So let's take a step back and try to be a bit objective.
Firstly I have no objections to the staff being scattered in with the fans. In many ways that's inclusive, and I'd prefer that to a panel and their audience. I think the issue was that there were too many staff and too few fans. Personally I would have Katrien, David, Tony and Lisa in there from the club, have the layout the same and relax about where they're sat.
Secondly, on the subject of Katrien and Tony lying I'll say this: anyone who thinks we were told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by Richard Murray and Peter Varney is a fantasist. The issue is less that they don't always tell us the truth about everything than the subjects of their guardedness.
For example, why be so guarded about what Roland is actually trying to achieve? If the vision is for a break even club that can compete, spell it out in black and white. Involve us in the plans for how to achieve it. How can we increase revenues, how can we reduce costs, where are the spend to save opportunities, how can we increase productivity? etc. We all know it's a ludicrous vision that will keep us in the lower reaches at best, but what if? How amazing would it be to do something special at Charlton that could be a new model for other clubs? That's why I don't get their approach. (Powerpoint isn't a bad idea in itself, but the content was poor).
And why be guarded about the plans for the Jimmy Seed stand? Declare that you're looking into it, state that you're open to all kinds of ideas, invite them from the supporter base. Then when you're ready, put proposals before the supporters and see if they buy into them, see what pitfalls they can help you avoid.
Instead, we have what they presented on Thursday. An entrenched defensive position, none shall pass, barriers up, them and us attitude, laughing at fans who they thought were being naive. Awful awful awful.
Anyone notice how few of them talk about 'us' in the inclusive sense?
And the saddest thing about all of this is that many of them are really nice people. It could be so different.
Was she there because she couldn't find the new ticket office? Idiot. What I have said before the club employees should be targets for protest too especially the Charlton supporting ones
Thinking back to watchin the FF yesterday, how does Keohane manage to keep a straight face when he said there were no discussions about potential flats in the Jimmy Seed Stand, when there were a number of options put forward?
Oh come on, all that proves is they are "apartments" or "maisonettes" not flats...
The regime do not appear to want any (our) help or advice on how to run (or save) the football club. It's obvious to me that this is not the business they see themselves in. We appear to have very different goals and I get a strong feeling of "them & us" and Miere comes across as very guarded and defensive.
Meire's behaviour also betrays an intolerance towards questions of concern raised by the fans and an almost condescending attitude when she answers. Rather than engaging in an open discussion I think she tries to create an intimidating atmosphere which generally discourages questions and supresses real communication.
The regime appears have no interest in seroiusly improving the team or the results. I would say they see communication to be a necessary evil and only play lip service to it. Unfortunately, Meire appears totally out of her depth as a CEO and makes too many mistakes to be taken seriously.
The club is toxic and they have to go as their egos will not allow them to change.
That neither confirms or denies. It very much leaves it open, a rumour is still a possibility of course.
So when they ditch the programme for tac and ads she can say, "No , I didn't actually say we was not f*cking off the programme and the idea is BS, I said it's a rumour ....watch the video"
That neither confirms or denies. It very much leaves it open, a rumour is still a possibility of course.
So when they ditch the programme for tac and ads she can say no I didn't actually say we we're f*cking off the programme, I said it's a rumour, watch the video.
The no programme 'rumour' was in fact an idea from our very own KM
I think "improving communication" to Meire means videoing it and getting it up on the website quickly which they did. The tactic of handing out a pre-scripted Q and A covering some of the more emotive issues was a neat one because it restricted Meire's innate ability to put her size 12's in it. However, it hardly engenders trust and looks phoney. There were a number of reluctant climb-downs in it which made me smile. All the managers except the current one were poor signings "in the long run." They will all relieved to know their Charlton careers weren't cut short in their prime.
I only managed to get 4.35 minutes in after Katrien, who did look sharp, in comparison with Rick who I wouldn't set to chair a village hall meeting of the village had more than 1 resident.
Katrien is shockingly green. She is clever but not smart. If she isn't sacked, she needs to grow up fast.
Might be a lawyer thing because Meire doesn't see a distinction between words and messages. She is bitching about her words being twisted but doesn't understand the @rikofold point that journalism is about interpreting messages from the words uttered.
What message came across apart from the fact that fans are a fu*cking nuisance because they don't behave like customers and are weird because they don't pay homage to the club's owner.
