yes, but the first bidders could walk away if delayed too long!
I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other on the Charlton situation.
However due diligence can be a two way thing. The potential purchaser wants to assure himself that he would actually receive in reality what purports to be on offer but equally the vendor needs to know that the proposed purchaser is good for the potential offer.
Don't the Bank and the previous directors also have a right of veto?
Not sure they do Kap - my understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) is that the previous owners have no rights other than their right to a return of capital upon certain events including the club being promoted to the Prem or on sale.
More to the point I can imagine that Dicky and Co are only really interested in their payment and from who is a secondary concern a long way removed from their primary concern. As I say, it's business and big business with big numbers too.
As you say they have the right to the return of their capital on a sale, so if that doesn't form part of the arrangement they do have a veto. The bank debt will be paid eventually in any event, so a purchaser might take a view about that. The directors' loans are otherwise contingent on promotion, so I guess it depends how much money the bidder has and how confident they are of securing promotion whether they'd pay it up front. Given they are interest-free loans, it's not obvious why you would do it.
Also the more likely the bidder is to get the team promoted the more likely the directors are to get their money in time and agree to roll over the loans. I don't think it's quite fair to imply that for all of them it's all about getting the money back at this stage. I give most of them a bit more credit than that, including RM.
I appreciate that the pre 2010 takeover owners may have personal feelings towards the club but as I mention it's business and a sizeable entitlement if the conditions are met and their main goal must be to do whatever is necessary to achieve the return of capital.
You're making an assumption and one that others who know that parties involved have already disputed here.
That's their's and my privilege isn't it - I do not have personal knowledge of the gentlemen concerned but I offer the opinion based on an interest in human behavioural science.
You may offer your opinion as you have done and I have offered mine. I think your opinion is based upon an assumption which I and more importantly those who know the people involved refute. The evidence is that over the years those involved have acted in an entirely mostly altruistic manner, quite the reverse of your inference.
I would suggest that large parts are factually incorrect.
The price, the nationality (not mentioned here but was on Friday), little opposition to the move, the omission of the other debts
Not like me to defend journalists but, from reading this thread, very few of us definitely want to stay at The Valley.
Most seem to say embrace the great opportunity or we need to change to progress.
Thus you can see why he concludes that there is little opposition.
I've said higher up the thread the ambivalence to a move surprises me.
I must be getting old.
Len, I agree 100% with your post.
I guess I'm old school like you and I'm 100% against moving. Maybe it is our age and our reluctance for change as we get older but to me Charlton and the Valley are intertwined and always will be.
I had assumed most people would feel the same but reading through this thread it is obvious that most people are more than happy to consider moving if it progresses the club. That genuinely astounds me.
The question is, I guess, whether the people who post on here are a fair reflection of our total support.
Either way, it's probably irrelevant what the fans want. Once the money men get their hands on the club, they will do whatever they want, as has happened at West Ham.
I have been supporting Charlton for over 40 years and under the right conditions I see no problem with a move. We have to accept that being able to move the club to a sexy site may be one of the factors that makes us attractive. And under the right conditions, I don't honestly see something that would be opposed by fans. Look at Highbury and it's rich history - the fans adapted to a move to the emirates. Some wil say - well they needed too - Highbury was too small for them, which is different to us. But under those right conditions, a move with ambitious new owners could put us on another level - in a lovely modern ground on a brilliant site. Of course we have to wait to see what pans out and what is planned - but having an open mind should be the order of the day
The only difference is that they've added a sentence (at the end of the 5th paragraph):
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
Both articles mention Cathedral - the property company who have had a lease on the proposed 'stadium' site (Morden Wharf) since March 2012 (as I've posted before) - but don't mention that their plans at the moment don't include any kind of stadium but only "a 5,000 capacity indoor entertainment area and a 10,000 capacity outdoor events space" (so not exactly cutting edge investigative journalism).
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
I think this misunderstands and misrepresents the reasons for Asset of Community Value application from my perspective. I signed the petition, as I didn't want a developer selling the ground, turning a quick buck by selling it off for housing and running off with the money whilst Charlton gets shunted off to a dubious ground share arrangment with Ebbsfleet, West Ham United or Millwall (this is for an instance) or some other dodgy arrangement that does not promote the stability of the club.
Owning the ground roots the club. I am not a luddite or adverse to change, but want to be reassured that any change of ground arrangements is positive and progressive for the club. The ACV helps to establish the principle of the club in the area, and supporting ACV does not for me prevent me supporting a development on the peninsula. The community asset is the presence of the club and ground in the local area and the excellent community work that the club does in the borough. ACV identifies Charlton Athletic and the supporters as stakeholders in the local area, with views that need to be included and respected as part of a local development plan that the Council and developers consider.
I know that for some that they never want to leave the Valley and I respect that position, but thats not for me. For the person that wrote that 'the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground' misses the context of why that might happen. I would support blocking or delaying the sale of the ground if the terms of the sale meant that the club was being seriously disadvantaged by the sale or being taken by a bunch of sharks. Any respectable and reasonable owner of th e
I am ready for the club to grow, develop and change and will respond positively if the arrangements for the club are positive.
