The £38m in loans from Staprix - what were they to cover ? The club (however badly run) hasn't lost £38m in the two years of his tenure. Does it cover his initial outlay for the club plus the debt he inherited ?
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
Surely if (when) RD accepts his plan has failed, he will have to cut his losses and sell for what he can get? He cannot throw good money after bad, forever.... can he?
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
He has three options.
1. He carries on owning the club and racking up further losses. 2. He writes off some (maybe all) of the existing debt or puts conditions in the sale contract that it becomes repayable upon promotion to the Premier League. (What Murray was forced to do to stem losses.) 3.He tops himself and then doesn't have to worry about it any more.
We get to gauge quite how mad he is according to which option he chooses.
'Supply and fucking demand' as they put it so sweetly on The Wolf of Wall Street. Roland has devalued his property. If it were a high demand thing with a high profile (Chelsea, Man.Utd), there would be enough big money people who would want to buy it. As it is we are league 1 bound, albeit with a stadium and a London address. Varney bought in a potential buyer. Roland doesn't want to sell. If there is one thing he should understand as a business geek, it's that you don't sell the first time a buyer comes along, unless you are fireselling to avoid bankruptcy. However, he is piling up problems. I can sort of imagine AlwaysNeil 's explanations, and certainly, most potential buyers would probably make a point that any potential purchase would involve Roland writing off the debts to Staprix. But that only occurs if RD wants to sell.What Roland has done tio CAFC is criminal damage in any other walk of life. And I don't altogether buy Alwaysneils arguements that the interest doesn't make money for Roland. With a good accountant, I would expect RD to come out on the sunny side of any deal involving interets paid between his companies. And as Standard have supposedly found out, he is happy to asset strip any bank accounts of a club he owns before selling. Basically, I would like to believe that he will be bought to account for what he's doing, and that if he sells, the club shrugs him off like a bad case of flu and rebuilds. But I worry that while he is a football moron, he is still enough of a businessman to make sure he is the one who walks away happier and richer, and we get left with a shipwreck of a club which takes years to rebuild.
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
Surely if (when) RD accepts his plan has failed, he will have to cut his losses and sell for what he can get? He cannot throw good money after bad, forever.... can he?
But he can carry on loaning it ! I see three scenarios;
a) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and in a couple of years a seriously wealthy Arab/Yank/Chinese/whoever buys the club and pays off everything because they have got far more money than sense
b) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and no one comes in and in 10 years or less there are no supporters, we're in the conference south and the Charlton we love is lost forever. That's not as dramatic or unlikely as it sounds IMO
c) he takes a massive hit losing millions of his personal fortune to sell the club at a loss
technically yes that's what he's spent, but that's not what he's lost (£38m). And don't forget they are loans.
It's like saying you bought a house for £250k, you aren't 'down' £250k it's what you've spent, you still own the asset even if the asset has decreased in value, he's also like the bank that has lent himself the £250k to buy it. Very broadly the running loss is around £10m less interest earned so circa £8.5m, of course there will be this years losses to add........
The club and its assets still has a value although I haven't looked into exactly what that is. I'm sure though over the summer he will be selling some of that asset by way of players.
technically yes that's what he's spent, but that's not what he's lost (£38m). And don't forget they are loans.
It's like saying you bought a house for £250k, you aren't 'down' £250k it's what you've spent, you still own the asset even if the asset has decreased in value, he's also like the bank that has lent himself the £250k to buy it. Very broadly the running loss is around £10m less interest earned so circa £8.5m, of course there will be this years losses to add........
The club and its assets still has a value although I haven't looked into exactly what that is. I'm sure though over the summer he will be selling some of that asset by way of players.
Ah I see, so you're valuing the club at £28m so a £10m loss before interest payments ?
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
Surely if (when) RD accepts his plan has failed, he will have to cut his losses and sell for what he can get? He cannot throw good money after bad, forever.... can he?