According to the video she felt it necessary to deliver the message that football fans are different from customers in what was supposed to be a discussion between intelligent, informed, football professionals. Why would the CEO of a football club make a statement of the bleeding obvious and think it would be worthy of reporting, let alone worth making.
I too am so frustrated at the way they keep banging on about how much they have spent, if they are worried about this why the hell did he buy us in the first place? Its not as if its a secret that owning football clubs is an expensive business, do they think we don't know? I will say again that in the grand scheme of things what he is spending, relative to his overall wealth, is probably not that much different percentage wise to what we as fans spend each year, and we have no hope whatsoever of recouping any of our hard earned cash. All we expect in return is a well run football club that can at least compete in the championship, as it stands we are getting no return on our 'investment'.
Every time they bang on about how much they've spent it proves how badly they are running the club. If he has spent 25 million since he has been here, it has done us no good at all because we haven't progressed at all. So effectively, it's a massive waste of cash. I wish someone would tell them this next time there is an opportunity. It would shut them up, because there is no way they can spin that one.
I only managed to get 4.35 minutes in after Katrien, who did look sharp, in comparison with Rick who I wouldn't set to chair a village hall meeting of the village had more than 1 resident.
I've read this about half a dozen times now, and still have no idea what you're on about. Did you lose your train of thought halfway through the sentence?
I don't think I lost my train of thought half way through the sentence but probably am not explaining very well today, terrible hangover all day today.
The Chairman of the meeting, it was Rick Everitt? I don't know him and haven't met him. He seemed like a decent guy but I wouldn't have him run a meeting where I work.
And while Katrien looked clever, she still didn't look smart, everything was pre-planned and she just can't get her points across.
I don't think I lost my train of thought half way through the sentence but probably am not explaining very well today, terrible hangover all day today.
The Chairman of the meeting, it was Rick Everitt? I don't know him and haven't met him. He seemed like a decent guy but I wouldn't have him run a meeting where I work.
And while Katrien looked clever, she still didn't look smart, everything was pre-planned and she just can't get her points across.
You're right you don't know Rick. That's not him, that's Mick Everett.
So let's take a step back and try to be a bit objective.
Firstly I have no objections to the staff being scattered in with the fans. In many ways that's inclusive, and I'd prefer that to a panel and their audience. I think the issue was that there were too many staff and too few fans. Personally I would have Katrien, David, Tony and Lisa in there from the club, have the layout the same and relax about where they're sat.
Secondly, on the subject of Katrien and Tony lying I'll say this: anyone who thinks we were told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by Richard Murray and Peter Varney is a fantasist. The issue is less that they don't always tell us the truth about everything than the subjects of their guardedness.
For example, why be so guarded about what Roland is actually trying to achieve? If the vision is for a break even club that can compete, spell it out in black and white. Involve us in the plans for how to achieve it. How can we increase revenues, how can we reduce costs, where are the spend to save opportunities, how can we increase productivity? etc. We all know it's a ludicrous vision that will keep us in the lower reaches at best, but what if? How amazing would it be to do something special at Charlton that could be a new model for other clubs? That's why I don't get their approach. (Powerpoint isn't a bad idea in itself, but the content was poor).
And why be guarded about the plans for the Jimmy Seed stand? Declare that you're looking into it, state that you're open to all kinds of ideas, invite them from the supporter base. Then when you're ready, put proposals before the supporters and see if they buy into them, see what pitfalls they can help you avoid.
Instead, we have what they presented on Thursday. An entrenched defensive position, none shall pass, barriers up, them and us attitude, laughing at fans who they thought were being naive. Awful awful awful.
Anyone notice how few of them talk about 'us' in the inclusive sense?
And the saddest thing about all of this is that many of them are really nice people. It could be so different.
Really not sure they were being guarded. As I heard it they just said we have started to look but nothing is on or off the table.
I saw this as actually fronting up at the first public opportunity to something effectively sensationalised in VOTV, here and elsewhere. I'd have been more alarmed if they tried to ignore it completely and refused to discuss at all.
Any business should always be looking at options and I think it's positive that they are. If in time the proposals are of concern we can object then.
I'm more inclined to see the positive that investment is planned to be ongoing. If I am proved wrong in the future so be it. The reason I remain optimistic on this aspect is the real investment at Sparrows Lane which does not appear to be short term to me and does not seem like the actions of someone content to lose money year on year.
The managerial merry go round must stop and likewise sound player investment to reassure me fully though - this has been indefensible to date.
