All fans should have their views listened to and we should not abuse them but I would say to the pro regime sympathisers open your eyes and look around the stadium
What, at all the lovely red seats and bright yellow steps? Pitch looks good too.
Yeah. Shame about that faded sign though. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned sorting that out.
All fans should have their views listened to and we should not abuse them but I would say to the pro regime sympathisers open your eyes and look around the stadium
What, at all the EMPTY lovely red seats and bright yellow steps? Pitch looks good too.
Really great article and some fantastic comments below.
Well apart from the latest one from "Kentankorous" who describes @Airman Brown as a "nutter", and all the rest of us as "keyboard bullies". A quick look at this individual's posting history there shows him to be a Corbyn fanatic, so I guess it is Nigel Williamson, aka Incorruptible Addick on the website run by the King of keyboard bullies.
But as @Hex has wisely done, best just ignore him.
Really great article and some fantastic comments below.
Well apart from the latest one from "Kentankorous" who describes @Airman Brown as a "nutter", and all the rest of us as "keyboard bullies". A quick look at this individual's posting history there shows him to be a Corbyn fanatic, so I guess it is Nigel Williamson, aka Incorruptible Addick on the website run by the King of keyboard bullies.
But as @Hex has wisely done, best just ignore him.
"Kentankerous" was his pseudonym on the 'We Are Kent' supporters forum. He fell out with them too.
A shame really because when in 'sane' mode he is interesting, articulate and thought provoking.
Just shows how John Comberford and EKA have been conned. He's loaned the money to the club. We have £38m+ of debt to Roland. He hasn't put more money in, just more debt. And that debt means he is asking a silly price of the few potential buyers he will actually talk to.
Absolutely and I would like to see how JC backs up his assertion that RD put more into the club than any other owner.
Old PR trick. Keep repeating a lie and eventually it becomes accepted as fact. All the more so in this age of the internet. Anyone researching the background to the mess -and let's be honest, almost all journalists will start with Google, hence Meire's repeated cleansing of negative comments - will keep coming across the statement that Duchatalet has invested more than anyone etc and so will assume that to be correct, and in all probability repeat it, further fuelling the myth.
Yes, and this was why I was incensed by a lady from Plymouth (whose connection to Charlton is uncertain) sounding off as the, admittedly, unofficial spokesperson for Charlton in yesterday's i newspaper (see related thread).
Whilst of course not official PR she used words such as 'negative' and 'so-called fans' to describe those protesting and these words are achieving a lot of currency on Social Media sites - the related terms 'not genuine fans' or 'not real supporters' appear with some frequency on SE7 Valiants and have been taken up as a kind of battlecry by those who are now fully behind the regime and wish to legitimise this stance by denouncing fellow fans.
May, have said it before but in my view those who have bought into this, as well as being fans, have also become the customer type of supporter so beloved of Meire when she said last year that fans would have to accept the way in which the owner does things now. But the owner owes a duty of care to the Club by virtue of his ownership and whilst football is still played at the Valley the nature of the Club and its relationship with its fans has been terribly damaged as we all know by a dereliction of this duty which has left an incompetent in charge as CEO throughout and a cavalier attitude to the football side with the resulting and inevitable consequences.
When the insults thrown at protesting fans by our own supporters are repeated in a national newspaper it beggars belief and will indeed lead to misrepresentation of the protesters just like the Clem (Radio 5 Live) fiasco where the regime were able to seize the agenda and score a PR victory (although more by luck than judgement) and CASTust had to work hard to try to repair the damage.
Really great article and some fantastic comments below.
Well apart from the latest one from "Kentankorous" who describes @Airman Brown as a "nutter", and all the rest of us as "keyboard bullies". A quick look at this individual's posting history there shows him to be a Corbyn fanatic, so I guess it is Nigel Williamson, aka Incorruptible Addick on the website run by the King of keyboard bullies. But as @Hex has wisely done, best just ignore him.
I suspect many of us have had dealings with him. One of the loudest voices on SE7 Valiants as well.
Does anybody know for sure if 'Pitch' is the Public Relations and Spin company employed by Charlton? If they indeed are, then it may be time to test their mettle. We have contact details, we have an address, we can assume that they are hoovering up the money season ticket holders, and ticket purchasers are putting in to the club. If this company want to give it, then I wonder if they can take it too.
