The reason why I say it's a 'fake' investment because I heard from a reliable source that the investment towards the training ground is only a loan! So whatever way, Roland will tempt to get the money back from it!
But am I right that in league one with the FFP , investment can only be made via equity rather than loans?
I'm not sure but this is what I've been told.
I think the restrictions are on spending on player wages and fees. This can not go over a certain % of income.
Owners can't loan money to their clubs to increase that income level but they can inject money via equity ie "giving" the money to the club in shares. So in theory Roland or any owner could inject £100m to spend on players. Don't hold your breath.
I didn't think the restrictions applied to other expenses such ground or training ground improvements. I don't think they factor in FFP rules in league 1 but I stand to be corrected.
Undoubtably Roland has loaded all the money he has "spent" as loans. No doubt this included the money he's spent on players he bought/paid loan fees from himself ie Reza, Watt, Nego, Buyens, Bulot, Koc, Astrid, Thuram.
But Katrien bleats that they have spend £30m on the club. £14m of that was buying the club, £2m on ground improvements at the Valley. Hard to say that the other £14m has been well spent given that we've been relegated.
But am I right that in league one with the FFP , investment can only be made via equity rather than loans?
I'm not sure but this is what I've been told.
I think the restrictions are on spending on player wages and fees. This can not go over a certain % of income.
Owners can't loan money to their clubs to increase that income level but they can inject money via equity ie "giving" the money to the club in shares. So in theory Roland or any owner could inject £100m to spend on players. Don't hold your breath.
I didn't think the restrictions applied to other expenses such ground or training ground improvements. I don't think they factor in FFP rules in league 1 but I stand to be corrected.
Undoubtably Roland has loaded all the money he has "spent" as loans. No doubt this included the money he's spent on players he bought/paid loan fees from himself ie Reza, Watt, Nego, Buyens, Bulot, Koc, Astrid, Thuram.
But Katrien bleats that they have spend £30m on the club. £14m of that was buying the club, £2m on ground improvements at the Valley. Hard to say that the other £14m has been well spent given that we've been relegated.
Most of that is Naby Sarr's welcome bonus and wages.
But am I right that in league one with the FFP , investment can only be made via equity rather than loans?
I'm not sure but this is what I've been told.
I think the restrictions are on spending on player wages and fees. This can not go over a certain % of income.
Owners can't loan money to their clubs to increase that income level but they can inject money via equity ie "giving" the money to the club in shares. So in theory Roland or any owner could inject £100m to spend on players. Don't hold your breath.
I didn't think the restrictions applied to other expenses such ground or training ground improvements. I don't think they factor in FFP rules in league 1 but I stand to be corrected.
Undoubtably Roland has loaded all the money he has "spent" as loans. No doubt this included the money he's spent on players he bought/paid loan fees from himself ie Reza, Watt, Nego, Buyens, Bulot, Koc, Astrid, Thuram.
But Katrien bleats that they have spend £30m on the club. £14m of that was buying the club, £2m on ground improvements at the Valley. Hard to say that the other £14m has been well spent given that we've been relegated.
But am I right that in league one with the FFP , investment can only be made via equity rather than loans?
I'm not sure but this is what I've been told.
I think the restrictions are on spending on player wages and fees. This can not go over a certain % of income.
Owners can't loan money to their clubs to increase that income level but they can inject money via equity ie "giving" the money to the club in shares. So in theory Roland or any owner could inject £100m to spend on players. Don't hold your breath.
I didn't think the restrictions applied to other expenses such ground or training ground improvements. I don't think they factor in FFP rules in league 1 but I stand to be corrected.
Undoubtably Roland has loaded all the money he has "spent" as loans. No doubt this included the money he's spent on players he bought/paid loan fees from himself ie Reza, Watt, Nego, Buyens, Bulot, Koc, Astrid, Thuram.
But Katrien bleats that they have spend £30m on the club. £14m of that was buying the club, £2m on ground improvements at the Valley. Hard to say that the other £14m has been well spent given that we've been relegated.
This is how I understand it to be as well, and this is how the UEFA one was set up as well. Investments in youth or infrastructure do not count against FFP.
