it gets to 1,000 members it will be the first Trust to do this without the need for crisis like Palace, Portsmouth etc. And as it continues to grow it will be able to support and even suggest solutions as to how to run CAFC in a way that will ensure it will continue on the journey back to the Premier League - where the cash is and where anyone owed money can get their money back.
AFKA - whether it is one person or a minority, surely a discussion about the leaking of information into the public domain is very relevant when it comes to possible takeovers?