Roland gleefully envisages problems down the line with his dodgy lease. The club is enforced to move out /or build a new stadium. This frees RD up to fulfil his business objective of selling the Valley at an enormous profit.
Worse still the new owners are in cahoots with this as it is the cheaper option. They could move out whilst claiming the moral high ground leaving Roland to take the flack - to which the financial compensation will more than warm the cockles of his non existent heart.
My view too. If you take away the ground and traing ground, whst exactly does your 20m buy you? The prestige of being owner of a club in a tailspin, a fairly ordinary set of footballers, and the right to pay off ongoing debts. Plus being at the mercy of any future rises in the cost of leasing the ground the ex owner chooses to demand. Sounds a real bargain.
A lease doesn't have to work like that. Commercial leases I have dealt with seemed to work entirely in favour of the tenant. The devil is in the detail.
If RD is looking to retain The Valley but not Sparrows Lane it's almost certainly because he cannot recover his losses up front from selling the whole club. That's his own fault, but it's our problem.
The protection it may offer him is against a buyer going bust without achieving their PL ambitions, which would trigger a further payment. But that still wouldn't give him the right to develop the site.
We seem to be assuming anyone entering into such a lease is naive, which they might be but we cannot know at this stage.
Roland gleefully envisages problems down the line with his dodgy lease. The club is enforced to move out /or build a new stadium. This frees RD up to fulfil his business objective of selling the Valley at an enormous profit.
Worse still the new owners are in cahoots with this as it is the cheaper option. They could move out whilst claiming the moral high ground leaving Roland to take the flack - to which the financial compensation will more than warm the cockles of his non existent heart.
But there is no "enormous profit" there, as numerous experts have testified, partly due to the access issue. To unlock the site would require tunnelling under the railway and building an access route on to the Woolwich Road.
Hmmm, I can envisage a structure where the club and sparrows lane are transferred into a new entity, which is bought by AFC.
RD keeps ownership to the existing entities which then have one asset, the Valley, and all the loans as liabilities.
The terms of the lease, development rights, tv rights, matchday and other corporate hospitality rights become hugely important to the viability of the club.
'April 7 Worst case scenario Duche stays. Second worst scenario Duche sells but still owns the ground or the debt remains outstanding. We will need a new owner with a lot of money to move on from Duche completely.' I posted this a few days ago. It seems we are on scenario 2. At the very least 'the club is not for sale' statement issued hours previously highlights what liars the club are. It's a step in the right direction.
My view too. If you take away the ground and traing ground, whst exactly does your 20m buy you? The prestige of being owner of a club in a tailspin, a fairly ordinary set of footballers, and the right to pay off ongoing debts. Plus being at the mercy of any future rises in the cost of leasing the ground the ex owner chooses to demand. Sounds a real bargain.
A lease doesn't have to work like that. Commercial leases I have dealt with seemed to work entirely in favour of the tenant. The devil is in the detail.
If RD is looking to retain The Valley but not Sparrows Lane it's almost certainly because he cannot recover his losses up front from selling the whole club. That's his own fault, but it's our problem.
The protection it may offer him is against a buyer going bust without achieving their PL ambitions, which would trigger a further payment. But that still wouldn't give him the right to develop the site.
We seem to be assuming anyone entering into such a lease is naive, which they might be but we cannot know at this stage.
What are your initial thoughts Airman? Is this a ruse to try and bring more offers or are these the real deal?
If it's the former, is the Varney option still around or has that ship long since sailed?
Not sure if already mentioned or if necessarily a good thing but surely some potential in casual support from the huge amount of Aussies in London, POTD may increase.
Particularly if we can get out of this league the right way.
So he will do a St Trident and developed the ground around a sitting football club tenant to maximise his returns? Can see the Valley changing with a football club squeezed in :-(
My view too. If you take away the ground and traing ground, whst exactly does your 20m buy you? The prestige of being owner of a club in a tailspin, a fairly ordinary set of footballers, and the right to pay off ongoing debts. Plus being at the mercy of any future rises in the cost of leasing the ground the ex owner chooses to demand. Sounds a real bargain.