As I said in a previous post - there appears to be a concerted PR campaign from the regime to promulgate the myth that there is a minority of people who are 'not proper fans' who oppose them and that the sensible, silent majority endorse their disastrous, inept and mendacious stewardship of our club.
I try not to fall into the trap of just posting abuse on here, but it is bloody difficult with some of the quisling tossers who are being quoted in the national media as part of this dishonest campaign. They really are a bunch of ***** ******............
Does anybody know for sure if 'Pitch' is the Public Relations and Spin company employed by Charlton? If they indeed are, then it may be time to test their mettle. We have contact details, we have an address, we can assume that they are hoovering up the money season ticket holders, and ticket purchasers are putting in to the club. If this company want to give it, then I wonder if they can take it too.
"Angry sexist and racist football thugs target local PR agency"
Does anybody know for sure if 'Pitch' is the Public Relations and Spin company employed by Charlton? If they indeed are, then it may be time to test their mettle. We have contact details, we have an address, we can assume that they are hoovering up the money season ticket holders, and ticket purchasers are putting in to the club. If this company want to give it, then I wonder if they can take it too.
Photo removed
If I were you I would remove this post or, at least, put a smiley face on it or something. The PR machine would love to point to a Social Media site that is suggesting we fire bomb people's houses or businesses!
Good point.
I've updated my post with something more PR friendly.
The sad thing is that he is basing his support for the owner on bullshit spouted by Meire, that he "has put... money into the club". On that basis, he believes no criticism of the owner can rejustified. Breathtaking naivety.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
The sad thing is that he is basing his support for the owner on bullshit spouted by Meire, that he "has put... money into the club". On that basis, he believes no criticism of the owner can rejustified. Breathtaking naivety.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
This man is a shallow minded sycophant.
I'm loathed to comment on this subject as it seems that any comment that doesn't call for the head of this 'Spokesperson' is often followed with a rebuke.
However it does have to be said that despite how the 'injections' have been structured it seems, to me, and many others, that they are not loans in the real sense of the word as the club will never be able to pay them back and it is unlikely that any buyer will agree to them staying in place.
Thus they are, even if not intended to be, investments or 'gifts' to the club.
This is how most football clubs are run and, exactly, how Richard Murray and the other directors funded, in part, our Premier League adventure. In the end RM, and others, wrote a lot of their debt off and accepted the rest of it to only be repaid if/when Charlton get back into the Premier League. I think interest is also frozen on those loans until we are a Premier League club again.
In the end RD will have to convert the loans to equity or just write them off as there is, literally, no money to pay them back. We have very few players worth much these days and a wage bill that is significantly more than the income (even if we didn't have protests against spending money at the club).
The interest that you talk about is, also, likely to only ever be on paper as all the while the club is being run at a trading loss the interest must be rolled up. In the end the club will have to borrow money from RD to pay him the interest they owe him on the money they borrowed from him. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's £50m or £500m the club are never going to have it to pay back.
Any suggestion that the Premier League money would be enough to pay it back is also, a little, ludicrous as the rate that these idiots lose money on buying and selling players it would probably cost them £250m to just get into the Premier League and by then we'd need to stay there for ten seasons to stand any chance of becoming debt free - and frankly if that were to happen then I'd be happy for him to get all his money back.
The sad thing is that he is basing his support for the owner on bullshit spouted by Meire, that he "has put... money into the club". On that basis, he believes no criticism of the owner can rejustified. Breathtaking naivety.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
This man is a shallow minded sycophant.
I'm loathed to comment on this subject as it seems that any comment that doesn't call for the head of this 'Spokesperson' is often followed with a rebuke.
However it does have to be said that despite how the 'injections' have been structured it seems, to me, and many others, that they are not loans in the real sense of the word as the club will never be able to pay them back and it is unlikely that any buyer will agree to them staying in place.
Thus they are, even if not intended to be, investments or 'gifts' to the club.
This is how most football clubs are run and, exactly, how Richard Murray and the other directors funded, in part, our Premier League adventure. In the end RM, and others, wrote a lot of their debt off and accepted the rest of it to only be repaid if/when Charlton get back into the Premier League. I think interest is also frozen on those loans until we are a Premier League club again.
In the end RD will have to convert the loans to equity or just write them off as there is, literally, no money to pay them back. We have very few players worth much these days and a wage bill that is significantly more than the income (even if we didn't have protests against spending money at the club).
