So, here's an alternative take on things and no doubt total bollox.
the business that is CAFC has no bank debt, owns a load of land in London, has a EFL franchise, can generate cash flow and has a regular output of young players it can sell. All Its debt is friendly debt and although it makes an operating loss, cash generation, capitalising interest and ready access to more friendly debt has taken care of that when needed (?). Sounds like quite a nice, solid business all in all.
The business of Stayprix makes increasing loans to an otherwise debt free, sound business that owns a load of land in London, has a EFL franchise, generates cash from normal operations and produces young footballers it can sell at a profit. Fairly low risk lending on the whole. It probably receives a profitable margin on the interest rate it charges over the one it has to pay on its borrowings to fund its loans to CAFC. It also probably has to capitalise that interest into further loans but that just increases the potential for further profits it can book and as long as the valuation of the otherwise debt free CAFC appears to be able to underpin it, and let's face it there are always rumours of willing buyers, then there's no need to call the debt in. Increasing the debt once it reaches a certain level might have to slow down for the time being but a few cash generating player sales might help that out.
The net outcome of the two businesses could possibly be showing a profit, which in turn could underpin another business for instance and therefore there probably may be no urgency to sell any time soon.
As I said, all total bollox.
For once I agree with you. Total bollocks.
No doubt it is and I bow to your better understanding of these things but I don't buy in to the common view on here that a guy who is smart enough to amass a fortune generally said on this site to be around £400 to £500 million (?) from his business dealings has got it so wrong with his purchase of Charlton. Good businessmen do have a history of getting it badly wrong when they buy a football club but in this case Charlton wasnt the first club he has owned. He would have known exactly what he was getting in to when he bought Charlton. There surely must be another angle, isnt there ?
He didn't amass a fortune on football clubs.
He is rapidly losing his fortune on a business that he does not and will not even try to understand. A fool and his money ..
He isn't. I explained this briefly on the other thread. His dividend receipts every year from Melexis are more than enough to cover his losses at Charlton. He's still getting richer, only at a slower pace by that measure alone.
Meanwhile over the last twelve months his Melexis shares have also risen in value from €47.80 to €81.92 each. The market capitalisation of Melexis is currently €3.31bn.
Roland only owns 1 share in Xtrion, as close to 100% as makes no difference of Xtrion shares are owned by another entity called XPEQT, which appears to be a trust. Now it would not be a heroic assumption to conclude that this is the Duchatalet family trust.
In any event, when Roland first came into our collective consciousness it was stated (I think) that he was worth maybe €500mn.
With the increase in the Melexis share price over the last 12 months, I would be quite surprised if he was not now worth more than €1bn, maybe even closer to €1.5bn.
Any glee about us sucking his wealth away from him, is in my opinion, sadly misplaced.
So, here's an alternative take on things and no doubt total bollox.
the business that is CAFC has no bank debt, owns a load of land in London, has a EFL franchise, can generate cash flow and has a regular output of young players it can sell. All Its debt is friendly debt and although it makes an operating loss, cash generation, capitalising interest and ready access to more friendly debt has taken care of that when needed (?). Sounds like quite a nice, solid business all in all.
The business of Stayprix makes increasing loans to an otherwise debt free, sound business that owns a load of land in London, has a EFL franchise, generates cash from normal operations and produces young footballers it can sell at a profit. Fairly low risk lending on the whole. It probably receives a profitable margin on the interest rate it charges over the one it has to pay on its borrowings to fund its loans to CAFC. It also probably has to capitalise that interest into further loans but that just increases the potential for further profits it can book and as long as the valuation of the otherwise debt free CAFC appears to be able to underpin it, and let's face it there are always rumours of willing buyers, then there's no need to call the debt in. Increasing the debt once it reaches a certain level might have to slow down for the time being but a few cash generating player sales might help that out.
The net outcome of the two businesses could possibly be showing a profit, which in turn could underpin another business for instance and therefore there probably may be no urgency to sell any time soon.
As I said, all total bollox.
For once I agree with you. Total bollocks.
No doubt it is and I bow to your better understanding of these things but I don't buy in to the common view on here that a guy who is smart enough to amass a fortune generally said on this site to be around £400 to £500 million (?) from his business dealings has got it so wrong with his purchase of Charlton. Good businessmen do have a history of getting it badly wrong when they buy a football club but in this case Charlton wasnt the first club he has owned. He would have known exactly what he was getting in to when he bought Charlton. There surely must be another angle, isnt there ?