But he can carry on loaning it ! I see three scenarios;
a) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and in a couple of years a seriously wealthy Arab/Yank/Chinese/whoever buys the club and pays off everything because they have got far more money than sense
b) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and no one comes in and in 10 years or less there are no supporters, we're in the conference south and the Charlton we love is lost forever. That's not as dramatic or unlikely as it sounds IMO
c) he takes a massive hit losing millions of his personal fortune to sell the club at a loss
Of those I think c the most unlikely.
Yet C must be the most common in football? You say hes taking his "healthy" 3% but thats just money hes paying himself, it's not like CAFC pays the interest itself, he funds the loses.
His plan will either fail, or he will lose a ton pf money, clearly, his plan WILL fail, it's just a matter of when we can make him see that.
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
Surely if (when) RD accepts his plan has failed, he will have to cut his losses and sell for what he can get? He cannot throw good money after bad, forever.... can he?
But he can carry on loaning it ! I see three scenarios;
a) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and in a couple of years a seriously wealthy Arab/Yank/Chinese/whoever buys the club and pays off everything because they have got far more money than sense
b) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and no one comes in and in 10 years or less there are no supporters, we're in the conference south and the Charlton we love is lost forever. That's not as dramatic or unlikely as it sounds IMO
c) he takes a massive hit losing millions of his personal fortune to sell the club at a loss
Of those I think c the most unlikely.
Yet C must be the most common in football? You say hes taking his "healthy" 3% but thats just money hes paying himself, it's not like CAFC pays the interest itself, he funds the loses.
His plan will either fail, or he will lose a ton pf money, clearly, his plan WILL fail, it's just a matter of when we can make him see that.
It's a good question actually, I don't know the answer but I'd be interested in how many clubs in England which change hands in a given year do so with the owner taking a loss.
Either way I don't think Roland will, did he at Standard ?
technically yes that's what he's spent, but that's not what he's lost (£38m). And don't forget they are loans.
It's like saying you bought a house for £250k, you aren't 'down' £250k it's what you've spent, you still own the asset even if the asset has decreased in value, he's also like the bank that has lent himself the £250k to buy it. Very broadly the running loss is around £10m less interest earned so circa £8.5m, of course there will be this years losses to add........
The club and its assets still has a value although I haven't looked into exactly what that is. I'm sure though over the summer he will be selling some of that asset by way of players.
Ah I see, so you're valuing the club at £28m so a £10m loss before interest payments ?
No, take a look at the report & accounts, circa £10m is the operating loss. £1.5m of that is money Charlton have paid him, so to him he's lost £8.5m.
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
Surely if (when) RD accepts his plan has failed, he will have to cut his losses and sell for what he can get? He cannot throw good money after bad, forever.... can he?
But he can carry on loaning it ! I see three scenarios;
a) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and in a couple of years a seriously wealthy Arab/Yank/Chinese/whoever buys the club and pays off everything because they have got far more money than sense
b) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and no one comes in and in 10 years or less there are no supporters, we're in the conference south and the Charlton we love is lost forever. That's not as dramatic or unlikely as it sounds IMO
c) he takes a massive hit losing millions of his personal fortune to sell the club at a loss
Of those I think c the most unlikely.
Yet C must be the most common in football? You say hes taking his "healthy" 3% but thats just money hes paying himself, it's not like CAFC pays the interest itself, he funds the loses.
His plan will either fail, or he will lose a ton pf money, clearly, his plan WILL fail, it's just a matter of when we can make him see that.
It's a good question actually, I don't know the answer but I'd be interested in how many clubs in England which change hands in a given year do so with the owner taking a loss.
Either way I don't think Roland will, did he at Standard ?
A lot, I would guess, certainly including the recent sales of CAFC.
Standard were a profit making club in the CL, as much as I agree with a lot of what you say, I just do not see how RD can avoid losing millions, when you consider the giant hole we are in.
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
Surely if (when) RD accepts his plan has failed, he will have to cut his losses and sell for what he can get? He cannot throw good money after bad, forever.... can he?