The interest that you talk about is, also, likely to only ever be on paper as all the while the club is being run at a trading loss the interest must be rolled up. In the end the club will have to borrow money from RD to pay him the interest they owe him on the money they borrowed from him. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's £50m or £500m the club are never going to have it to pay back.
Any suggestion that the Premier League money would be enough to pay it back is also, a little, ludicrous as the rate that these idiots lose money on buying and selling players it would probably cost them £250m to just get into the Premier League and by then we'd need to stay there for ten seasons to stand any chance of becoming debt free - and frankly if that were to happen then I'd be happy for him to get all his money back.
This is 100% correct. The loan from Staprix will never be repaid unless Charlton start to make profits & cash flow surpluses on a consistent basis. And that is never going to happen. If the club is sold the whole debt will have to be written off as no buyer will ever agree to pay back the shareholders loan in addition to the price he has paid for the equity. The loan really is quasi equity as it will not be repaid. The interest charge is also just notional & totally irrelevant, as there is no way it can ever be paid.
The sad thing is that he is basing his support for the owner on bullshit spouted by Meire, that he "has put... money into the club". On that basis, he believes no criticism of the owner can rejustified. Breathtaking naivety.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
This man is a shallow minded sycophant.
I'm loathed to comment on this subject as it seems that any comment that doesn't call for the head of this 'Spokesperson' is often followed with a rebuke.
However it does have to be said that despite how the 'injections' have been structured it seems, to me, and many others, that they are not loans in the real sense of the word as the club will never be able to pay them back and it is unlikely that any buyer will agree to them staying in place.
Thus they are, even if not intended to be, investments or 'gifts' to the club.
This is how most football clubs are run and, exactly, how Richard Murray and the other directors funded, in part, our Premier League adventure. In the end RM, and others, wrote a lot of their debt off and accepted the rest of it to only be repaid if/when Charlton get back into the Premier League. I think interest is also frozen on those loans until we are a Premier League club again.
In the end RD will have to convert the loans to equity or just write them off as there is, literally, no money to pay them back. We have very few players worth much these days and a wage bill that is significantly more than the income (even if we didn't have protests against spending money at the club).
The interest that you talk about is, also, likely to only ever be on paper as all the while the club is being run at a trading loss the interest must be rolled up. In the end the club will have to borrow money from RD to pay him the interest they owe him on the money they borrowed from him. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's £50m or £500m the club are never going to have it to pay back.
Any suggestion that the Premier League money would be enough to pay it back is also, a little, ludicrous as the rate that these idiots lose money on buying and selling players it would probably cost them £250m to just get into the Premier League and by then we'd need to stay there for ten seasons to stand any chance of becoming debt free - and frankly if that were to happen then I'd be happy for him to get all his money back.
Thing is, this is what a normal person would do, the trouble is we're dealing with RD here. Is it not more likely that he would sell the club but insist the new owners take on the debt too and still insist on full repayment? I agree in principle of what you're saying as you only have to look at Bolton where a lot of the debt was written off when they were taken over, I don't think RD is going to be that generous somehow and think his debt is going to be with us long after he's gone.
All fans should have their views listened to and we should not abuse them but I would say to the pro regime sympathisers open your eyes and look around the stadium
What, at all the EMPTY lovely red seats and bright yellow steps? Pitch looks good too.
The sad thing is that he is basing his support for the owner on bullshit spouted by Meire, that he "has put... money into the club". On that basis, he believes no criticism of the owner can rejustified. Breathtaking naivety.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
This man is a shallow minded sycophant.
I'm loathed to comment on this subject as it seems that any comment that doesn't call for the head of this 'Spokesperson' is often followed with a rebuke.
However it does have to be said that despite how the 'injections' have been structured it seems, to me, and many others, that they are not loans in the real sense of the word as the club will never be able to pay them back and it is unlikely that any buyer will agree to them staying in place.
Thus they are, even if not intended to be, investments or 'gifts' to the club.
This is how most football clubs are run and, exactly, how Richard Murray and the other directors funded, in part, our Premier League adventure. In the end RM, and others, wrote a lot of their debt off and accepted the rest of it to only be repaid if/when Charlton get back into the Premier League. I think interest is also frozen on those loans until we are a Premier League club again.