As for loans, yes, as of this time last year, Charlton owed Staypex (sp?) 38m in loans. Yay.
Not that I'm defending that cancerous man or anything, but Duchateprick does need to find a buyer that agrees to incorporate his loans into the fee for the club no? Until that day he is funding this crap whether he likes it or not. He's not finding a buyer at this level that will pay that much that's for sure.
Not that I'm defending that cancerous man or anything, but Duchateprick does need to find a buyer that agrees to incorporate his loans into the fee for the club no? Until that day he is funding this crap whether he likes it or not. He's not finding a buyer at this level that will pay that much that's for sure.
Or he takes the hit and sells the club.
My guess is Nov/Dec this year when it's still not working and he finally realises he isn't going to all that money back.
Did the money actually move for those transfers? So effectively he is writing off tax on loss making clubs while paying himself interest on money he has loaned to himself? I see why he doesn't care about the results.
Not that I'm defending that cancerous man or anything, but Duchateprick does need to find a buyer that agrees to incorporate his loans into the fee for the club no? Until that day he is funding this crap whether he likes it or not. He's not finding a buyer at this level that will pay that much that's for sure.
Or he takes the hit and sells the club.
My guess is Nov/Dec this year when it's still not working and he finally realises he isn't going to all that money back.
Or just digs his heels in, and keeps lending CAFC money to keep going until such time as we are literally dragging the bottom in L2, and closes us down through spite, knowing he's not gonna get his money back.
The money being spent on the training ground is creating an asset. To benefit from its value on the balance sheet any injection of cash to fund it would be in the form of equity. If a loan is made, the value of the asset is offset by the value of the loan so the enterprise value of the club is reduced.
It is completely wrong to call it an investment unless he takes equity in return for the cash he pays across, simply because it does not add enterprise value. It is only an investment from the perspective of Staprix, for the club it's purely and simply adding debt.
Did the money actually move for those transfers? So effectively he is writing off tax on loss making clubs while paying himself interest on money he has loaned to himself? I see why he doesn't care about the results.
Did the money actually move for those transfers? So effectively he is writing off tax on loss making clubs while paying himself interest on money he has loaned to himself? I see why he doesn't care about the results.
He is paying himself interest on those loans but where's that money coming from? He's having to lend the money to the club to pay the interest so he's just losing more and more money. He must realise he's not getting that money back as no-one's going to pay £38,000,000 or more for a third division club that's haemorrhaging money and support, so the question is does he sell and take a hit or wind us up and take a bigger hit but get the 'satisfaction' of screwing those 'customers' who never bought into his deluded plan, i.e. us.
Did the money actually move for those transfers? So effectively he is writing off tax on loss making clubs while paying himself interest on money he has loaned to himself? I see why he doesn't care about the results.
He is paying himself interest on those loans but where's that money coming from? He's having to lend the money to the club to pay the interest so he's just losing more and more money. He must realise he's not getting that money back as no-one's going to pay £38,000,000 or more for a third division club that's haemorrhaging money and support, so the question is does he sell and take a hit or wind us up and take a bigger hit but get the 'satisfaction' of screwing those 'customers' who never bought into his deluded plan, i.e. us.
Like a gambler who keeps raising his stakes in the hope of making up his losses, Roland believes that he and he alone knows how to run a football club and that all will soon come good and he can sell at a massive profit. Clearly it's only the troublesome supporters that are getting in his way.
Not that I'm defending that cancerous man or anything, but Duchateprick does need to find a buyer that agrees to incorporate his loans into the fee for the club no? Until that day he is funding this crap whether he likes it or not. He's not finding a buyer at this level that will pay that much that's for sure.
Or he takes the hit and sells the club.
My guess is Nov/Dec this year when it's still not working and he finally realises he isn't going to all that money back.
At least he'll have all the great memories to look back on. Well worth it.