So let's take a step back and try to be a bit objective.
Firstly I have no objections to the staff being scattered in with the fans. In many ways that's inclusive, and I'd prefer that to a panel and their audience. I think the issue was that there were too many staff and too few fans. Personally I would have Katrien, David, Tony and Lisa in there from the club, have the layout the same and relax about where they're sat.
Secondly, on the subject of Katrien and Tony lying I'll say this: anyone who thinks we were told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by Richard Murray and Peter Varney is a fantasist. The issue is less that they don't always tell us the truth about everything than the subjects of their guardedness.
For example, why be so guarded about what Roland is actually trying to achieve? If the vision is for a break even club that can compete, spell it out in black and white. Involve us in the plans for how to achieve it. How can we increase revenues, how can we reduce costs, where are the spend to save opportunities, how can we increase productivity? etc. We all know it's a ludicrous vision that will keep us in the lower reaches at best, but what if? How amazing would it be to do something special at Charlton that could be a new model for other clubs? That's why I don't get their approach. (Powerpoint isn't a bad idea in itself, but the content was poor).
And why be guarded about the plans for the Jimmy Seed stand? Declare that you're looking into it, state that you're open to all kinds of ideas, invite them from the supporter base. Then when you're ready, put proposals before the supporters and see if they buy into them, see what pitfalls they can help you avoid.
Instead, we have what they presented on Thursday. An entrenched defensive position, none shall pass, barriers up, them and us attitude, laughing at fans who they thought were being naive. Awful awful awful.
Anyone notice how few of them talk about 'us' in the inclusive sense?
And the saddest thing about all of this is that many of them are really nice people. It could be so different.
Really not sure they were being guarded. As I heard it they just said we have started to look but nothing is on or off the table.
I saw this as actually fronting up at the first public opportunity to something effectively sensationalised in VOTV, here and elsewhere. I'd have been more alarmed if they tried to ignore it completely and refused to discuss at all.
Any business should always be looking at options and I think it's positive that they are. If in time the proposals are of concern we can object then.
I'm more inclined to see the positive that investment is planned to be ongoing. If I am proved wrong in the future so be it. The reason I remain optimistic on this aspect is the real investment at Sparrows Lane which does not appear to be short term to me and does not seem like the actions of someone content to lose money year on year.
The managerial merry go round must stop and likewise sound player investment to reassure me fully though - this has been indefensible to date.
I take your point and tend to agree with the last bits, but I struggle to see where the return on this investment is. Let's take Sparrows Lane for example. In theory it might pay for itself with a couple of player sales, but then outside the Premier League you have significant operating losses that with the best will in the world you're not going to be able to magic away.
By the way, perhaps people with more financial nous than me can help me understand something. David Joyes talked about the loans being quasi equity. I'd be happy to accept that, but what's nagging at me is why you would then charge interest on the loans? Unless I'm missing something, surely all it does is demand more of your own cash for no apparent benefit? - but I must surely be missing something. My concern is that the presence of interest implies Staprix may regard themselves as a creditor rather than the investment being regarded as essentially equity. Put my mind at rest with your keener financial brains.
So let's take a step back and try to be a bit objective.
Firstly I have no objections to the staff being scattered in with the fans. In many ways that's inclusive, and I'd prefer that to a panel and their audience. I think the issue was that there were too many staff and too few fans. Personally I would have Katrien, David, Tony and Lisa in there from the club, have the layout the same and relax about where they're sat.
Secondly, on the subject of Katrien and Tony lying I'll say this: anyone who thinks we were told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by Richard Murray and Peter Varney is a fantasist. The issue is less that they don't always tell us the truth about everything than the subjects of their guardedness.
For example, why be so guarded about what Roland is actually trying to achieve? If the vision is for a break even club that can compete, spell it out in black and white. Involve us in the plans for how to achieve it. How can we increase revenues, how can we reduce costs, where are the spend to save opportunities, how can we increase productivity? etc. We all know it's a ludicrous vision that will keep us in the lower reaches at best, but what if? How amazing would it be to do something special at Charlton that could be a new model for other clubs? That's why I don't get their approach. (Powerpoint isn't a bad idea in itself, but the content was poor).
And why be guarded about the plans for the Jimmy Seed stand? Declare that you're looking into it, state that you're open to all kinds of ideas, invite them from the supporter base. Then when you're ready, put proposals before the supporters and see if they buy into them, see what pitfalls they can help you avoid.