In the end RD will have to convert the loans to equity or just write them off as there is, literally, no money to pay them back. We have very few players worth much these days and a wage bill that is significantly more than the income (even if we didn't have protests against spending money at the club).
The interest that you talk about is, also, likely to only ever be on paper as all the while the club is being run at a trading loss the interest must be rolled up. In the end the club will have to borrow money from RD to pay him the interest they owe him on the money they borrowed from him. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's £50m or £500m the club are never going to have it to pay back.
Any suggestion that the Premier League money would be enough to pay it back is also, a little, ludicrous as the rate that these idiots lose money on buying and selling players it would probably cost them £250m to just get into the Premier League and by then we'd need to stay there for ten seasons to stand any chance of becoming debt free - and frankly if that were to happen then I'd be happy for him to get all his money back.
Thing is, this is what a normal person would do, the trouble is we're dealing with RD here. Is it not more likely that he would sell the club but insist the new owners take on the debt too and still insist on full repayment? I agree in principle of what you're saying as you only have to look at Bolton where a lot of the debt was written off when they were taken over, I don't think RD is going to be that generous somehow and think his debt is going to be with us long after he's gone.
My fears exactly, Martin. I'd also be more understanding of the level of debt if it had been incurred while taking us into the Prem instead of League One. The vast majority has been a monumental waste of money due to inept decisions re players and managers.
This might the way normal people would do things but I'm not so sure this would be the policy with Visionary Roland " I didn't get where I am today by writing off a load of effing debt" Duchatelet. Remember this man employed a 20 year old bloke with a laptop to build his team. After that visionary move, he is capable of anything.
This might the way normal people would do things but I'm not so sure this would be the policy with Visionary Roland " I didn't get where I am today by writing off a load of effing debt" Duchatelet. Remember this man employed a 20 year old bloke with a laptop to build his team. After that visionary move, he is capable of anything.
Agreed, this is the thing isn't it --- Duchatelet is not a 'normal' businessman; in fact he seems to take some perverse delight in doing things in his unorthodox (in his mind visionary) way modeled not on tried and tested business practices (e.g. how long would Meire have survived as CEO in an organisation which had proper accountability?).............
..........but on the very narrow and self-centred belief that, like his hero Alan Turing, he will be proved right in the end because no-one else has his breadth of vision.
What that vision was, was articulated by Meire in Dublin - effectively a player farm with no genuine ambition within the League structure. What his long-term vision is now is anyone's guess.
The sad thing is that he is basing his support for the owner on bullshit spouted by Meire, that he "has put... money into the club". On that basis, he believes no criticism of the owner can rejustified. Breathtaking naivety.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
This man is a shallow minded sycophant.
I'm loathed to comment on this subject as it seems that any comment that doesn't call for the head of this 'Spokesperson' is often followed with a rebuke.
However it does have to be said that despite how the 'injections' have been structured it seems, to me, and many others, that they are not loans in the real sense of the word as the club will never be able to pay them back and it is unlikely that any buyer will agree to them staying in place.
Thus they are, even if not intended to be, investments or 'gifts' to the club.
This is how most football clubs are run and, exactly, how Richard Murray and the other directors funded, in part, our Premier League adventure. In the end RM, and others, wrote a lot of their debt off and accepted the rest of it to only be repaid if/when Charlton get back into the Premier League. I think interest is also frozen on those loans until we are a Premier League club again.
In the end RD will have to convert the loans to equity or just write them off as there is, literally, no money to pay them back. We have very few players worth much these days and a wage bill that is significantly more than the income (even if we didn't have protests against spending money at the club).
The interest that you talk about is, also, likely to only ever be on paper as all the while the club is being run at a trading loss the interest must be rolled up. In the end the club will have to borrow money from RD to pay him the interest they owe him on the money they borrowed from him. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's £50m or £500m the club are never going to have it to pay back.
Any suggestion that the Premier League money would be enough to pay it back is also, a little, ludicrous as the rate that these idiots lose money on buying and selling players it would probably cost them £250m to just get into the Premier League and by then we'd need to stay there for ten seasons to stand any chance of becoming debt free - and frankly if that were to happen then I'd be happy for him to get all his money back.
There's a difference in putting cash in a club as debt to finance greater expenditure to expand and improve the team's quality, as opposed to being forced to cover losses. RD's cash is the only thing staving off insolvency, apart from selling players for a profit.