I am not expert enough to understand whether another set up other than owning the ground is a good idea but my feeling that owning the ground is better unless someone can explain how it might work and how the rent may not adversely affect Financial Fair Play or be subject to a rent hike that evicts the club from its home.
New reasonable and respectable owners that communicate with the fan base have nothing to fear from the Trust or from ACV. If anything I feel ACV enhances a stadium bid on the peninsula. The Supporters Trust are a positive force at Charlton. Greenwich Council should be looking to accept ACV for the Valley and show respect to Charlton Athletic club for the positive force it brings to the borough.
We don't actually know if a move is being considered or not yet, although granted some have offered evidence. Assuming a move is being considered, is there a way we could conduct a carefully worded poll to find a consensus? If so, would it be worthwhile or would it just be fractious?
I have been supporting Charlton for over 40 years and under the right conditions I see no problem with a move. We have to accept that being able to move the club to a sexy site may be one of the factors that makes us attractive. And under the right conditions, I don't honestly see something that would be opposed by fans. Look at Highbury and it's rich history - the fans adapted to a move to the emirates. Some wil say - well they needed too - Highbury was too small for them, which is different to us. But under those right conditions, a move with ambitious new owners could put us on another level - in a lovely modern ground on a brilliant site. Of course we have to wait to see what pans out and what is planned - but having an open mind should be the order of the day
Agree with virtually all of this, I love The Valley and want to stay but would not be against a move if it was for the clubs' benefit. The big difference between us and Arsenal though is that they OWN their swanky new ground, it seems we would be tenants at ours, not owners, thereby losing our main asset and leaving us at the mercy of our Landlord, it just wouldn't feel right.
We don't actually know if a move is being considered or not yet, although granted some have offered evidence. Assuming a move is being considered, is there a way we could conduct a carefully worded poll to find a consensus? If so, would it be worthwhile or would it just be fractious?
I can't see any point in a poll until we know what is proposed and why. There are any number of potential variations, which would make people's views on the principle meaningless, also an assumption by some that a move must of itself improve the club's finances, which is flakey at best.
I'm surprised how reasoned the debate is on this, particularly on here, where opposing views can get a bit heated.
I'm even surprised I'd go along with it. I always thought I'd say 'Never' to a move away from The Valley. It's a place I love, full of memories from all stages of my life. It's a lovely ground, but I can see the advantages of a move.
Still, if it happens at all, it'll be a long way off, which should make attendance at The Valley all the more compulsory.
We cannot stay as we are either way. Being of a generation that saw football at the Valley pre and post Selhurst I can fully understand the ties that bind the opinion of some of the old timers on here. On the other hand a fair proportion of our support now were not even born and to them the struggle to get back to the Valley is a footnote in history just like many others, albeit directly associated with the football club they happen to support.
I am with the "memories are memories but..." camp after a lot of consideration and reading of various forums. We of course up to this point have no idea what the next few days will bring for our club but if the conditions for a move are right for Charlton Athletic, then I who hold them higher in my list of priorities than most would deem healthy would support a move to the peninsula. And the ghosts of those I still hold dear who came with me all those years ago would tend to agree, move on I say.
I have been supporting Charlton for over 40 years and under the right conditions I see no problem with a move. We have to accept that being able to move the club to a sexy site may be one of the factors that makes us attractive. And under the right conditions, I don't honestly see something that would be opposed by fans. Look at Highbury and it's rich history - the fans adapted to a move to the emirates. Some wil say - well they needed too - Highbury was too small for them, which is different to us. But under those right conditions, a move with ambitious new owners could put us on another level - in a lovely modern ground on a brilliant site. Of course we have to wait to see what pans out and what is planned - but having an open mind should be the order of the day
Agree with virtually all of this, I love The Valley and want to stay but would not be against a move if it was for the clubs' benefit. The big difference between us and Arsenal though is that they OWN their swanky new ground, it seems we would be tenants at ours, not owners, thereby losing our main asset and leaving us at the mercy of our Landlord, it just wouldn't feel right.
I think that this is the most important point in this discussion – IF we get new owners and IF they wanted to move from the Valley.
Firstly we don’t need a new stadium for football reasons in the Championship or IF we got promoted for some time in the Premiership either – despite the Lansdowne Mews issue the Valley's capacity could still be increased somewhat.
I think the only reason any new owners would consider moving is for the capital gain of developing the Valley site. But that would only be financially attractive if they didn't have to pay the cost of building a new stadium (on the peninsula or elsewhere).
So I think that almost certainly means that Charlton would be one of the tenants of a new 'multi-purpose' stadium built and owned by somebody else – with all the insecurity that entails - and all the additional income from ‘7 day use’ etc, that some have suggested as a benefit of a move would go to the owners of the stadium not CAFC.
With Richard Murray still owed £7 million and having some say, I doubt he would sanction any move or decision that would leave us in a vulnerable position.
With Richard Murray still owed £7 million and having some say, I doubt he would sanction any move or decision that would leave us in a vulnerable position.
I would hope so, but would also be afraid that he would not have enough clout to veto a decision.