Instead, we have what they presented on Thursday. An entrenched defensive position, none shall pass, barriers up, them and us attitude, laughing at fans who they thought were being naive. Awful awful awful.
Anyone notice how few of them talk about 'us' in the inclusive sense?
And the saddest thing about all of this is that many of them are really nice people. It could be so different.
Really not sure they were being guarded. As I heard it they just said we have started to look but nothing is on or off the table.
I saw this as actually fronting up at the first public opportunity to something effectively sensationalised in VOTV, here and elsewhere. I'd have been more alarmed if they tried to ignore it completely and refused to discuss at all.
Any business should always be looking at options and I think it's positive that they are. If in time the proposals are of concern we can object then.
I'm more inclined to see the positive that investment is planned to be ongoing. If I am proved wrong in the future so be it. The reason I remain optimistic on this aspect is the real investment at Sparrows Lane which does not appear to be short term to me and does not seem like the actions of someone content to lose money year on year.
The managerial merry go round must stop and likewise sound player investment to reassure me fully though - this has been indefensible to date.
I take your point and tend to agree with the last bits, but I struggle to see where the return on this investment is. Let's take Sparrows Lane for example. In theory it might pay for itself with a couple of player sales, but then outside the Premier League you have significant operating losses that with the best will in the world you're not going to be able to magic away.
By the way, perhaps people with more financial nous than me can help me understand something. David Joyes talked about the loans being quasi equity. I'd be happy to accept that, but what's nagging at me is why you would then charge interest on the loans? Unless I'm missing something, surely all it does is demand more of your own cash for no apparent benefit? - but I must surely be missing something. My concern is that the presence of interest implies Staprix may regard themselves as a creditor rather than the investment being regarded as essentially equity. Put my mind at rest with your keener financial brains.
Wish I could but think you are right ...the interest rate (which is way off the norm) has always concerned me.
Apologies to both Everetts and note to self to listen more carefully.
On the loans, is the interest rate 3.5%? If so, that's not well above market rate and below a quasi-equity return. Quasi-equity debt is anywhere between 5 and 10% depending on credit rating of the borrower.
Apologies to both Everetts and note to self to listen more carefully.
On the loans, is the interest rate 3.5%? If so, that's not well above market rate and below a quasi-equity return. Quasi-equity debt is anywhere between 5 and 10% depending on credit rating of the borrower.
Hard private equity cash targets a 11-14% return.
Thanks for this. It's not quite answered my concern though.
David Joyes is a qualified CFO so I presume when he used the term quasi equity that's what he meant. Until now my understanding of quasi equity was that it provides a halfway house between equity investment and a straight loan, typically returns being delivered from future revenues.
I'm sure it's more complex than that. The thing is, in my understanding I can see a benefit to, say, Richard Murray investing on that basis, but I'm struggling to see one for Staprix given that they wholly own the club. All future revenues are theirs anyway. So interest might provide a return - but if as Joyes implied we shouldn't worry because the capital is essentially equity, the interest is absolutely irrelevant as well isn't it?
I might need a lesson on quasi equity, although David has described it to me in the past as 'essentially equity' - in which case, again, why charge interest?
(EDIT: I suspect there are tax reasons involved in this somewhere).
I don't think I lost my train of thought half way through the sentence but probably am not explaining very well today, terrible hangover all day today.
The Chairman of the meeting, it was Rick Everitt? I don't know him and haven't met him. He seemed like a decent guy but I wouldn't have him run a meeting where I work.
And while Katrien looked clever, she still didn't look smart, everything was pre-planned and she just can't get her points across.
Yeah, the Rick/Mick confusion didn't help, but I was more puzzled by "I only managed to get 4.35 minutes in after Katrien". After Katrien did what?
Oh I see. I did lose train of thought mid sentence you are right.
I watched up to 4.35. That was just after Katrien had just done her pre-prepared and badly delivered speech about how there were issues with where the club was right now and so on and then had the Q&A handed out.
I think you might be reading more into the CFO's comment than he probably meant in the context that he said it..... however.......
RD could have just put the cash into CAFC i.e. he just purchases the equity and adds cash. My understanding is one of his companies (Stadprix) put the money in as a loan, and thats the important part.
If CAFC is ever sold, that money will still be owed to Stadprix, if he had just put the cash in he'd get back whatever the sale price is and no debt.