If there is no question the debt will be written off why was it not written off in the first place and injected as equity? Debt reduces the value of the club. It allows the debt holder to hold the club to ransom, there is no other reason for it not being equity. Taking equity shows a commitment and acceptance that the cash will only be repaid if the club is successful and/or profitable. If directors are asked to put their hands in their pockets to stave off insolvency that's going to be debt rather than equity for purely personal financial protection. If the owner follows the same route it's again for personal financial protection, not a sign of generous patronage to be applauded.
So the debt never has to be paid back you argue. It doesn't matter whether it's £50m or £500m you say. A frightening insight. So it doesn't matter that RD has the legal right to enforce the debt against the club, if he wanted to force an insolvency. That allows him to cut his losses and as the primary creditor gain ownership of the assets. Or if a new owner bought the club cheap with the debt attached he can enforce the debt and hold the club to ransom.
Praising RD for protecting himself financially by creating debt instead of equity, and swallowing the official line started by the Liar that it's "investment" is unforgivable except if you're too feeble minded to recognise or even listen to the truth.
If we are wrong and RD is really Santa in disguise he only has to come out of hiding and talk to us and explain exactly why we are all wrongly judging him - not his acolytes telling us to shut up and accept the regime's propaganda.
The sad thing is that he is basing his support for the owner on bullshit spouted by Meire, that he "has put... money into the club". On that basis, he believes no criticism of the owner can rejustified. Breathtaking naivety.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
This man is a shallow minded sycophant.
I'm loathed to comment on this subject as it seems that any comment that doesn't call for the head of this 'Spokesperson' is often followed with a rebuke.
However it does have to be said that despite how the 'injections' have been structured it seems, to me, and many others, that they are not loans in the real sense of the word as the club will never be able to pay them back and it is unlikely that any buyer will agree to them staying in place.
Thus they are, even if not intended to be, investments or 'gifts' to the club.
This is how most football clubs are run and, exactly, how Richard Murray and the other directors funded, in part, our Premier League adventure. In the end RM, and others, wrote a lot of their debt off and accepted the rest of it to only be repaid if/when Charlton get back into the Premier League. I think interest is also frozen on those loans until we are a Premier League club again.
In the end RD will have to convert the loans to equity or just write them off as there is, literally, no money to pay them back. We have very few players worth much these days and a wage bill that is significantly more than the income (even if we didn't have protests against spending money at the club).
The interest that you talk about is, also, likely to only ever be on paper as all the while the club is being run at a trading loss the interest must be rolled up. In the end the club will have to borrow money from RD to pay him the interest they owe him on the money they borrowed from him. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's £50m or £500m the club are never going to have it to pay back.
Any suggestion that the Premier League money would be enough to pay it back is also, a little, ludicrous as the rate that these idiots lose money on buying and selling players it would probably cost them £250m to just get into the Premier League and by then we'd need to stay there for ten seasons to stand any chance of becoming debt free - and frankly if that were to happen then I'd be happy for him to get all his money back.
There's a difference in putting cash in a club as debt to finance greater expenditure to expand and improve the team's quality, as opposed to being forced to cover losses. RD's cash is the only thing staving off insolvency, apart from selling players for a profit.
If there is no question the debt will be written off why was it not written off in the first place and injected as equity? Debt reduces the value of the club. It allows the debt holder to hold the club to ransom, there is no other reason for it not being equity. Taking equity shows a commitment and acceptance that the cash will only be repaid if the club is successful and/or profitable. If directors are asked to put their hands in their pockets to stave off insolvency that's going to be debt rather than equity for purely personal financial protection. If the owner follows the same route it's again for personal financial protection, not a sign of generous patronage to be applauded.
So the debt never has to be paid back you argue. It doesn't matter whether it's £50m or £500m you say. A frightening insight. So it doesn't matter that RD has the legal right to enforce the debt against the club, if he wanted to force an insolvency. That allows him to cut his losses and as the primary creditor gain ownership of the assets. Or if a new owner bought the club cheap with the debt attached he can enforce the debt and hold the club to ransom.
Praising RD for protecting himself financially by creating debt instead of equity, and swallowing the official line started by the Liar that it's "investment" is unforgivable except if you're too feeble minded to recognise or even listen to the truth.