Not to defend the crazed old pillock but showing the "investment" as a loan is little more than an accounting nicety. The club didn't already have the money to spend on the training ground and it didn't arrive from we customers as sales revenue but it has to be shown in the accounts as arriving from somewhere. There are essentially 2 possibilities: shares (below the line) or loans (above the line). Know nothing commentators get very hot under the collar about the amount of "debt" on football club balance sheets without looking at who it is owed to and whether any of it has to be repaid soon or ever. Much hot air is spouted about roly charging interest on this so called debt but the club is losing millions which he has to fund anyway so any supposed additional cost goes out from one hand and has to be provided back with the other. There's no point Roly 'calling in' any of these loans cos the club has no funds to pay him back. Liquidating the clubs assets would take far too long to serve any useful purpose. "But what about the club's balance sheet showing that it is insolvent?" I hear you ask. Any potential purchaser will need to appraise themselves of the monies that the club owes to outside parties and any amounts apparently owed to roly group parties have to be up for negotiation. Obviously roly's project is a pathetically deluded farce without an atom of a chance of success so when (if) he decides to go away he'll have to decide how much he's prepared to accept and thereby how much he's prepared to have written off. In the real world the distinction between "equity" and "friendly debt" is semantic and all up for negotiation in the event of a change of ownership. No desk flying half-wit at the football league or FA understands the difference or the impact on FFP. Let's hope we get to see the results of such negotiation sooner rather than later. Oi! Roly! Cut your losses and do one pronto, you mad old duffer.
Not to defend the crazed old pillock but showing the "investment" as a loan is little more than an accounting nicety. The club didn't already have the money to spend on the training ground and it didn't arrive from we customers as sales revenue but it has to be shown in the accounts as arriving from somewhere. There are essentially 2 possibilities: shares (below the line) or loans (above the line). Know nothing commentators get very hot under the collar about the amount of "debt" on football club balance sheets without looking at who it is owed to and whether any of it has to be repaid soon or ever. Much hot air is spouted about roly charging interest on this so called debt but the club is losing millions which he has to fund anyway so any supposed additional cost goes out from one hand and has to be provided back with the other. There's no point Roly 'calling in' any of these loans cos the club has no funds to pay him back. Liquidating the clubs assets would take far too long to serve any useful purpose. "But what about the club's balance sheet showing that it is insolvent?" I hear you ask. Any potential purchaser will need to appraise themselves of the monies that the club owes to outside parties and any amounts apparently owed to roly group parties have to be up for negotiation. Obviously roly's project is a pathetically deluded farce without an atom of a chance of success so when (if) he decides to go away he'll have to decide how much he's prepared to accept and thereby how much he's prepared to have written off. In the real world the distinction between "equity" and "friendly debt" is semantic and all up for negotiation in the event of a change of ownership. No desk flying half-wit at the football league or FA understands the difference or the impact on FFP. Let's hope we get to see the results of such negotiation sooner rather than later. Oi! Roly! Cut your losses and do one pronto, you mad old duffer.
Isn't that the point, who he owes the money to? It is owed to Stripax, not Roland, even though he owns both companies. Part of the debt he is funding is interest payments to Stripax for money he has effectively loaned to himself. It is only friendly debt if he is treating it as such. Wouldn't it be in his interest's to load the club with as much debt as possible, as interest is compound? He would have a loss making company in one country and a loss making club in another, allowing him to write of tax twice even though the money had simply moved columns on a spreadsheet.
Ultimately Roland cares about making money from football, not if Charlton make money. He will do that through Stripax, not any one club. The network seems like he has diversified his investment. If long term plan was to improve the assets to the point of sale, while funding loss making by selling and replacing on the cheap, then the interest repayments are further profits for Stripax. Obviously it has gone to shit, but he will be in the firm belief he can regain the value of the asset through promotion.
Wasn't there some story that standard never received a fee for Watt and this lead to us losing out on Bulot? The figures quoted, which seem dodgy accounting, by senior figures suggest that we paid transfer fees to someone. If this is Stripax and no money has reached standard, doesn't this call in to question third party ownership? It certainly seems like a form of asset stripping if true. I suppose it comes down to if part of the current interest payments is from debt incurred for money paid to Stripax for the sale of Watt to Charlton .