He didn't amass a fortune on football clubs.
He is rapidly losing his fortune on a business that he does not and will not even try to understand. A fool and his money ..
He isn't. I explained this briefly on the other thread. His dividend receipts every year from Melexis are more than enough to cover his losses at Charlton. He's still getting richer, only at a slower pace by that measure alone.
Meanwhile over the last twelve months his Melexis shares have also risen in value from €47.80 to €81.92 each. The market capitalisation of Melexis is currently €3.31bn.
Roland only owns 1 share in Xtrion, as close to 100% as makes no difference of Xtrion shares are owned by another entity called XPEQT, which appears to be a trust. Now it would not be a heroic assumption to conclude that this is the Duchatalet family trust.
In any event, when Roland first came into our collective consciousness it was stated (I think) that he was worth maybe €500mn.
With the increase in the Melexis share price over the last 12 months, I would be quite surprised if he was not now worth more than €1bn, maybe even closer to €1.5bn.
Any glee about us sucking his wealth away from him, is in my opinion, sadly misplaced.
Xtrion is Roland's investment vehicle or holding company. He owns or used to own about 85% [the figure I've seen in the press from some years ago], with the other 15% owned by his junior partners, De Winter and Chombar (husband and wife), who are also the CEOs of his major electronics businesses, Melexis and X-Fab. Xtrion owns over 50% of both companies, which are plcs. It doesn't strike me that there is anything especially arcane about it.
There is an XPEQT is an nv, i.e. limited company, too. As you will know, it owns 99% of Xtrion. It was called Sigma Delta when first established in 1998. Chombar is named in the document from 1998, along with Duchatelet, as having a percentage of shares. She was CEO (gedelegeerd bestuurder) of XPEQT as recently as 2015.
Naturally, XPEQT is based at Tessenderlo - where else?
De Winter and Chombar seem to be inseparable partners of Roland throughout the rise of his semi-conductor empire. My guess is that they are the real operational brains.
---
Edited the above to get it right re EXPEQT NV, which is a subsidiary of Xtrion. There is another EXPEQT, which as @cafcfan correctly says, is a trust that owns Xtrion. My apologies.
The club has accrued tax losses of £86m which means it can make a profit of £452m before paying any corporation taxes. That's a fantastic achievement. All he needs to do is hand the club over to someone who can make use of it.
The "investment" in the ground looks like £2.12m but the value of the ground was revalued to give an increase in asset value for the shareholder of £7.3m. So he made a £5m profit on his investment. It just happened to benefit Roland and not the football activities.
The only cash Roland has put in is £4.9m (in the first year?). The accumulated operating losses are £51m and because these losses have not been covered by shareholder injections of cash, but by debt, the book value of the shares Staprix owns are minus£24.5m.
The club is not solvent and the accounts were only able to be signed off on the back a letter of support from Staprix, which would have been confirmation of a line of credit.
Money from Staprix is an investment as much as a revolving credit facility with Wonga to pay your electricity and food bill is an "investment".
The book value of assets is land at £41.5m and players at £6m. That's not market value so that's the club's value for an asset stripper will not be close to that value. As a going concern it is £1 to take it off your hands.
The only value in the club is the accumulated tax losses which probably supports the £70m figure we heard quoted and why only a big profitable business would likely be interested.
The club has accrued tax losses of £86m which means it can make a profit of £452m before paying any corporation taxes. That's a fantastic achievement. All he needs to do is hand the club over to someone who can make use of it.
The "investment" in the ground looks like £2.12m but the value of the ground was revalued to give an increase in asset value for the shareholder of £7.3m. So he made a £5m profit on his investment. It just happened to benefit Roland and not the football activities.
The only cash Roland has put in is £4.9m (in the first year?). The accumulated operating losses are £51m and because these losses have not been covered by shareholder injections of cash, but by debt, the book value of the shares Staprix owns are minus£24.5m.
The club is not solvent and the accounts were only able to be signed off on the back a letter of support from Staprix, which would have been confirmation of a line of credit.
Money from Staprix is an investment as much as a revolving credit facility with Wonga to pay your electricity and food bill is an "investment".
