His endgame is becoming more evident. Same as what happened at STVV - just re-read Dreke's posts - he'll run the club down and start to build up other business empire such as Hotel, shops,entertainment etc and sell the club, get rent paid for the ground etc. - he might not be owning us at some point in the future , but he will still have his boot around our throats.
Roland is not stupid. If he wanted to start a hotel, residential, entertainment and retail business in London, the very last place he would look to do it would be in a scruffy side street in SE7. With the added complication of a professional football club.
There might be scope for some small residential development but above that I don't see this as his plan.
It is a bit scruffy, but very close to the Greenwich peninsula and city! But I don't think it is his plan to run us down. It is just the reality as his plan has been flawed from the off. The big question is, when does he realise it isn’t working or more importantly not salvageable? This what I don’t get concerning the attitude to the Varney approach – things haven’t been rosy – the supporters are revolting – the team is going down -wouldn’t you want to see how much you might be offered? You can always buy a new club and start from scratch there. We as protesters hope to push him over the edge – it may fail as logic doesn’t seem to play too much a part in any of his decisions. Oh well, you have to try don’t you?
Massimo actively wants to sell I think, he just hasn't had a buyer that is willing to pay as much as he wants. Leeds' operating loss is only £2m, ours is more than double that. How they've achieved that I'm not sure as they don't own their stadium or training ground.
It's their 43 Sky games a season that keeps the money rolling in
So it turns out that Katrien is hourly paid on effectively a zero hours contract. That explains her late arrival times for work. It also explains why no real work appears to get done anyway. You simply can't get the staff.
The accounts should show whether any interest on those loans has been paid to Staprix. If it isn't it lends substance to the suggestion it's quasi equity - although, the exit strategy is still key to what this money really is.
A hotel and entertainment stuff isn't going to work at the Valley. The location is all wrong from a pure business perspective. Accommodation would be of more interest to the Council, but it will need to be affordable to work at Charlton, it would need to focus on the rental market to affect break even and on that basis payback won't arrive any time soon (unless the capital cost would be another loan never serviced - none of this makes any business sense whatsoever). It would also presumably require a change of use approval from the Council, although I have no idea how likely that is to succeed.
Roland's experiment has failed. He bought the wrong club for so many reasons.
The interest is about 2.5% but quasi equity can mean the interest rate goes down with revenue/profit making it more like a dividend that varies with profitability. It might have been 3% subject to adjustment for negative performance.
His endgame is becoming more evident. Same as what happened at STVV - just re-read Dreke's posts - he'll run the club down and start to build up other business empire such as Hotel, shops,entertainment etc and sell the club, get rent paid for the ground etc. - he might not be owning us at some point in the future , but he will still have his boot around our throats.
Roland is not stupid. If he wanted to start a hotel, residential, entertainment and retail business in London, the very last place he would look to do it would be in a scruffy side street in SE7. With the added complication of a professional football club.
There might be scope for some small residential development but above that I don't see this as his plan.
It is a bit scruffy, but very close to the Greenwich peninsula and city! But I don't think it is his plan to run us down. It is just the reality as his plan has been flawed from the off. The big question is, when does he realise it isn’t working or more importantly not salvageable? This what I don’t get concerning the attitude to the Varney approach – things haven’t been rosy – the supporters are revolting – team is going down -wouldn’t you want to see how much you might be offered? You can always buy a new club and start from scratch there. We as protesters hope to push him over the edge – it may fail as logic doesn’t seem to play too much a part in any of his decisions. Oh well, you have to try don’t you?
I think you'll find its Millwall supporters that are revolting.
So essentially it's going to cost someone £50 million plus to buy Charlton from Duchàtelet - £50 million for a League One club!?!
No. The club, like almost everything, can only be sold for what someone's prepared to pay. Any sane buyer of anything would not pay more than is fair and reasonable. (Obviously I'm exempting anybody who buys Apple products from this general concept).
So, for example, you want to buy the club, but there's a debt in relation to the purchase of a next to useless French player bought from a Portuguese club. Said player is now worth less than nothing because his wages are a continual and on-going drain on cash and he's useless and unsaleable.