Not to defend the crazed old pillock but showing the "investment" as a loan is little more than an accounting nicety. The club didn't already have the money to spend on the training ground and it didn't arrive from we customers as sales revenue but it has to be shown in the accounts as arriving from somewhere. There are essentially 2 possibilities: shares (below the line) or loans (above the line). Know nothing commentators get very hot under the collar about the amount of "debt" on football club balance sheets without looking at who it is owed to and whether any of it has to be repaid soon or ever. Much hot air is spouted about roly charging interest on this so called debt but the club is losing millions which he has to fund anyway so any supposed additional cost goes out from one hand and has to be provided back with the other. There's no point Roly 'calling in' any of these loans cos the club has no funds to pay him back. Liquidating the clubs assets would take far too long to serve any useful purpose. "But what about the club's balance sheet showing that it is insolvent?" I hear you ask. Any potential purchaser will need to appraise themselves of the monies that the club owes to outside parties and any amounts apparently owed to roly group parties have to be up for negotiation. Obviously roly's project is a pathetically deluded farce without an atom of a chance of success so when (if) he decides to go away he'll have to decide how much he's prepared to accept and thereby how much he's prepared to have written off. In the real world the distinction between "equity" and "friendly debt" is semantic and all up for negotiation in the event of a change of ownership. No desk flying half-wit at the football league or FA understands the difference or the impact on FFP. Let's hope we get to see the results of such negotiation sooner rather than later. Oi! Roly! Cut your losses and do one pronto, you mad old duffer.
Interesting post.
I may have misunderstood the point @StigThundercock but wasn't the money already secured in grants in for an integrated Academy / Community Trust building ? Duchatelet wanted a bigger scheme and one which I understand separated out the Community Trust from the Acadmey ?
(I understand that may now be a blessing for the Community Trust to be stand alone from the generally inept way that the main club is run).
'Obviously roly's project is a pathetically deluded farce without an atom of a chance of success so when (if) he decides to go away he'll have to decide how much he's prepared to accept and thereby how much he's prepared to have written off'
Despite the various definitions of the word investment and the actual value added to the club when taking into account loans, unless RD manages to successfully transfer ownership of the training ground complex and/or The Valley to someone else that could sell it or use it themselves he has added useful assets to the club at both venues.
We all know that he will be very unlikely to realise what he has invested on sale of the club and even less likely to convince some entity that he doesn't control to lend the club money to repay himself so it is as good as an equity investment.
The important factor going forward is just how much more he will (have to) spend and how likely it is that this extra spending will increase his sale price. It is my belief that any further spending will increase the salable price of the club by less that it costs. What this means is that unless they are very lucky KM and RD are just increasing his losses the longer they stay.
As for putting the club into liquidation that would force the sale of all the assets and a Phoenix club could buy them all, and would probably be willing to pay more for them in any event. Administration is likely to have the same outcome. If RD really wanted to destroy the club he would, probably, have to stay and oversee unlimited failure and three or four more relegations to ensure that he could dispose of the assets without a new Charlton buying them all back and starting again
The pitch at The Valley was in a mess and from what I read it had needed investment since we were in the Premier League so that can't be blamed on Slater and Jieminez. The new Academy can only ever be a good thing.
On the whole RD and KM have failed at just about everything they have done, all be it that it is easy to lose a small fortune running a football club - many have already done so and I'm sure many more will. There is no doubt, though, that upgrading The Valley and the Training Ground is a good thing and if they hurry up f**k off and someone new comes in and gets up promoted then we could quite quickly be in a better position that just before he arrived when we had no money and were looking like relegation candidates without the ability to sign new players or even play those that had bonuses based on appearances.
Despite the various definitions of the word investment and the actual value added to the club when taking into account loans, unless RD manages to successfully transfer ownership of the training ground complex and/or The Valley to someone else that could sell it or use it themselves he has added useful assets to the club at both venues.
True of some (not all) of the work completed, but the vast majority (building the training ground complex) has yet to be carried out, so it is very premature to say he has "added" it. I don't think he will be here long enough to finish it, personally.
Notwithstanding all the arguments about the significance of the debt, the club continues to be bear interest charges due to Staprix of around £500k a year on the £18m Duchatelet paid to acquire the business. That has nothing to do with investment in CAFC.
Despite the various definitions of the word investment and the actual value added to the club when taking into account loans, unless RD manages to successfully transfer ownership of the training ground complex and/or The Valley to someone else that could sell it or use it themselves he has added useful assets to the club at both venues.