But he can carry on loaning it ! I see three scenarios;
a) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and in a couple of years a seriously wealthy Arab/Yank/Chinese/whoever buys the club and pays off everything because they have got far more money than sense
b) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and no one comes in and in 10 years or less there are no supporters, we're in the conference south and the Charlton we love is lost forever. That's not as dramatic or unlikely as it sounds IMO
c) he takes a massive hit losing millions of his personal fortune to sell the club at a loss
Of those I think c the most unlikely.
Yet C must be the most common in football? You say hes taking his "healthy" 3% but thats just money hes paying himself, it's not like CAFC pays the interest itself, he funds the loses.
His plan will either fail, or he will lose a ton pf money, clearly, his plan WILL fail, it's just a matter of when we can make him see that.
It's a good question actually, I don't know the answer but I'd be interested in how many clubs in England which change hands in a given year do so with the owner taking a loss.
Either way I don't think Roland will, did he at Standard ?
A lot, I would guess, certainly including the recent sales of CAFC.
Standard were a profit making club in the CL, as much as I agree with a lot of what you say, I just do not see how RD can avoid losing millions, when you consider the giant hole we are in.
If Roland sells, someone will pay an amount the club is worth at that time.
If I think it's worth £20m and he's prepared to sell at that price, he gets £20m for his debt and equity and the rest is written off.
While he gets 3% interest, he also has to put that back in to finance the club. It's not a profit, it's not a savings bank. It generates a tax benefit for him because the interest gets knocked off the tax profits of his other uk companies but whatever he takes out, he also has to put back in because he is funding all the expenses including this interest expense.
He is not making money out of owning the club, it is costing him money. The bigger the protests and the more he loses, has to pay, the more it costs him.
i understand the point, but in your scenario "the rest" is about £20m - no way on earth is he going to take that sort of hit to his fortune, he's a rich man but that's about 5% of his net worth which would be an even more significant percentage in terms of his actual liquidity.
Surely if (when) RD accepts his plan has failed, he will have to cut his losses and sell for what he can get? He cannot throw good money after bad, forever.... can he?
But he can carry on loaning it ! I see three scenarios;
a) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and in a couple of years a seriously wealthy Arab/Yank/Chinese/whoever buys the club and pays off everything because they have got far more money than sense
b) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and no one comes in and in 10 years or less there are no supporters, we're in the conference south and the Charlton we love is lost forever. That's not as dramatic or unlikely as it sounds IMO
c) he takes a massive hit losing millions of his personal fortune to sell the club at a loss
Of those I think c the most unlikely.
Yet C must be the most common in football? You say hes taking his "healthy" 3% but thats just money hes paying himself, it's not like CAFC pays the interest itself, he funds the loses.
His plan will either fail, or he will lose a ton pf money, clearly, his plan WILL fail, it's just a matter of when we can make him see that.
It's a good question actually, I don't know the answer but I'd be interested in how many clubs in England which change hands in a given year do so with the owner taking a loss.
Either way I don't think Roland will, did he at Standard ?
A lot, I would guess, certainly including the recent sales of CAFC.
Standard were a profit making club in the CL, as much as I agree with a lot of what you say, I just do not see how RD can avoid losing millions, when you consider the giant hole we are in.
Without selling the club in totality he can sell assets........ Money in can pay off some loans. I don't actually think he will right now (outside of player sales) but if we continue on this financial path it may well come sooner rather than later.
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
But your point doesn't quite make sense then.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
Back to my first post you need to look at it from a wider perspective that just CAFC. How much money has he via Charlton paid to other businesses he owns (other clubs)? How many players wages were moved to our books that were on books of other clubs he owned?
He doesn't run Charlton as a silo'd business.
You'd need to really dig deep into the finances of the network & RD as a whole, looking at it just at Charlton is completely missing the point.
It's clearly not gone to plan though as at least part of the model is getting each club to roughly break even, that relied on for Charlton remaining in the championship and increasing attendance, neither of which look likely in the short term.
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.
Why do that when someone somewhere will offer him something. Who I don't know but the "golden share" ie the membership of the football league, assuming we are still in the league has a value as does the "brand".