Therefore despite all this from KM as to how much he's invested, I think we might find it's a loan, all be it to himself at the moment, but if he sells........
It does depend on the terms, the repayment schedule is usually based on future cash flow projections, if the projections are wrong then depending which way the loanees will either make less or more. so it could be 3.5%, if we drop down to league 1 and revenues reduce that could drop to 1%, if we got promoted to the premier league (HA!) it could go to 15%........
I think you might be reading more into the CFO's comment than he probably meant in the context that he said it..... however.......
RD could have just put the cash into CAFC i.e. he just purchases the equity and adds cash. My understanding is one of his companies (Stadprix) put the money in as a loan, and thats the important part.
If CAFC is ever sold, that money will still be owed to Stadprix, if he had just put the cash in he'd get back whatever the sale price is and no debt.
Therefore despite all this from KM as to how much he's invested, I think we might find it's a loan, all be it to himself at the moment, but if he sells........
It does depend on the terms, the repayment schedule is usually based on future cash flow projections, if the projections are wrong then depending which way the loanees will either make less or more. so it could be 3.5%, if we drop down to league 1 and revenues reduce that could drop to 1%, if we got promoted to the premier league (HA!) it could go to 15%........
This is absolutely my fear - but Joyes has told me once it's "essentially equity" and another time it's "quasi equity". In both circumstances the presence of interest payable to Staprix says to me it's a loan, unless I'm missing something in terms of how the interest benefits Duchatelet.
The critical thing is his exit strategy. The debt is a leverage in terms of value - he might get a bigger price if he's prepared to write off all of the debt than if it didn't exist at all. But then if I was a buyer I'd only want to pay what I felt the club was worth, regardless of the 'friendly' debt.
Seriously - am I missing something here? Might give David Joyes a call and talk it through with him.
EDIT: The biggest question I have is how does Duchatelet benefit from the interest chargeable if Staprix are anything other than a creditor?
Comments
Firstly I have no objections to the staff being scattered in with the fans. In many ways that's inclusive, and I'd prefer that to a panel and their audience. I think the issue was that there were too many staff and too few fans. Personally I would have Katrien, David, Tony and Lisa in there from the club, have the layout the same and relax about where they're sat.
Secondly, on the subject of Katrien and Tony lying I'll say this: anyone who thinks we were told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by Richard Murray and Peter Varney is a fantasist. The issue is less that they don't always tell us the truth about everything than the subjects of their guardedness.
For example, why be so guarded about what Roland is actually trying to achieve? If the vision is for a break even club that can compete, spell it out in black and white. Involve us in the plans for how to achieve it. How can we increase revenues, how can we reduce costs, where are the spend to save opportunities, how can we increase productivity? etc. We all know it's a ludicrous vision that will keep us in the lower reaches at best, but what if? How amazing would it be to do something special at Charlton that could be a new model for other clubs? That's why I don't get their approach. (Powerpoint isn't a bad idea in itself, but the content was poor).
And why be guarded about the plans for the Jimmy Seed stand? Declare that you're looking into it, state that you're open to all kinds of ideas, invite them from the supporter base. Then when you're ready, put proposals before the supporters and see if they buy into them, see what pitfalls they can help you avoid.
Instead, we have what they presented on Thursday. An entrenched defensive position, none shall pass, barriers up, them and us attitude, laughing at fans who they thought were being naive. Awful awful awful.
Anyone notice how few of them talk about 'us' in the inclusive sense?
And the saddest thing about all of this is that many of them are really nice people. It could be so different.
So many worrying moments on that video, most of which have been covered by others.
This is very disappointing ... the protests must go on.
Meire's behaviour also betrays an intolerance towards questions of concern raised by the fans and an almost condescending attitude when she answers. Rather than engaging in an open discussion I think she tries to create an intimidating atmosphere which generally discourages questions and supresses real communication.
The regime appears have no interest in seroiusly improving the team or the results. I would say they see communication to be a necessary evil and only play lip service to it. Unfortunately, Meire appears totally out of her depth as a CEO and makes too many mistakes to be taken seriously.
The club is toxic and they have to go as their egos will not allow them to change.
"Like you say...it's a rumour"
That neither confirms or denies. It very much leaves it open, a rumour is still a possibility of course.
So when they ditch the programme for tac and ads she can say,
"No , I didn't actually say we was not f*cking off the programme and the idea is BS, I said it's a rumour ....watch the video"
Katrien is shockingly green. She is clever but not smart. If she isn't sacked, she needs to grow up fast.