A lease doesn't have to work like that. Commercial leases I have dealt with seemed to work entirely in favour of the tenant. The devil is in the detail.
If RD is looking to retain The Valley but not Sparrows Lane it's almost certainly because he cannot recover his losses up front from selling the whole club. That's his own fault, but it's our problem.
The protection it may offer him is against a buyer going bust without achieving their PL ambitions, which would trigger a further payment. But that still wouldn't give him the right to develop the site.
We seem to be assuming anyone entering into such a lease is naive, which they might be but we cannot know at this stage.
Not assuming they are naive (yet ). But what exactly does their 20m buy them. I see no tangible assets, and a look at our last ten years accounts will show they will need to put in more money on a day to day basis.
20m but then you have to factor in 1m a month operational costs plus transfers. Any consortium is going to need deep pockets. Best case scenario if you make the prem in 5 years your outlay is likely to be closer to the 100m you will get for being in the prem.
If only RD had actually realized this and employed the right people!!!!
Have digested the whole thread and the leasing of the ground worries me.
I am far from an expert on these things, but keep thinking about the Coventry situation. The Ricoh was leased wasn't it? They were driven out for a period......
Its a measure of how much I want them gone that at the moment its a risk I would urge the potential new owners to take.
There's no reason for Ratface to keep hold of the ground unless he thinks he can either build houses on it or at least rip off the new owners with rent.
How much season ticket revenue does Charlton generate? I'd expect under any lease agreement the majority of that would be used to pay to play at The Valley. Meaning AFC would require big pockets to cover ongoing losses and drive for promotion.
Imagine you are going to buy a club that is losing £13m a year for £20m with a goal of getting to the premiership. The money you are going to need is much more than £20m so perfectly reasonable and not a bad sign at all that they are working to get the money together.
The important thing is that they come in and know what they are doing - not be totally clueless like the current owner. They also need th eintelligence to use the fans positively and change the whole direction of the club. I wish them every success.
Comments
Roland gleefully envisages problems down the line with his dodgy lease. The club is enforced to move out /or build a new stadium. This frees RD up to fulfil his business objective of selling the Valley at an enormous profit.
Worse still the new owners are in cahoots with this as it is the cheaper option. They could move out whilst claiming the moral high ground leaving Roland to take the flack - to which the financial compensation will more than warm the cockles of his non existent heart.
If only.
If RD is looking to retain The Valley but not Sparrows Lane it's almost certainly because he cannot recover his losses up front from selling the whole club. That's his own fault, but it's our problem.
The protection it may offer him is against a buyer going bust without achieving their PL ambitions, which would trigger a further payment. But that still wouldn't give him the right to develop the site.
We seem to be assuming anyone entering into such a lease is naive, which they might be but we cannot know at this stage.
RD keeps ownership to the existing entities which then have one asset, the Valley, and all the loans as liabilities.
The terms of the lease, development rights, tv rights, matchday and other corporate hospitality rights become hugely important to the viability of the club.
Absolute nightmare.
Worst case scenario Duche stays.
Second worst scenario Duche sells but still owns the ground or the debt remains outstanding.
We will need a new owner with a lot of money to move on from Duche completely.'
I posted this a few days ago. It seems we are on scenario 2. At the very least 'the club is not for sale' statement issued hours previously highlights what liars the club are. It's a step in the right direction.
Is this a ruse to try and bring more offers or are these the real deal?
If it's the former, is the Varney option still around or has that ship long since sailed?
Particularly if we can get out of this league the right way.
:-(
Going to an interesting few days/weeks.
If only RD had actually realized this and employed the right people!!!!
I am far from an expert on these things, but keep thinking about the Coventry situation. The Ricoh was leased wasn't it? They were driven out for a period......
Its a measure of how much I want them gone that at the moment its a risk I would urge the potential new owners to take.
Maybe both.
The important thing is that they come in and know what they are doing - not be totally clueless like the current owner. They also need th eintelligence to use the fans positively and change the whole direction of the club. I wish them every success.