The problem he has is that what assets can he liquidate. The two pieces of land are worth very little without planning permission for housing and he is unlikely to get such permission. Even if he did it would take years of appeals etc and then more years to build the houses.
Even knocking the Valley down would cost £ms
The Valley is worth more as a stadium and the club is worth more as a football league member.
A some point he will suddenly decide he's had enough and sell the club. Our problem is that could be tomorrow or it could be in 10 years time.
Very true. He can stand the losses. He is in this for the long haul because he wants to own a London club. His way of running it is cack handed.....but.....he'll probably hang on for a bit in my view.
Not considered on this thread are the possibility of his using a UK League One side (us) as a proving ground for Sint Truiden and Ujpest players prior to them going back to their own clubs. A way of giving them match experience at a reasonable level. He'd save ££££ on that, rather than buying in new squad members for us.
At some point he might sell up (people are trying to buy UK clubs all the time - Bristol Rovers passed into Jordanian ownership 3 weeks ago) but when is hard to predict. He hasn't quit Carl Zeiss Jena yet and they are in the German 4th (or is it 5th) tier.
After the chaos this season I'd be happy to see some stability in 2016-17. Riga staying as manager, as many of the squad as possible remaining (which I admit is unlikely) and an uneventful year in mid table, rather than swinging constantly from one extreme to the other. Then try and move on from there.
How much as a percentage are you spending or willing to spend on your hobby, hobbies or interests ?
My point is that although RD's losses might be into about 5% of his wealth, this figure might sit very well with him in order to satisfy his theory, experiment or whatever else you want to call his involvement. He is obviously a serious man and has serious views. Trying to see if you can run a football club at break even is his distraction.
5% of my meagre wealth would be a far more significant outlay for my distraction than RD losing 5% of his vast fortune. He could write it all off and it wouldn't impact on his lifestyle one iota.
I think we might need to stop thinking RD's involvement is like other rich mans dabbles into football. It's not an ego trip other than to prove a point. He doesn't like football much and doesn't even consider it important if we win or lose.
Perhaps we need to start thinking from just as left field angle as Roland does in order to impact him.
technically yes that's what he's spent, but that's not what he's lost (£38m). And don't forget they are loans.
It's like saying you bought a house for £250k, you aren't 'down' £250k it's what you've spent, you still own the asset even if the asset has decreased in value, he's also like the bank that has lent himself the £250k to buy it. Very broadly the running loss is around £10m less interest earned so circa £8.5m, of course there will be this years losses to add........
The club and its assets still has a value although I haven't looked into exactly what that is. I'm sure though over the summer he will be selling some of that asset by way of players.
I see it more as akin to a developer buying a pub and looking for a change of use permission whereby overnight he doubles his money.
Basically gambling with a community asset, but only being exposed for a fraction of the potential profit available in the "churn".
Pub fans will be familiar with this locally. You tend to need ;
A desperate seller running out of cashflow to operate the business - see The Chancers.
The funds to have the asset stand idle or derelict whilst opposition to the change of use - see a typing related to football side under Staprix.
The potential audience for the new use of asset - see CEOs army of Spurs taxi drivers desperate for their matchday experience of the stars of tomorrow, namely someone else's new tomorrow
What a surprise, a convoluted set of accounts preventing any attempt to analyse the business on a normal profit, loss and turnover basis.
Bunch of thieves this mob. Losses down (apparently) and yet debt increasing disproportionately.
His interest and his intragroup accounting magic tricks are risk free profit for him.
He paid 14-18M. No way he has put in more than 10M net IMO. Winds the club up he would get all that back. So where is his stake? Oh Yeh he has the same level of skin in the game as the Glazers. So absolutely feck all.
Deffo think some of his transactions are contrary to transfer pricing rules for multinationals.
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
But your point doesn't quite make sense then.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
And the first £7m goes to the old board in all such scenarios.
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
But your point doesn't quite make sense then.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
And the first £7m goes to the old board in all such scenarios.
Very true.