With Richard Murray still owed £7 million and having some say, I doubt he would sanction any move or decision that would leave us in a vulnerable position.
Not Richard Murray who is owed £7m but a group of former directors including RM and If I remember correctly David White, Bob Whitehand and Derek Chappel.
Richard does also still have a 9.9% share in the club but as a minority shareholder won't have the power to stop a sale.
With Richard Murray still owed £7 million and having some say, I doubt he would sanction any move or decision that would leave us in a vulnerable position.
I admire your faith.
Besides a move can be made to appear initially attractive - but if things go wrong on the football front (and we know all about that) - then the situation can change rapidly. Look at Coventry and the Ricoh Arena - and that is owned jointly by Coventry City Council and a charity, not a profit focused private property company, as would be the case with any new stadium on the peninsula.
We don't actually know if a move is being considered or not yet, although granted some have offered evidence. Assuming a move is being considered, is there a way we could conduct a carefully worded poll to find a consensus? If so, would it be worthwhile or would it just be fractious?
I can't see any point in a poll until we know what is proposed and why. There are any number of potential variations, which would make people's views on the principle meaningless, also an assumption by some that a move must of itself improve the club's finances, which is flakey at best.
I'm sure we have someone with the necessary communication skills to negotiate the nuances of assumptive logic and turn it into a worthwhile question however, if it's not worthwhile then there is no point.
This thread is now too long to read - Where on earth did this talk of Germans come from??? Nonsense
It started with a couple of German delicatessents, the odd german stalls at Christmas and Herman ze German shops selling curry wurst. Ano now a full blown Winter wonderland which will be followed by a full invasion taking over and running our football clubs, showing us how ve vill vin the league.
We don't actually know if a move is being considered or not yet, although granted some have offered evidence. Assuming a move is being considered, is there a way we could conduct a carefully worded poll to find a consensus? If so, would it be worthwhile or would it just be fractious?
I can't see any point in a poll until we know what is proposed and why. There are any number of potential variations, which would make people's views on the principle meaningless, also an assumption by some that a move must of itself improve the club's finances, which is flakey at best.
I'm sure we have someone with the necessary communication skills to negotiate the nuances of assumptive logic and turn it into a worthwhile question however, if it's not worthwhile then there is no point.
There is somebody in the Trust team with those skills, although she is on hols at the moment, but I think Airman is right about the timing. We are ready to go as soon as it becomes a clear, live issue. It might not become so at all. But that is why ACV is so important, it gives us time among other things to do proper professional polling.
This thread is now too long to read - Where on earth did this talk of Germans come from??? Nonsense
It started with a couple of German delicatessents, the odd german stalls at Christmas and Herman ze German shops selling curry wurst. Ano now a full blown Winter wonderland which will be followed by a full invasion taking over and running our football clubs, showing us how ve vill vin the league.
I heard they are turning Bartrams into a Bavarian BeerHaus
Comments
entirelymostly altruistic manner, quite the reverse of your inference.I guess I'm old school like you and I'm 100% against moving. Maybe it is our age and our reluctance for change as we get older but to me Charlton and the Valley are intertwined and always will be.
I had assumed most people would feel the same but reading through this thread it is obvious that most people are more than happy to consider moving if it progresses the club. That genuinely astounds me.
The question is, I guess, whether the people who post on here are a fair reflection of our total support.
Either way, it's probably irrelevant what the fans want. Once the money men get their hands on the club, they will do whatever they want, as has happened at West Ham.
I'm even surprised I'd go along with it. I always thought I'd say 'Never' to a move away from The Valley. It's a place I love, full of memories from all stages of my life. It's a lovely ground, but I can see the advantages of a move.
Still, if it happens at all, it'll be a long way off, which should make attendance at The Valley all the more compulsory.
I am with the "memories are memories but..." camp after a lot of consideration and reading of various forums. We of course up to this point have no idea what the next few days will bring for our club but if the conditions for a move are right for Charlton Athletic, then I who hold them higher in my list of priorities than most would deem healthy would support a move to the peninsula. And the ghosts of those I still hold dear who came with me all those years ago would tend to agree, move on I say.
Firstly we don’t need a new stadium for football reasons in the Championship or IF we got promoted for some time in the Premiership either – despite the Lansdowne Mews issue the Valley's capacity could still be increased somewhat.
I think the only reason any new owners would consider moving is for the capital gain of developing the Valley site. But that would only be financially attractive if they didn't have to pay the cost of building a new stadium (on the peninsula or elsewhere).
So I think that almost certainly means that Charlton would be one of the tenants of a new 'multi-purpose' stadium built and owned by somebody else – with all the insecurity that entails - and all the additional income from ‘7 day use’ etc, that some have suggested as a benefit of a move would go to the owners of the stadium not CAFC.
Richard does also still have a 9.9% share in the club but as a minority shareholder won't have the power to stop a sale.
Besides a move can be made to appear initially attractive - but if things go wrong on the football front (and we know all about that) - then the situation can change rapidly. Look at Coventry and the Ricoh Arena - and that is owned jointly by Coventry City Council and a charity, not a profit focused private property company, as would be the case with any new stadium on the peninsula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricoh_Arena