True of some (not all) of the work completed, but the vast majority (building the training ground complex) has yet to be carried out, so it is very premature to say he has "added" it. I don't think he will be here long enough to finish it, personally.
Notwithstanding all the arguments about the significance of the debt, the club continues to be bear interest charges due to Staprix of around £500k a year on the £18m Duchatelet paid to acquire the business. That has nothing to do with investment in CAFC.
Fair enough but if the club is running at a loss then he (or the increased loans) must be paying the £500k interest each year as they can't take money out if it's all been spent on players wagers.
Ultimately it is the same outcome, it will be written off as losses or discounted by the same p in the £ that he accepts is we go into administration.
Basically as the club isn't making any money unless he finds a fool to pay him way above the value to acquire the club is doesn't really matter how much he 'decides' the club owes his other companies.
I didn't know that none of the building work at Sparrows Lane had been carried out. I apologise for my error. I should have known better than to believe anything KM has said but I was under the impression that they started last November with completion expected sometime soon.
Despite the various definitions of the word investment and the actual value added to the club when taking into account loans, unless RD manages to successfully transfer ownership of the training ground complex and/or The Valley to someone else that could sell it or use it themselves he has added useful assets to the club at both venues.
True of some (not all) of the work completed, but the vast majority (building the training ground complex) has yet to be carried out, so it is very premature to say he has "added" it. I don't think he will be here long enough to finish it, personally.
Notwithstanding all the arguments about the significance of the debt, the club continues to be bear interest charges due to Staprix of around £500k a year on the £18m Duchatelet paid to acquire the business. That has nothing to do with investment in CAFC.
Fair enough but if the club is running at a loss then he (or the increased loans) must be paying the £500k interest each year as they can't take money out if it's all been spent on players wagers.
Ultimately it is the same outcome, it will be written off as losses or discounted by the same p in the £ that he accepts is we go into administration.
Basically as the club isn't making any money unless he finds a fool to pay him way above the value to acquire the club is doesn't really matter how much he 'decides' the club owes his other companies.
I didn't know that none of the building work at Sparrows Lane had been carried out. I apologise for my error. I should have known better than to believe anything KM has said but I was under the impression that they started last November with completion expected sometime soon.
Completion isn't expected (possible!) any time soon. They have done some drainage work and pitch works, I believe, but no building as such.
As for the interest, it is included in losses (investment) they quote and as far as I am concerned that is misleading when it relates to the money he used to acquire the asset in the first place. I understand how it is done in accounting terms, but it's not a genuine loss by the business under this ownership.
Forgive me if this has been discussed before........
RD cancelled the previous plan which included grants from outside parties. Does he or the club benefit from him now not taking he grants and paying for everything in house so to speak? Would we have had to pay the grants back, pay interest on them?
Forgive me if this has been discussed before........
RD cancelled the previous plan which included grants from outside parties. Does he or the club benefit from him now not taking he grants and paying for everything in house so to speak? Would we have had to pay the grants back, pay interest on them?
No, providing the conditions were fulfilled, although it wasn't all grant funding. Some was from a benefactor. There were no interest payments to my knowledge.
There's little doubt that the current scheme is superior in terms of the academy and first team (and inferior for the community trust and the community generally). The original was explicitly pitched at an inclusion agenda, the current one basically has a big keep out sign. The addition of an indoor sports hall is key to the extra cost.
Ultimately the question is this. If the cost to the club of the previous scheme was zero and the cost to the club now is, say, £12m, plus interest, do the changes in themselves offset that cost? Bluntly will the changes of themselves add, for argument's sake, £15m of value to the business over time?
It's a bit more complicated than that in terms of external funding that may still come in and whether the first scheme would have met the necessary criteria (which the current regime now claims it wouldn't have, having previously told the planners it would). But that's the gist of it.
Roland will only be able to sell the club for a price a buyer is willing to pay. Debt is surely meaningless above that as a buyer will take that into account with any amount they agree!
Forgive me if this has been discussed before........
RD cancelled the previous plan which included grants from outside parties. Does he or the club benefit from him now not taking he grants and paying for everything in house so to speak? Would we have had to pay the grants back, pay interest on them?