The question about Katrien's salary remains, it's a very strange situation - I hope it's all above board from a tax perspective.
It also depends on how his other teams are doing. Current position, today, is:
Sint Truiden - Big slump in form. 7 consecutive defeats have seem them tumble to 14th out of 16 in Belgian Premier League. (Looks like the CARD protest caught them at just the right moment!) Now only 2 points above automatic relegation slot. Slight improvement, though, would keep them up and allow them to participate in knock out tournament for qualification for Europa League slot in 2016-17......they do things funny in Belgian. (If they are relegated......do we get Chris O'Loughlin and Benny McCarthy next season as our coaches at Charlton?)
Ujpest - 5th out of 12 in Hungarian Premiership. Unbeaten in last 8 League games. Only goal difference is keeping them outside automatic qualification for the Europa League. (The team that do currently qualify are Videoton - the side Loic Nego went to). Just won 8-1 in the cup quarter-final so through to the semi's.
AD Alcorcon - 8th out of 22 in Spanish Second Division. One point off play-offs. They've been in the top half of their League all season threatening for promotion.
Carl Zeiss Jena - 7th out of 18 in German North East Regional League. This is 4th tier of German football and they were relegated to it in 2012. Have looked ok since, but haven't managed a serious promotion challenge.
Charlton - we all know about.
So: 2 sides doing ok, 1 in mid table and 2 struggling.
All very average - why would he panic and sell up?
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
But your point doesn't quite make sense then.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
And the first £7m goes to the old board in all such scenarios.
What are the exact terms, I'd read that it was repaid to them on entry to the premiership, or is it also if the club is sold they get the first £7m? If so even less likely he'll sell!!
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
But your point doesn't quite make sense then.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
And the first £7m goes to the old board in all such scenarios.
Very true.
The question about Katrien's salary remains, it's a very strange situation - I hope it's all above board from a tax perspective.
I hope it isn't! Now, looking for the HMRC report a tax evader web site.
Haa! Just looked there is a form but the silly sods won't let you submit it without your contact details.
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.
I think that boat has sailed! RD isn't going to sell anytime soon and Varney's interested parties aren't going to hang about forever. Real shame but I think that is the reality.
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
But your point doesn't quite make sense then.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
And the first £7m goes to the old board in all such scenarios.
What are the exact terms, I'd read that it was repaid to them on entry to the premiership, or is it also if the club is sold they get the first £7m? If so even less likely he'll sell!!
what I'd like to know is how those directors dictate how it's carved up? They can't only Staprix can.
Roly comes to them with his is paper mountain behind him and says
"take 1M now or nothing when I sell it in a way that leaves no pot for distribution"
I was under the impression the charges are against the valley and the training ground. I am sure Staprix could flop the sale of those and leave that 7m charge worth a lot less. He just would have to sell to a party at a not arms length distance and I haven't seen an arms length disclosed deal at any point of this theif's' ownership.
I've not looked into it so am not saying there are assets worth that amount but there are Assets to a value. The Valley & the training ground will have a value (I'd guess well into double figure millions but I'm not a surveyor), the players have a value.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
But your point doesn't quite make sense then.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
And the first £7m goes to the old board in all such scenarios.
Very true.
The question about Katrien's salary remains, it's a very strange situation - I hope it's all above board from a tax perspective.
I hope it isn't! Now, looking for the HMRC report a tax evader web site.
Haa! Just looked there is a form but the silly sods won't let you submit it without your contact details.
Hoping it isn't above board was my first thought, but I reckon it's far more likely that she is working under IR35 or is paid directly by another part of the Evil Empire. It's obvious she knows sod all about football, but I don't reckon she is stupid enough to illegally dodge her taxes when there are plenty of legal loopholes she can exploit. I would imagine there would be repercussions on her ability to operate as a lawyer if she had convictions for tax fraud, so I'd be pretty confident that she has covered her backside with regards to that so that she doesn't cut off her Pinocchio-sized hooter to spite her face from an employment perspective.