If we are wrong and RD is really Santa in disguise he only has to come out of hiding and talk to us and explain exactly why we are all wrongly judging him - not his acolytes telling us to shut up and accept the regime's propaganda.
I think you've missed the point of my post completely. I never said he intends to convert to equity just that it is outrageously unlikely that he will ever get it back. It reminds me of all those banks that held debts to third world countries on their balance sheets back in the 80s when everyone knew that they would never be able to repay them. Like Greece now!
RD doesn't need to hold the club to ransom with the debt, he owns it! The suggestion that he would be able to hold any future owners to ransom assumes that anyone would buy the club from him and agree to keeping the loans in place - about as likely as the club having the money to pay it off.
I never said that I applauded generous patronage - although I don't think you were aiming that at me anyway?
RD's ability to force the debt and claim the assets of the company is, again, a bit of a read herring as the debt is to the entity that owns the club, and all the assets, by default. My comment about £50m or £500m was only used as I suspect that £50m would be enough to force the club into insolvency, so £500m is just £450m more than is necessary. All this is, of course, irrelevant as there is nothing to stop RD liquidating the company when ever he chooses, even if their is no debt, because he owns it. As already mentioned who would buy the club cheap (or take it for nothing) with the debts. The debts would have to be factored into the price, and why would RD agree to sell the club, and all it's assets, without getting his debts cleared, or waiving them himself? He could also protect himself by transferring all non playing assets into a separate company so he owns the Valley and Sparrows Lane in another entity entirely so the only assets in CAFC (or Baton 2010) are the player's registrations.
The para. in bold looks like you are referring to me. I was not praising anyone, merely pointing out that irrespective as to if he is 'investing' through a scheme that makes him money, or just funding the losses and the player purchases and ground developments through debts, it is unlikely that he will ever see that money again. Even KM must realise that the money is never going to be returned.
Comments
But as @Hex has wisely done, best just ignore him.
A shame really because when in 'sane' mode he is interesting, articulate and thought provoking.
Whilst of course not official PR she used words such as 'negative' and 'so-called fans' to describe those protesting and these words are achieving a lot of currency on Social Media sites - the related terms 'not genuine fans' or 'not real supporters' appear with some frequency on SE7 Valiants and have been taken up as a kind of battlecry by those who are now fully behind the regime and wish to legitimise this stance by denouncing fellow fans.
May, have said it before but in my view those who have bought into this, as well as being fans, have also become the customer type of supporter so beloved of Meire when she said last year that fans would have to accept the way in which the owner does things now. But the owner owes a duty of care to the Club by virtue of his ownership and whilst football is still played at the Valley the nature of the Club and its relationship with its fans has been terribly damaged as we all know by a dereliction of this duty which has left an incompetent in charge as CEO throughout and a cavalier attitude to the football side with the resulting and inevitable consequences.
When the insults thrown at protesting fans by our own supporters are repeated in a national newspaper it beggars belief and will indeed lead to misrepresentation of the protesters just like the Clem (Radio 5 Live) fiasco where the regime were able to seize the agenda and score a PR victory (although more by luck than judgement) and CASTust had to work hard to try to repair the damage.
If they indeed are, then it may be time to test their mettle.
We have contact details, we have an address, we can assume that they are hoovering up the money season ticket holders, and ticket purchasers are putting in to the club.
If this company want to give it, then I wonder if they can take it too.
I try not to fall into the trap of just posting abuse on here, but it is bloody difficult with some of the quisling tossers who are being quoted in the national media as part of this dishonest campaign. They really are a bunch of ***** ******............
I've updated my post with something more PR friendly.
If anyone has the chance of speaking to this spokesperson, after that have let go of his neck, can they offer some basic facts, to replace the bullshit absorbed by both his brain cells, can they point out that money lent to the club is debt that has to be repaid. It remains a debt until it is repaid and the lender, in this case Duchatelet, will profit from the interest and capital repayment on the debt even if he sells the club.
He might also need to be reminded of the truth that Duchatalet has no choice but to inject cash into the club to protect his original investment. Protection needed for no other reason than his abysmal mis-management.
Whilst he may hold in disdain the genuine and justified feelings of many supporters, their motives cannot be questioned, which is more than can be said for his ill-informed views which are clearly influenced by his need to acquire self importance by association with the club's management.
This man is a shallow minded sycophant.