The book value of assets is land at £41.5m and players at £6m. That's not market value so that's the club's value for an asset stripper will not be close to that value. As a going concern it is £1 to take it off your hands.
The only value in the club is the accumulated tax losses which probably supports the £70m figure we heard quoted and why only a big profitable business would likely be interested.
So are you saying that someone like Red Bull could "take over" the accrued tax losses of £86 million and use this, say, to offset their profits elsewhere in their empire, or can that amount only be used against future profits (ha ha) of de cloob?
The club has accrued tax losses of £86m which means it can make a profit of £452m before paying any corporation taxes. That's a fantastic achievement. All he needs to do is hand the club over to someone who can make use of it.
The "investment" in the ground looks like £2.12m but the value of the ground was revalued to give an increase in asset value for the shareholder of £7.3m. So he made a £5m profit on his investment. It just happened to benefit Roland and not the football activities.
The only cash Roland has put in is £4.9m (in the first year?). The accumulated operating losses are £51m and because these losses have not been covered by shareholder injections of cash, but by debt, the book value of the shares Staprix owns are minus£24.5m.
The club is not solvent and the accounts were only able to be signed off on the back a letter of support from Staprix, which would have been confirmation of a line of credit.
Money from Staprix is an investment as much as a revolving credit facility with Wonga to pay your electricity and food bill is an "investment".
The book value of assets is land at £41.5m and players at £6m. That's not market value so that's the club's value for an asset stripper will not be close to that value. As a going concern it is £1 to take it off your hands.
The only value in the club is the accumulated tax losses which probably supports the £70m figure we heard quoted and why only a big profitable business would likely be interested.
So are you saying that someone like Red Bull could "take over" the accrued tax losses of £86 million and use this, say, to offset their profits elsewhere in their empire, or can that amount only be used against future profits (ha ha) of de cloob?
No you can't transfer the loss to an entirely different business, only utilise it in the existing business, but I don't underestimate the ingenuity of global corporates in using off shore profits to fund an investment for a zero sum gain.
If total debt is 65.2M and of that, 55.7M is to Staprix and 7M to directors... that's adds up to 62.7M.
Given there is no bank debt...
Who do we owe the other 2.5M to?
The "real debt" is indeed your figure of £62.7m. The difference is made up of two accounting treatments which can be ignored for these purposes - £3.5m deferred income from grants received for ground improvements years ago (doesn't need to be repaid) and a negative £(1.0)m as the directors' loans have been discounted to a net present value of £6.0m (this assumes they don't have to be repaid now but at the earliest possible date of a future promotion to the premier league - as of June 2016, this was two years later i.e. 2018 HAHAHAHA).
The £55.7m is not owed directly to Staprix, but to CAFC's immediate parent, Baton 2010 Limited. It comes to pretty much the same thing as the vast majority of the debt is owed by Baton to Staprix, but as @Airman Brown has pointed out, there is some further "smoke and mirrors" going on at the Baton level. The Baton accounts are also due for filing, but aren't yet accessible on the Companies House website. At June 2015, the debt owed to Staprix by Baton was actually £2m lower than at the football club level (£38m rather than £40m). I wonder what the picture will show this time?
So, here's an alternative take on things and no doubt total bollox.
the business that is CAFC has no bank debt, owns a load of land in London, has a EFL franchise, can generate cash flow and has a regular output of young players it can sell. All Its debt is friendly debt and although it makes an operating loss, cash generation, capitalising interest and ready access to more friendly debt has taken care of that when needed (?). Sounds like quite a nice, solid business all in all.
The business of Stayprix makes increasing loans to an otherwise debt free, sound business that owns a load of land in London, has a EFL franchise, generates cash from normal operations and produces young footballers it can sell at a profit. Fairly low risk lending on the whole. It probably receives a profitable margin on the interest rate it charges over the one it has to pay on its borrowings to fund its loans to CAFC. It also probably has to capitalise that interest into further loans but that just increases the potential for further profits it can book and as long as the valuation of the otherwise debt free CAFC appears to be able to underpin it, and let's face it there are always rumours of willing buyers, then there's no need to call the debt in. Increasing the debt once it reaches a certain level might have to slow down for the time being but a few cash generating player sales might help that out.