I would imagine Meire was employed by Staprix when she did her Standard Liege legal work. If so there was no reason to change her employer when she joined Charlton.
I think her legal career is probably over - few leave the profession and go back.
calydon_road Let me explain for about the tenth time, Roly can't sell,lease,flop as you call it or do anything with the Training Ground or Valley ,there are Mortgages(Charges) that have to be repaid first,yes they are repayable in Premier League but would have to be paid off before he can sell the property as they are a restriction,this was done so as to protect those Directors loans from precisley what you are suggesting. If you have a mortgage on your house for say 30 years, you can sell it any time you like but you have to pay the Bank back it's mortgage first,that is exactly the same as Directors charges,they are not repayable until Premier League unless he wants to sell or fundamentally change the asset. In Administration those and the Bank overdraft and trade creditors would all be paid off before Roly.
Comments
1. He carries on owning the club and racking up further losses.
2. He writes off some (maybe all) of the existing debt or puts conditions in the sale contract that it becomes repayable upon promotion to the Premier League. (What Murray was forced to do to stem losses.)
3.He tops himself and then doesn't have to worry about it any more.
We get to gauge quite how mad he is according to which option he chooses.
a) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and in a couple of years a seriously wealthy Arab/Yank/Chinese/whoever buys the club and pays off everything because they have got far more money than sense
b) he continues to saddle the club with debt through these loans (and taking his healthy 3%) and no one comes in and in 10 years or less there are no supporters, we're in the conference south and the Charlton we love is lost forever. That's not as dramatic or unlikely as it sounds IMO
c) he takes a massive hit losing millions of his personal fortune to sell the club at a loss
Of those I think c the most unlikely.
It's like saying you bought a house for £250k, you aren't 'down' £250k it's what you've spent, you still own the asset even if the asset has decreased in value, he's also like the bank that has lent himself the £250k to buy it. Very broadly the running loss is around £10m less interest earned so circa £8.5m, of course there will be this years losses to add........
The club and its assets still has a value although I haven't looked into exactly what that is. I'm sure though over the summer he will be selling some of that asset by way of players.
His plan will either fail, or he will lose a ton pf money, clearly, his plan WILL fail, it's just a matter of when we can make him see that.
Either way I don't think Roland will, did he at Standard ?
Standard were a profit making club in the CL, as much as I agree with a lot of what you say, I just do not see how RD can avoid losing millions, when you consider the giant hole we are in.
Standard were a profit making club in the CL, as much as I agree with a lot of what you say, I just do not see how RD can avoid losing millions, when you consider the giant hole we are in.
Just as an example he could sell the training ground and rent it (or part of it) back if we are still a going concern.
If he wound the club up he could recoup a large proportion of his investment by selling assets.
We know that the club "owe" him £38m, that's essentially what he's laid out on us I assume. Therefore if he can't raise £38m through selling the club or selling the club's assets (players, land etc) then he's suffering a loss. I think your figure of £8.5m being the true loss as it stands is is incorrect because it suggests that there are £29.5m worth of assets that can be liquified or that the club has a value of £29.5m and I don't think either is true.
He doesn't run Charlton as a silo'd business.
You'd need to really dig deep into the finances of the network & RD as a whole, looking at it just at Charlton is completely missing the point.
It's clearly not gone to plan though as at least part of the model is getting each club to roughly break even, that relied on for Charlton remaining in the championship and increasing attendance, neither of which look likely in the short term.
Not considered on this thread are the possibility of his using a UK League One side (us) as a proving ground for Sint Truiden and Ujpest players prior to them going back to their own clubs. A way of giving them match experience at a reasonable level. He'd save ££££ on that, rather than buying in new squad members for us.
At some point he might sell up (people are trying to buy UK clubs all the time - Bristol Rovers passed into Jordanian ownership 3 weeks ago) but when is hard to predict. He hasn't quit Carl Zeiss Jena yet and they are in the German 4th (or is it 5th) tier.
After the chaos this season I'd be happy to see some stability in 2016-17. Riga staying as manager, as many of the squad as possible remaining (which I admit is unlikely) and an uneventful year in mid table, rather than swinging constantly from one extreme to the other. Then try and move on from there.