No, providing the conditions were fulfilled, although it wasn't all grant funding. Some was from a benefactor. There were no interest payments to my knowledge.
There's little doubt that the current scheme is superior in terms of the academy and first team (and inferior for the community trust and the community generally). The original was explicitly pitched at an inclusion agenda, the current one basically has a big keep out sign. The addition of an indoor sports hall is key to the extra cost.
Ultimately the question is this. If the cost to the club of the previous scheme was zero and the cost to the club now is, say, £12m, plus interest, do the changes in themselves offset that cost? Bluntly will the changes of themselves add, for argument's sake, £15m of value to the business over time?
It's a bit more complicated than that in terms of external funding that may still come in and whether the first scheme would have met the necessary criteria (which the current regime now claims it wouldn't have, having previously told the planners it would). But that's the gist of it.
Cheers. I think as a simpleton with no business background, it just looks like RD has cancelled the original plans as they were of less personal financial benefit to him in the shorter or even longer term. I understand that the plans have been expanded quite a bit, but surely there could have been a way to incorporate some of the original ideas which qualified for the grants? It just looks like he's hoping that a future buyer will add the value of the new academy (more than it cost to build) to the purchase price, or that he can take the money he has put in out of the club, with interest, should our situation improve (i.e we get to the premiership) and he continues to own us. Maybe I'm just looking to see the worst of everything RD does, but I can't see any other reason why he would not want outside grants, effectively free money, to be used.
Comments
Owners can't loan money to their clubs to increase that income level but they can inject money via equity ie "giving" the money to the club in shares. So in theory Roland or any owner could inject £100m to spend on players. Don't hold your breath.
I didn't think the restrictions applied to other expenses such ground or training ground improvements. I don't think they factor in FFP rules in league 1 but I stand to be corrected.
Undoubtably Roland has loaded all the money he has "spent" as loans. No doubt this included the money he's spent on players he bought/paid loan fees from himself ie Reza, Watt, Nego, Buyens, Bulot, Koc, Astrid, Thuram.
But Katrien bleats that they have spend £30m on the club. £14m of that was buying the club, £2m on ground improvements at the Valley. Hard to say that the other £14m has been well spent given that we've been relegated.
As for loans, yes, as of this time last year, Charlton owed Staypex (sp?) 38m in loans. Yay.
My guess is Nov/Dec this year when it's still not working and he finally realises he isn't going to all that money back.
It is completely wrong to call it an investment unless he takes equity in return for the cash he pays across, simply because it does not add enterprise value. It is only an investment from the perspective of Staprix, for the club it's purely and simply adding debt.
There's no point Roly 'calling in' any of these loans cos the club has no funds to pay him back. Liquidating the clubs assets would take far too long to serve any useful purpose.
"But what about the club's balance sheet showing that it is insolvent?" I hear you ask. Any potential purchaser will need to appraise themselves of the monies that the club owes to outside parties and any amounts apparently owed to roly group parties have to be up for negotiation. Obviously roly's project is a pathetically deluded farce without an atom of a chance of success so when (if) he decides to go away he'll have to decide how much he's prepared to accept and thereby how much he's prepared to have written off.
In the real world the distinction between "equity" and "friendly debt" is semantic and all up for negotiation in the event of a change of ownership.
No desk flying half-wit at the football league or FA understands the difference or the impact on FFP.
Let's hope we get to see the results of such negotiation sooner rather than later.
Oi! Roly! Cut your losses and do one pronto, you mad old duffer.
Ultimately Roland cares about making money from football, not if Charlton make money. He will do that through Stripax, not any one club. The network seems like he has diversified his investment. If long term plan was to improve the assets to the point of sale, while funding loss making by selling and replacing on the cheap, then the interest repayments are further profits for Stripax. Obviously it has gone to shit, but he will be in the firm belief he can regain the value of the asset through promotion.
Wasn't there some story that standard never received a fee for Watt and this lead to us losing out on Bulot? The figures quoted, which seem dodgy accounting, by senior figures suggest that we paid transfer fees to someone. If this is Stripax and no money has reached standard, doesn't this call in to question third party ownership? It certainly seems like a form of asset stripping if true. I suppose it comes down to if part of the current interest payments is from debt incurred for money paid to Stripax for the sale of Watt to Charlton .
