Frankly, if a part of your business is failing as spectacularly as this one, surely it demands more of your attention. Taking the proportions out of it, a £50m investment is a lot of money to witter away.
I am not an accountant, but from what I understand, a loan by Staprix to Charlton is an asset in the books of Staprix. Charlton's losses are irrelevant for the purposes of Staprix's accounts. So every loan increases the book value of Staprix. The interest on the loan is received as cash and it is then loaned back to Charlton so as to increase the book value of Staprix by creating more assets (money due to you from a debtor is an asset).
If RD has to inject his own cash into Staprix to fund the loan, it can't increase his equity stake in Staprix as he owns it anyway so his wealth is diluted. If it is cash from other revenue received by Staprix from other interests it is simply a cash movement that converts revenue into capital and goes on to the Staprix balance sheet as an additional asset.
If Staprix gave the money to Charlton as additional equity, it does not increase the value of Staprix, it can't own more than the 100% it does already, so it would reduce the paper value of Staprix because of cash leakage.
On paper, if he is not using his personal bank account to fund the cash used by Staprix to lend to Charlton, the losses at Charlton do not affect his wealth at all, apart from slowing its growth and making some of it illiquid and possibly unrealisable (irrelevant if Staprix is not for sale).
I would see Staprix as simply an investment company that is never, ever going to be sold, which means its realisable value is irrelevant. It's his personal treasure chest of his favourite toys that no one else would want to buy as a job-lot with some badly looked after and broken toys. He might discard some toys when he has no use for them, and at that time, but not before, it might mean him writing down the value of the assets of Staprix if he sells for less than total book value.
As long as Staprix is generating enough revenue from a profitable investment elsewhere to fund the cash flow needed by Charlton, he is unmoved by the losses at Charlton if they are within the budget funded by Staprix revenue. His personal assets are unaffected. He is not concerned about the realisable value of Staprix, it's not for sale. His "long term" view is more likely his long term view of Staprix rather than Charlton, and his "not for sale' stance could be his Staprix stance rather than the truth regarding Charlton.
He can keep Charlton mouldering in his toy chest indefinitely without affecting the paper value of Staprix and if by a miracle we get to the Premier League he can sell us to buy a new toy.
If he starts having to inject his own cash, hopefully the rumours of him being a skinflint will be shown as true and he will cut his losses by selling the club and taking a hit in Staprix which is only paper money.
Comments
If RD has to inject his own cash into Staprix to fund the loan, it can't increase his equity stake in Staprix as he owns it anyway so his wealth is diluted. If it is cash from other revenue received by Staprix from other interests it is simply a cash movement that converts revenue into capital and goes on to the Staprix balance sheet as an additional asset.
If Staprix gave the money to Charlton as additional equity, it does not increase the value of Staprix, it can't own more than the 100% it does already, so it would reduce the paper value of Staprix because of cash leakage.
On paper, if he is not using his personal bank account to fund the cash used by Staprix to lend to Charlton, the losses at Charlton do not affect his wealth at all, apart from slowing its growth and making some of it illiquid and possibly unrealisable (irrelevant if Staprix is not for sale).
I would see Staprix as simply an investment company that is never, ever going to be sold, which means its realisable value is irrelevant. It's his personal treasure chest of his favourite toys that no one else would want to buy as a job-lot with some badly looked after and broken toys. He might discard some toys when he has no use for them, and at that time, but not before, it might mean him writing down the value of the assets of Staprix if he sells for less than total book value.
As long as Staprix is generating enough revenue from a profitable investment elsewhere to fund the cash flow needed by Charlton, he is unmoved by the losses at Charlton if they are within the budget funded by Staprix revenue. His personal assets are unaffected. He is not concerned about the realisable value of Staprix, it's not for sale. His "long term" view is more likely his long term view of Staprix rather than Charlton, and his "not for sale' stance could be his Staprix stance rather than the truth regarding Charlton.
He can keep Charlton mouldering in his toy chest indefinitely without affecting the paper value of Staprix and if by a miracle we get to the Premier League he can sell us to buy a new toy.
If he starts having to inject his own cash, hopefully the rumours of him being a skinflint will be shown as true and he will cut his losses by selling the club and taking a hit in Staprix which is only paper money.