So, if Roland wanted to sell he'd have to write off a very significant portion of those debts.
A lot of this information is probably new to most of us, but would Peter Varney not have a rough idea of the financial situation? If he has put together a group of possible buyers then surely he must have given them an idea of how much it would cost to acquire the club, and they appear to have not been deterred by that.
I suspect KM's salary is in the £99m shown for football players and management.
The company is not a quoted company so it does not have to show any director's remuneration. Why has it chosen to show anything at all, why did it not leave it out altogether?
It is free to distinguish between payment for serving as a director and salary for serving as CEO, possible then that it's just saying no fees or "emoluments" were paid for being a director. What she's paid for being CEO is a different matter.
Charlton Athletic have announced a loss of £3.78m in their accounts for the financial year to the end of June 2015.
The Championship club's match-day income fell by £1.2m but operating expenses were reduced by £1m to 16.8m.
The Addicks made a profit of £4.4m on player sales, which included the departures of Joe Gomez and Diego Poyet to Liverpool and West Ham respectively.
The overall figures are an improvement on the previous year's accounts, where Charlton recorded a loss of £5.72m.
"It is the board's strategy to continue to reduce these levels of losses over time and move towards a break-even position whilst remaining highly competitive in the Championship," chief executive Katrien Meire wrote in a statement.
Meire pointed to "a significant level of investment" in the playing squad and infrastructure at The Valley before the start of the 2014-15 campaign, which included a new playing surface.
The club's overall debt to parent company Baton 2010 Limited grew to £40.1m. Charlton's ultimate holding company is Staprix NL, which is controlled by Addicks owner Roland Duchatelet.
Charlton have struggled on the pitch under three different coaches this season and are currently 23rd in the Championship table, seven points from safety.
Supporters have aimed a series of protests at Meire and Duchatelet in recent months, calling on the Belgian businessman to sell the south-east London club.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
I think we need to accept that the reason Roland bought the club was not to run it down so much that he could close us down and build houses on The Valley site. Much easier and cheaper ways of being a property developer.
That's not to say that it couldn't happen if the club were to move away from The Valley.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
You could flatten The Valley. Build as many dwellings as allowed by local planning restrictions and Roland still won't get his money back.
But would that money made on the housing development be enough to build an out-of-town stvv style stadium that holds whatever crowds we are getting in a couple of seasons.
A lot of this information is probably new to most of us, but would Peter Varney not have a rough idea of the financial situation? If he has put together a group of possible buyers then surely he must have given them an idea of how much it would cost to acquire the club, and they appear to have not been deterred by that.
From what Varney implies in his interviews, it's that the wealth of the individual who wants to buy the club is such that the immediate losses aren't much of a concern. Since the plan would be for the club to become a premier league (and thus sustainable) club.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
You could flatten The Valley. Build as many dwellings as allowed by local planning restrictions and Roland still won't get his money back.
But would that money made on the housing development be enough to build an out-of-town stvv style stadium that holds whatever crowds we are getting in a couple of seasons.
I really don't know the answer to that but it seems like an awful lot of bother to build a few houses in London when brownfield sites are being made available all the time. Any money made by developing The Valley site then ploughed back into a new stadium somewhere would leave RD with scant profit. Why bother ?
Does anyone think it possible, that when the Rat is face with a club that cannot be managed because its supporters have just been pushed too far, no sponsors,very little match day income, spiralling debts etc, It might decide that it will get more of its money back by closing the club down altogether, and liquidating all its assets. The Rat might go down that line because a League 1 club with a tiny attendance, no sponsors, and a shite squad is worth next to nothing, whereas liquidation would probably give it several million pounds of its money back.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
You could flatten The Valley. Build as many dwellings as allowed by local planning restrictions and Roland still won't get his money back.
But would that money made on the housing development be enough to build an out-of-town stvv style stadium that holds whatever crowds we are getting in a couple of seasons.
I really don't know the answer to that but it seems like an awful lot of bother to build a few houses in London when brownfield sites are being made available all the time. Any money made by developing The Valley site then ploughed back into a new stadium somewhere would leave RD with scant profit. Why bother ?