However it does have to be said that despite how the 'injections' have been structured it seems, to me, and many others, that they are not loans in the real sense of the word as the club will never be able to pay them back and it is unlikely that any buyer will agree to them staying in place.
Thus they are, even if not intended to be, investments or 'gifts' to the club.
This is how most football clubs are run and, exactly, how Richard Murray and the other directors funded, in part, our Premier League adventure. In the end RM, and others, wrote a lot of their debt off and accepted the rest of it to only be repaid if/when Charlton get back into the Premier League. I think interest is also frozen on those loans until we are a Premier League club again.
In the end RD will have to convert the loans to equity or just write them off as there is, literally, no money to pay them back. We have very few players worth much these days and a wage bill that is significantly more than the income (even if we didn't have protests against spending money at the club).
The interest that you talk about is, also, likely to only ever be on paper as all the while the club is being run at a trading loss the interest must be rolled up. In the end the club will have to borrow money from RD to pay him the interest they owe him on the money they borrowed from him. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's £50m or £500m the club are never going to have it to pay back.
Any suggestion that the Premier League money would be enough to pay it back is also, a little, ludicrous as the rate that these idiots lose money on buying and selling players it would probably cost them £250m to just get into the Premier League and by then we'd need to stay there for ten seasons to stand any chance of becoming debt free - and frankly if that were to happen then I'd be happy for him to get all his money back.
Remember this man employed a 20 year old bloke with a laptop to build his team.
After that visionary move, he is capable of anything.
..........but on the very narrow and self-centred belief that, like his hero Alan Turing, he will be proved right in the end because no-one else has his breadth of vision.
What that vision was, was articulated by Meire in Dublin - effectively a player farm with no genuine ambition within the League structure. What his long-term vision is now is anyone's guess.
If there is no question the debt will be written off why was it not written off in the first place and injected as equity? Debt reduces the value of the club. It allows the debt holder to hold the club to ransom, there is no other reason for it not being equity. Taking equity shows a commitment and acceptance that the cash will only be repaid if the club is successful and/or profitable. If directors are asked to put their hands in their pockets to stave off insolvency that's going to be debt rather than equity for purely personal financial protection. If the owner follows the same route it's again for personal financial protection, not a sign of generous patronage to be applauded.
So the debt never has to be paid back you argue. It doesn't matter whether it's £50m or £500m you say. A frightening insight. So it doesn't matter that RD has the legal right to enforce the debt against the club, if he wanted to force an insolvency. That allows him to cut his losses and as the primary creditor gain ownership of the assets. Or if a new owner bought the club cheap with the debt attached he can enforce the debt and hold the club to ransom.
Praising RD for protecting himself financially by creating debt instead of equity, and swallowing the official line started by the Liar that it's "investment" is unforgivable except if you're too feeble minded to recognise or even listen to the truth.
If we are wrong and RD is really Santa in disguise he only has to come out of hiding and talk to us and explain exactly why we are all wrongly judging him - not his acolytes telling us to shut up and accept the regime's propaganda.
RD doesn't need to hold the club to ransom with the debt, he owns it! The suggestion that he would be able to hold any future owners to ransom assumes that anyone would buy the club from him and agree to keeping the loans in place - about as likely as the club having the money to pay it off.
I never said that I applauded generous patronage - although I don't think you were aiming that at me anyway?
RD's ability to force the debt and claim the assets of the company is, again, a bit of a read herring as the debt is to the entity that owns the club, and all the assets, by default. My comment about £50m or £500m was only used as I suspect that £50m would be enough to force the club into insolvency, so £500m is just £450m more than is necessary. All this is, of course, irrelevant as there is nothing to stop RD liquidating the company when ever he chooses, even if their is no debt, because he owns it. As already mentioned who would buy the club cheap (or take it for nothing) with the debts. The debts would have to be factored into the price, and why would RD agree to sell the club, and all it's assets, without getting his debts cleared, or waiving them himself? He could also protect himself by transferring all non playing assets into a separate company so he owns the Valley and Sparrows Lane in another entity entirely so the only assets in CAFC (or Baton 2010) are the player's registrations.
The para. in bold looks like you are referring to me. I was not praising anyone, merely pointing out that irrespective as to if he is 'investing' through a scheme that makes him money, or just funding the losses and the player purchases and ground developments through debts, it is unlikely that he will ever see that money again. Even KM must realise that the money is never going to be returned.