I may have misunderstood the point @StigThundercock but wasn't the money already secured in grants in for an integrated Academy / Community Trust building ? Duchatelet wanted a bigger scheme and one which I understand separated out the Community Trust from the Acadmey ?
(I understand that may now be a blessing for the Community Trust to be stand alone from the generally inept way that the main club is run).
'Obviously roly's project is a pathetically deluded farce without an atom of a chance of success so when (if) he decides to go away he'll have to decide how much he's prepared to accept and thereby how much he's prepared to have written off'
Funny, well put.
We all know that he will be very unlikely to realise what he has invested on sale of the club and even less likely to convince some entity that he doesn't control to lend the club money to repay himself so it is as good as an equity investment.
The important factor going forward is just how much more he will (have to) spend and how likely it is that this extra spending will increase his sale price. It is my belief that any further spending will increase the salable price of the club by less that it costs. What this means is that unless they are very lucky KM and RD are just increasing his losses the longer they stay.
As for putting the club into liquidation that would force the sale of all the assets and a Phoenix club could buy them all, and would probably be willing to pay more for them in any event. Administration is likely to have the same outcome. If RD really wanted to destroy the club he would, probably, have to stay and oversee unlimited failure and three or four more relegations to ensure that he could dispose of the assets without a new Charlton buying them all back and starting again
The pitch at The Valley was in a mess and from what I read it had needed investment since we were in the Premier League so that can't be blamed on Slater and Jieminez. The new Academy can only ever be a good thing.
On the whole RD and KM have failed at just about everything they have done, all be it that it is easy to lose a small fortune running a football club - many have already done so and I'm sure many more will. There is no doubt, though, that upgrading The Valley and the Training Ground is a good thing and if they hurry up f**k off and someone new comes in and gets up promoted then we could quite quickly be in a better position that just before he arrived when we had no money and were looking like relegation candidates without the ability to sign new players or even play those that had bonuses based on appearances.
Notwithstanding all the arguments about the significance of the debt, the club continues to be bear interest charges due to Staprix of around £500k a year on the £18m Duchatelet paid to acquire the business. That has nothing to do with investment in CAFC.
Ultimately it is the same outcome, it will be written off as losses or discounted by the same p in the £ that he accepts is we go into administration.
Basically as the club isn't making any money unless he finds a fool to pay him way above the value to acquire the club is doesn't really matter how much he 'decides' the club owes his other companies.
I didn't know that none of the building work at Sparrows Lane had been carried out. I apologise for my error. I should have known better than to believe anything KM has said but I was under the impression that they started last November with completion expected sometime soon.
As for the interest, it is included in losses (investment) they quote and as far as I am concerned that is misleading when it relates to the money he used to acquire the asset in the first place. I understand how it is done in accounting terms, but it's not a genuine loss by the business under this ownership.
RD cancelled the previous plan which included grants from outside parties. Does he or the club benefit from him now not taking he grants and paying for everything in house so to speak?
Would we have had to pay the grants back, pay interest on them?
There's little doubt that the current scheme is superior in terms of the academy and first team (and inferior for the community trust and the community generally). The original was explicitly pitched at an inclusion agenda, the current one basically has a big keep out sign. The addition of an indoor sports hall is key to the extra cost.
Ultimately the question is this. If the cost to the club of the previous scheme was zero and the cost to the club now is, say, £12m, plus interest, do the changes in themselves offset that cost? Bluntly will the changes of themselves add, for argument's sake, £15m of value to the business over time?
It's a bit more complicated than that in terms of external funding that may still come in and whether the first scheme would have met the necessary criteria (which the current regime now claims it wouldn't have, having previously told the planners it would). But that's the gist of it.
It just looks like he's hoping that a future buyer will add the value of the new academy (more than it cost to build) to the purchase price, or that he can take the money he has put in out of the club, with interest, should our situation improve (i.e we get to the premiership) and he continues to own us.
Maybe I'm just looking to see the worst of everything RD does, but I can't see any other reason why he would not want outside grants, effectively free money, to be used.