A smaller stadium would have reduced matchday running costs. Especially if it's built with multi revenue streams attached, such as restaurants, bars and a hotel etc, say, near to or on the swanscombe theme park development. He'd still have his premiership player farm academy whilst the Charlton (albeit only by name) languish in the lower leagues.
Shouldn't kid ourselves that the Valley isn't a possible site for housing - interesting article in the Standard the other night about how London's sporting stadiums are being transformed into new homes.
You could flatten The Valley. Build as many dwellings as allowed by local planning restrictions and Roland still won't get his money back.
But would that money made on the housing development be enough to build an out-of-town stvv style stadium that holds whatever crowds we are getting in a couple of seasons.
I really don't know the answer to that but it seems like an awful lot of bother to build a few houses in London when brownfield sites are being made available all the time. Any money made by developing The Valley site then ploughed back into a new stadium somewhere would leave RD with scant profit. Why bother ?
A smaller stadium would have reduced matchday running costs. Especially if it's built with multi revenue streams attached, such as restaurants, bars and a hotel etc, say, near to or on the swanscombe theme park development. He'd still have his premiership player farm academy whilst the Charlton (albeit only by name) languish in the lower leagues.
I'd rather the club just died and to me it would be dead. I doubt I would be alone and academy or no academy I doubt we would be very attractive to the type of youth players we currently attract.
Comments
laundrybasket@cafc.com
?
Bauer and Ba cost £1.747m combined.
£1.7m due to be paid agents depending on appearances etc. £6.24m due to be received in respect of appearances/international honours etc.
Total playing squad at book value of £4.3m. Actual transfer values if greater are bunce for shareholders but not recognised in the accounts.
£38m loan from Staprix and £7m from Murray in 2014.
Staprix paid £955k interest, about 2.5%. Nothing seems to have been paid in interest to Murray.
So, for example, you want to buy the club, but there's a debt in relation to the purchase of a next to useless French player bought from a Portuguese club. Said player is now worth less than nothing because his wages are a continual and on-going drain on cash and he's useless and unsaleable.
So, if Roland wanted to sell he'd have to write off a very significant portion of those debts.
The company is not a quoted company so it does not have to show any director's remuneration. Why has it chosen to show anything at all, why did it not leave it out altogether?
It is free to distinguish between payment for serving as a director and salary for serving as CEO, possible then that it's just saying no fees or "emoluments" were paid for being a director. What she's paid for being CEO is a different matter.
Charlton Athletic have announced a loss of £3.78m in their accounts for the financial year to the end of June 2015.
The Championship club's match-day income fell by £1.2m but operating expenses were reduced by £1m to 16.8m.
The Addicks made a profit of £4.4m on player sales, which included the departures of Joe Gomez and Diego Poyet to Liverpool and West Ham respectively.
The overall figures are an improvement on the previous year's accounts, where Charlton recorded a loss of £5.72m.
"It is the board's strategy to continue to reduce these levels of losses over time and move towards a break-even position whilst remaining highly competitive in the Championship," chief executive Katrien Meire wrote in a statement.
Meire pointed to "a significant level of investment" in the playing squad and infrastructure at The Valley before the start of the 2014-15 campaign, which included a new playing surface.
The club's overall debt to parent company Baton 2010 Limited grew to £40.1m. Charlton's ultimate holding company is Staprix NL, which is controlled by Addicks owner Roland Duchatelet.
Charlton have struggled on the pitch under three different coaches this season and are currently 23rd in the Championship table, seven points from safety.
Supporters have aimed a series of protests at Meire and Duchatelet in recent months, calling on the Belgian businessman to sell the south-east London club.
I like the middle statement
http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/buying/new-homes/from-stamford-bridge-to-white-hart-lane-londons-top-sporting-stadiums-are-being-transformed-into-new-a99796.html
That's not to say that it couldn't happen if the club were to move away from The Valley.
Especially if it's built with multi revenue streams attached, such as restaurants, bars and a hotel etc, say, near to or on the swanscombe theme park development.
He'd still have his premiership player farm academy whilst the Charlton (albeit only by name) languish in the lower leagues.