The net outcome of the two businesses could possibly be showing a profit, which in turn could underpin another business for instance and therefore there probably may be no urgency to sell any time soon.
As I said, all total bollox.
There's no urgency to sell other than the fact that he's spent 10% of his £650M fortune on Charlton in 3 years.
Has he spent it or has he invested it and booking a return on his investment ?
You're insane, how can he possibly make a profit.
Possibly, possibly not, I'm not qualified to comment but I do support Charlton so I've long suspected something may not be quite right.
Stu - aren't you in China ? How do the lenders to the builders that have put up those new uninhabited 'cities' we read about treat their loans ? Do they completely write them off and wipe out their own capital or do they capitalise any interest and keep the loans ticking over until the day comes when all the tower blocks etc are sold ?
Unless RD had one of the richest governments in the world financing him, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, this isn't really the place to get into it, but the Chinese housing market is totally held up by the government, as if it were to crash, there would be SERIOUS problems here. It's by no means a normal market.
I just read the whole statement of financials, including the notes.
Some interesting points (to me)...
1. Match Day turnover is 5.0M and match day costs (excluding players) is just 1.8M. In other words, putting on the matches are not that expensive.
2. I thought most clubs (and English companies, for that matter) guaranteed pensions, but accounts state that CAFC only guarantees "contributions." This is similar to what the US calls a "401(k) plan." The company contributes money, the employee invests it, and that's it.
3. The sad part is that total contributions by CAFC to all employees pensions was a pitiful 26,000 pounds. TOTAL! An average of just 179 pounds per employee for the whole year. No one is ever going to save a retirement kitty working for CAFC!
4. Employment was essentially unchanged at 146 total full time employees, made up of 46 players and 100 staff. So they did not fire large swaths of staff after relegation. Villa sacked 500 people.
5. A massive 20% of all CAFC turnover in 2016 was essentially charity payments by the Premier League. Without being on the dole of the PL, I suspect most of the lower league teams would be in administration. At minimum they would be losing another couple mil per year.
I just read the whole statement of financials, including the notes.
Some interesting points (to me)...
1. Match Day turnover is 5.0M and match day costs (excluding players) is just 1.8M. In other words, putting on the matches are not that expensive.
2. I thought most clubs (and English companies, for that matter) guaranteed pensions, but accounts state that CAFC only guarantees "contributions." This is similar to what the US calls a "401(k) plan." The company contributes money, the employee invests it, and that's it.
3. The sad part is that total contributions by CAFC to all employees pensions was a pitiful 26,000 pounds. TOTAL! An average of just 179 pounds per employee for the whole year. No one is ever going to save a retirement kitty working for CAFC!
4. Employment was essentially unchanged at 146 total full time employees, made up of 46 players and 100 staff. So they did not fire large swaths of staff after relegation. Villa sacked 500 people.
5. A massive 20% of all CAFC turnover in 2016 was essentially charity payments by the Premier League. Without being on the dole of the PL, I suspect most of the lower league teams would be in administration. At minimum they would be losing another couple mil per year.
They didn't, but these figures wouldn't show you that as they are the average for two years in the Championship.
Under the football review, The Youth Academy report comes before the 1st Team Report.
I think that tells you all you need to know.
The bit about 5 academy debutants last season was wrong, there were actually 6 - Lookman, THD, Umerah, Kennedy, Charles-Cook and Muldoon. Presumably they left out Muldoon as his was in the league cup.
They talk about productivity but what is the point if those players aren't good enough or ready? Four of the above didn't really add anything to the first team and still haven't, in a lower division. THD never started enough games to show what he could do.
I don't know if going then being taken out knocked their confidence but it seemed to with KAG in the previous season.
Comments
Meanwhile over the last twelve months his Melexis shares have also risen in value from €47.80 to €81.92 each. The market capitalisation of Melexis is currently €3.31bn.
Another company, Xtrion, owns 53.58% of those shares. Now the whole structure is (to my eyes anyway) complex by any standards. Anyone interested will find it on page 15 of this: https://companyweb.be/pdfjrca.asp?login=GRATIS&pdf=201702200252N.pdf&key=2e3dabd4d9522df099ec8ac003f8f97a&vat=878389438
Roland only owns 1 share in Xtrion, as close to 100% as makes no difference of Xtrion shares are owned by another entity called XPEQT, which appears to be a trust. Now it would not be a heroic assumption to conclude that this is the Duchatalet family trust.