My point is that although RD's losses might be into about 5% of his wealth, this figure might sit very well with him in order to satisfy his theory, experiment or whatever else you want to call his involvement. He is obviously a serious man and has serious views. Trying to see if you can run a football club at break even is his distraction.
5% of my meagre wealth would be a far more significant outlay for my distraction than RD losing 5% of his vast fortune. He could write it all off and it wouldn't impact on his lifestyle one iota.
I think we might need to stop thinking RD's involvement is like other rich mans dabbles into football. It's not an ego trip other than to prove a point. He doesn't like football much and doesn't even consider it important if we win or lose.
Perhaps we need to start thinking from just as left field angle as Roland does in order to impact him.
Basically gambling with a community asset, but only being exposed for a fraction of the potential profit available in the "churn".
Pub fans will be familiar with this locally. You tend to need ;
A desperate seller running out of cashflow to operate the business - see The Chancers.
The funds to have the asset stand idle or derelict whilst opposition to the change of use - see a typing related to football side under Staprix.
The potential audience for the new use of asset - see CEOs army of Spurs taxi drivers desperate for their matchday experience of the stars of tomorrow, namely someone else's new tomorrow
What a surprise, a convoluted set of accounts preventing any attempt to analyse the business on a normal profit, loss and turnover basis.
Bunch of thieves this mob. Losses down (apparently) and yet debt increasing disproportionately.
His interest and his intragroup accounting magic tricks are risk free profit for him.
He paid 14-18M. No way he has put in more than 10M net IMO. Winds the club up he would get all that back. So where is his stake? Oh Yeh he has the same level of skin in the game as the Glazers. So absolutely feck all.
Deffo think some of his transactions are contrary to transfer pricing rules for multinationals.
The question about Katrien's salary remains, it's a very strange situation - I hope it's all above board from a tax perspective.
Sint Truiden - Big slump in form. 7 consecutive defeats have seem them tumble to 14th out of 16 in Belgian Premier League. (Looks like the CARD protest caught them at just the right moment!) Now only 2 points above automatic relegation slot. Slight improvement, though, would keep them up and allow them to participate in knock out tournament for qualification for Europa League slot in 2016-17......they do things funny in Belgian. (If they are relegated......do we get Chris O'Loughlin and Benny McCarthy next season as our coaches at Charlton?)
Ujpest - 5th out of 12 in Hungarian Premiership. Unbeaten in last 8 League games. Only goal difference is keeping them outside automatic qualification for the Europa League. (The team that do currently qualify are Videoton - the side Loic Nego went to). Just won 8-1 in the cup quarter-final so through to the semi's.
AD Alcorcon - 8th out of 22 in Spanish Second Division. One point off play-offs. They've been in the top half of their League all season threatening for promotion.
Carl Zeiss Jena - 7th out of 18 in German North East Regional League. This is 4th tier of German football and they were relegated to it in 2012. Have looked ok since, but haven't managed a serious promotion challenge.
Charlton - we all know about.
So: 2 sides doing ok, 1 in mid table and 2 struggling.
All very average - why would he panic and sell up?
Haa! Just looked there is a form but the silly sods won't let you submit it without your contact details.
Roly comes to them with his is paper mountain behind him and says
"take 1M now or nothing when I sell it in a way that leaves no pot for distribution"
I was under the impression the charges are against the valley and the training ground. I am sure Staprix could flop the sale of those and leave that 7m charge worth a lot less. He just would have to sell to a party at a not arms length distance and I haven't seen an arms length disclosed deal at any point of this theif's' ownership.
I think her legal career is probably over - few leave the profession and go back.
If you have a mortgage on your house for say 30 years, you can sell it any time you like but you have to pay the Bank back it's mortgage first,that is exactly the same as Directors charges,they are not repayable until Premier League unless he wants to sell or fundamentally change the asset.
In Administration those and the Bank overdraft and trade creditors would all be paid off before Roly.