Say a deal has been agreed - new owners may want it announced on a home matchday for greater impact.
The change of ownership would have to be announced on the companies house website ASAP after the deal was done and the other party would most likely have to make a statement if they are a PLC or US/whatever equivalent
And in any case they will get more impact by having the press conference on a non-matchday when they can get the Sky cameras down and have the news pretty much to themselves rather than share with the PL scores and controversy.
Or they could announce it in the South London Press :-)
My opinion is that if there is no deal on the table and the story leaked to the SLP was to "draw a bidder in" we are approaching the time where the money being put into the club is running out or close to being stopped. Desperate times call for desperate measures and if the story was a "leak" things must be pretty desperate.
I fear administration and a 10 point deduction is looming on the horizon, which of course will mean league 1 football next season.
I don't myself think it is that bad, but would not claim to be sure of that. Your version of why the story is leaked, is indeed the one doing the rounds, but would you use some local newspaper to do that? It just isn't my experience of how things are done. If an ad agency is selling and has both WPP and Omnicom interested, the last thing it does is leak to the local magazine that WPP has offered x million. The most likely consequence would be that WPP would turn round and tell them to shove their deal.
Of course a football club is a bit different, but really how different, in this context?
Puzzled...
The source is key to that question. If it was leaked by the club then perhaps they don't believe the current interested party will conclude and want to drive up competition. And/or, put together with Slater's previous comment one message might be that they've dropped their valuation by a third when their valuation might always have been £18m. Desperation is of course another possibility.
But that assumes TJ/MS have organised the leak. What if another board member was aware of negotiations to move away from the Valley and wanted to communicate that - I mean, the Peninsula was quite a nugget to be dropped in as a byline to a totally different story wasn't it? And indeed, in your scenario it might benefit Omnicom[cast] to leak it if they felt it would encourage WPP to drop out and increase their own leverage in the process. The source is key.
One possible solution might be to pin Airman down and torture him until he reveals what he knows.
My opinion is that if there is no deal on the table and the story leaked to the SLP was to "draw a bidder in" we are approaching the time where the money being put into the club is running out or close to being stopped. Desperate times call for desperate measures and if the story was a "leak" things must be pretty desperate.
I fear administration and a 10 point deduction is looming on the horizon, which of course will mean league 1 football next season.
I don't myself think it is that bad, but would not claim to be sure of that. Your version of why the story is leaked, is indeed the one doing the rounds, but would you use some local newspaper to do that? It just isn't my experience of how things are done. If an ad agency is selling and has both WPP and Omnicom interested, the last thing it does is leak to the local magazine that WPP has offered x million. The most likely consequence would be that WPP would turn round and tell them to shove their deal.
Of course a football club is a bit different, but really how different, in this context?
Puzzled...
The source is key to that question. If it was leaked by the club then perhaps they don't believe the current interested party will conclude and want to drive up competition. And/or, put together with Slater's previous comment one message might be that they've dropped their valuation by a third when their valuation might always have been £18m. Desperation is of course another possibility.
But that assumes TJ/MS have organised the leak. What if another board member was aware of negotiations to move away from the Valley and wanted to communicate that - I mean, the Peninsula was quite a nugget to be dropped in as a byline to a totally different story wasn't it? And indeed, in your scenario it might benefit Omnicom[cast] to leak it if they felt it would encourage WPP to drop out and increase their own leverage in the process. The source is key.
One possible solution might be to pin Airman down and torture him until he reveals what he knows.
who are WPP?
The name of an ad agency used by Prague in relating his comparative scenario.
I realise that, but we're talking about a relatively small company, with a relatively small turnover here. Besides half the employees have 'left' over the past year!
WPP is a massive company. They always do DD, even though in smaller markets they often buy businesses for a whole lot less than the 18m the SLP quoted. This despite the fact that DD is expensive for them. Businesses like advertising agencies have funny contracts, funny employee deals, doubtful future prospects, hidden debts.....
Others may know better than me, but I suspect that if a buyer was a publicly quoted company, they might be under a legal obligation to their shareholders to show they conducted DD.
DD could uncover a whole shed load of issues.
Doesn't stop you from buying the company though.
No but it enables you to very rationally go back to the seller and negotiate a lower deal. Companies I work with usually make an offer based on a multiple of expected future annual profit, and the seller agrees, but there is the crucial phrase, "subject to DD". And the buyer nearly always finds something that enables them to go back and renegotiate a lower price.
But that is what has worried me about stories that prospective buyers previously walked away from the Charlton deal completely after DD. I don't usually see that in my area, because DD is so expensive.They go on to do a deal, on a lower figure. However it could be explained by the much higher price TJ and co were allegedly previously demanding. DD showed the buyers that this figure was cloud cuckoo land. I'm guessing....
DD can be as expensive as you want to make it. The numbers that are being banded around i.e. £18 - £20 million are small in business terms so a couple of good accountants from a perspective buyer looking at the books for a week or two plus a Chief Exec and a Director looking at other areas of the business should reveal enough to make a decision to move forward or pull out.