In any event, when Roland first came into our collective consciousness it was stated (I think) that he was worth maybe €500mn.
With the increase in the Melexis share price over the last 12 months, I would be quite surprised if he was not now worth more than €1bn, maybe even closer to €1.5bn.
Any glee about us sucking his wealth away from him, is in my opinion, sadly misplaced.
For example, http://www.eenewsanalog.com/news/ceo-interview-melexis-rebuilds-beyond-automotive
Staprix is completely separate.
is annv, i.e. limited company, too.As you will know, it owns 99% of Xtrion.It was called Sigma Delta when first established in 1998. Chombar is named in the document from 1998, along with Duchatelet, as having a percentage of shares. She was CEO (gedelegeerd bestuurder) of XPEQT as recently as 2015.Naturally, XPEQT is based at Tessenderlo - where else?
De Winter and Chombar seem to be inseparable partners of Roland throughout the rise of his semi-conductor empire. My guess is that they are the real operational brains.
---
Edited the above to get it right re EXPEQT NV, which is a subsidiary of Xtrion. There is another EXPEQT, which as @cafcfan correctly says, is a trust that owns Xtrion. My apologies.
The "investment" in the ground looks like £2.12m but the value of the ground was revalued to give an increase in asset value for the shareholder of £7.3m. So he made a £5m profit on his investment. It just happened to benefit Roland and not the football activities.
The only cash Roland has put in is £4.9m (in the first year?). The accumulated operating losses are £51m and because these losses have not been covered by shareholder injections of cash, but by debt, the book value of the shares Staprix owns are minus£24.5m.
The club is not solvent and the accounts were only able to be signed off on the back a letter of support from Staprix, which would have been confirmation of a line of credit.
Money from Staprix is an investment as much as a revolving credit facility with Wonga to pay your electricity and food bill is an "investment".
The book value of assets is land at £41.5m and players at £6m. That's not market value so that's the club's value for an asset stripper will not be close to that value. As a going concern it is £1 to take it off your hands.
The only value in the club is the accumulated tax losses which probably supports the £70m figure we heard quoted and why only a big profitable business would likely be interested.
If total debt is 65.2M and of that, 55.7M is to Staprix and 7M to directors... that's adds up to 62.7M.
Given there is no bank debt...
Who do we owe the other 2.5M to?
The £55.7m is not owed directly to Staprix, but to CAFC's immediate parent, Baton 2010 Limited. It comes to pretty much the same thing as the vast majority of the debt is owed by Baton to Staprix, but as @Airman Brown has pointed out, there is some further "smoke and mirrors" going on at the Baton level. The Baton accounts are also due for filing, but aren't yet accessible on the Companies House website. At June 2015, the debt owed to Staprix by Baton was actually £2m lower than at the football club level (£38m rather than £40m). I wonder what the picture will show this time?
Some interesting points (to me)...
1. Match Day turnover is 5.0M and match day costs (excluding players) is just 1.8M. In other words, putting on the matches are not that expensive.
2. I thought most clubs (and English companies, for that matter) guaranteed pensions, but accounts state that CAFC only guarantees "contributions." This is similar to what the US calls a "401(k) plan." The company contributes money, the employee invests it, and that's it.
3. The sad part is that total contributions by CAFC to all employees pensions was a pitiful 26,000 pounds. TOTAL! An average of just 179 pounds per employee for the whole year. No one is ever going to save a retirement kitty working for CAFC!
4. Employment was essentially unchanged at 146 total full time employees, made up of 46 players and 100 staff. So they did not fire large swaths of staff after relegation. Villa sacked 500 people.
5. A massive 20% of all CAFC turnover in 2016 was essentially charity payments by the Premier League. Without being on the dole of the PL, I suspect most of the lower league teams would be in administration. At minimum they would be losing another couple mil per year.
Under the football review, The Youth Academy report comes before the 1st Team Report.
I think that tells you all you need to know.
They talk about productivity but what is the point if those players aren't good enough or ready? Four of the above didn't really add anything to the first team and still haven't, in a lower division. THD never started enough games to show what he could do.
I don't know if going then being taken out knocked their confidence but it seemed to with KAG in the previous season.