What message came across apart from the fact that fans are a fu*cking nuisance because they don't behave like customers and are weird because they don't pay homage to the club's owner.
According to the video she felt it necessary to deliver the message that football fans are different from customers in what was supposed to be a discussion between intelligent, informed, football professionals. Why would the CEO of a football club make a statement of the bleeding obvious and think it would be worthy of reporting, let alone worth making.
The Chairman of the meeting, it was Rick Everitt? I don't know him and haven't met him. He seemed like a decent guy but I wouldn't have him run a meeting where I work.
And while Katrien looked clever, she still didn't look smart, everything was pre-planned and she just can't get her points across.
I saw this as actually fronting up at the first public opportunity to something effectively sensationalised in VOTV, here and elsewhere. I'd have been more alarmed if they tried to ignore it completely and refused to discuss at all.
Any business should always be looking at options and I think it's positive that they are. If in time the proposals are of concern we can object then.
I'm more inclined to see the positive that investment is planned to be ongoing. If I am proved wrong in the future so be it. The reason I remain optimistic on this aspect is the real investment at Sparrows Lane which does not appear to be short term to me and does not seem like the actions of someone content to lose money year on year.
The managerial merry go round must stop and likewise sound player investment to reassure me fully though - this has been indefensible to date.
By the way, perhaps people with more financial nous than me can help me understand something. David Joyes talked about the loans being quasi equity. I'd be happy to accept that, but what's nagging at me is why you would then charge interest on the loans? Unless I'm missing something, surely all it does is demand more of your own cash for no apparent benefit? - but I must surely be missing something. My concern is that the presence of interest implies Staprix may regard themselves as a creditor rather than the investment being regarded as essentially equity. Put my mind at rest with your keener financial brains.
On the loans, is the interest rate 3.5%? If so, that's not well above market rate and below a quasi-equity return. Quasi-equity debt is anywhere between 5 and 10% depending on credit rating of the borrower.
Hard private equity cash targets a 11-14% return.
David Joyes is a qualified CFO so I presume when he used the term quasi equity that's what he meant. Until now my understanding of quasi equity was that it provides a halfway house between equity investment and a straight loan, typically returns being delivered from future revenues.
I'm sure it's more complex than that. The thing is, in my understanding I can see a benefit to, say, Richard Murray investing on that basis, but I'm struggling to see one for Staprix given that they wholly own the club. All future revenues are theirs anyway. So interest might provide a return - but if as Joyes implied we shouldn't worry because the capital is essentially equity, the interest is absolutely irrelevant as well isn't it?
I might need a lesson on quasi equity, although David has described it to me in the past as 'essentially equity' - in which case, again, why charge interest?
(EDIT: I suspect there are tax reasons involved in this somewhere).
I watched up to 4.35. That was just after Katrien had just done her pre-prepared and badly delivered speech about how there were issues with where the club was right now and so on and then had the Q&A handed out.
Fucking rude.
I'll watch more tomorrow.
RD could have just put the cash into CAFC i.e. he just purchases the equity and adds cash. My understanding is one of his companies (Stadprix) put the money in as a loan, and thats the important part.
If CAFC is ever sold, that money will still be owed to Stadprix, if he had just put the cash in he'd get back whatever the sale price is and no debt.
Therefore despite all this from KM as to how much he's invested, I think we might find it's a loan, all be it to himself at the moment, but if he sells........
It does depend on the terms, the repayment schedule is usually based on future cash flow projections, if the projections are wrong then depending which way the loanees will either make less or more. so it could be 3.5%, if we drop down to league 1 and revenues reduce that could drop to 1%, if we got promoted to the premier league (HA!) it could go to 15%........
The critical thing is his exit strategy. The debt is a leverage in terms of value - he might get a bigger price if he's prepared to write off all of the debt than if it didn't exist at all. But then if I was a buyer I'd only want to pay what I felt the club was worth, regardless of the 'friendly' debt.
Seriously - am I missing something here? Might give David Joyes a call and talk it through with him.
EDIT: The biggest question I have is how does Duchatelet benefit from the interest chargeable if Staprix are anything other than a creditor?
Pretty sure the loan will be tax efficient. That's normally why you would have a loan rather than real equity.
There are Belgian funding company tax structures out there I think.
I don't think it's too sinister. Possibly slightly bent tax planning but not anything more than that.