If however any perspective buyer wants to use an agency to carry out the DD you are into mega fees.
Say a deal has been agreed - new owners may want it announced on a home matchday for greater impact.
The change of ownership would have to be announced on the companies house website ASAP after the deal was done and the other party would most likely have to make a statement if they are a PLC or US/whatever equivalent
Yes - but which Company?
Currently we have CHARLTON ATHLETIC 2010 LIMITED and BATON (UK) LIMITED both down as dissolved.
Say a deal has been agreed - new owners may want it announced on a home matchday for greater impact.
The change of ownership would have to be announced on the companies house website ASAP after the deal was done and the other party would most likely have to make a statement if they are a PLC or US/whatever equivalent
Yes - but which Company?
Currently we have CHARLTON ATHLETIC 2010 LIMITED and BATON (UK) LIMITED both down as dissolved.
Baton UK Ltd is a different company as on the OS it says:
Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent)
Didn't it take an age for the last takeover to actually happen after Richard Murray announced it on the OS? Sorting out the ins and outs etc could take a while.
Only a month or so till window re opens though why spend now
because we are short in certain areas and if we go on a losing streak we could be in big trouble come 1st Jan. Reinforcements would have been nice that's all.
The current board wont spend money now for the same reason they haven't spent any money before ie they don't want to.
Their only business plan is to sell the club. Full stop.
In the meantime they will spend as little as they can not to leave space in the FFP budget for any new owners, as some have suggested, but because they don't want to spend a penny more on Charlton than they have to.
Even if we do get someone in during the next hour it's not going to really bolster the squad so SCP will just have to get on with what he has which is, when everyone is fit and on form, not a bad squad.
Funny how nearly every time he goes to the board for a bit of cash he gets the usual "sorry Chris. Takeover about to happen." Should think the whole thing's wearing a bit thin on Powellys part now.
Yes, the squad isn't too bad - we have been a bit unfortunate with injuries to key players. Yes we missed a trick in not strengthening what was a decent squad last season as I think not too much would have put us right up there. But for me, I'd rather Church than haynes or Fuller and we have Cousins on the scene too so we shouldn't be too worried about dropping out.
Actually, when we haven't been too bad lately - the Leeds game was a bit of a fluke as we were the better side I thought - then QPR are a decent side and it took a bit of genuine clas sto beat us - and we embarressed Doncaster on Tuesday. We are not going up, but top half is a perfectly reasonable expectation IMO as we stand.
They spent money on Solly and Cousins new contracts
As I said they won't spend any money they don't have to. Giving them new contracts secures them as saleable assets. Let's guess they both got an extra £1k pw. That £100k extra on the budget
If a seriously wealthy investor/company is looking at buying us out, moving us forward for promotion and looking at a mega million development on the peninsula, then why would they be so concerend about the odd million or two that has been 'hidden' somewherer within the books?
A couple of million here or there within the deal is nothing if the numbers being talked about are serious - unless they really need to screw every penny out of the deal.
Sorry m8 but in business major commercial entities do worry and make sure they concern themselves with the odd million because that's why they have become major commercial entities.
In a nutshell they always endeavour to evaluate 'the price' and use their muscle to achieve it. They very clearly understand the value of money.
Comments
That would explain the block of 50 tickets bought on a US credit card last week
Maybe we can tap these guys up!
But that is what has worried me about stories that prospective buyers previously walked away from the Charlton deal completely after DD. I don't usually see that in my area, because DD is so expensive.They go on to do a deal, on a lower figure. However it could be explained by the much higher price TJ and co were allegedly previously demanding. DD showed the buyers that this figure was cloud cuckoo land. I'm guessing....
If however any perspective buyer wants to use an agency to carry out the DD you are into mega fees.
Currently we have CHARLTON ATHLETIC 2010 LIMITED and BATON (UK) LIMITED both down as dissolved.
Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent)
Or have i got that completley wrong?!
Their only business plan is to sell the club. Full stop.
In the meantime they will spend as little as they can not to leave space in the FFP budget for any new owners, as some have suggested, but because they don't want to spend a penny more on Charlton than they have to.
Even if we do get someone in during the next hour it's not going to really bolster the squad so SCP will just have to get on with what he has which is, when everyone is fit and on form, not a bad squad.
"sorry Chris. Takeover about to happen."
Should think the whole thing's wearing a bit thin on Powellys part now.
Actually, when we haven't been too bad lately - the Leeds game was a bit of a fluke as we were the better side I thought - then QPR are a decent side and it took a bit of genuine clas sto beat us - and we embarressed Doncaster on Tuesday. We are not going up, but top half is a perfectly reasonable expectation IMO as we stand.
As I said they won't spend any money they don't have to. Giving them new contracts secures them as saleable assets. Let's guess they both got an extra £1k pw. That £100k extra on the budget
In a nutshell they always endeavour to evaluate 'the price' and use their muscle to achieve it. They very clearly understand the value of money.
Hope above comments are of use!