So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because that's what the legal agreement says. They can also agree to roll the debt over as they did in 2014. Or they can negotiate a deal that gives them a percentage of the money now rather than all of it later on the basis they may never get it otherwise. If RM is involved in the deal that may be an issue in some quarters, but they are fans in the end.
Ok...thanks. That answers the question. And it also means a sale is still a long way off if the ex directors have not been approached yet.
Not necessarily, if the new owners simply plan on paying off the old directors, they wouldn't need to approach them until everything else was settled, surely.
Can someone provide me a link to show a connection between Harris and the so called AFC outfit which as far as I can make out is still a one man band with a poorly written one page website?
Strangely nothing for Harris - But I felt this was somewhat interesting.
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
I would say no because their debt has been repaid and these were the sums totalling £4.4m apart from RM's £2.6m in Feb 2016 I believe;
David White was owed £250,000 of that, Bob Whitehand, Dave Sumners and Derek Chappell represent £2.65 combined.
Sir Maurice Hatter is owed £1m and David Hughes £500k.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.
My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.
It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.
They have a first legal charge on the assets.
Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.
Just read the last bit of your post. It is an important point to remember, and you rightly point it out before people on here go into meltdown accusing the ex directors of preventing a sale, that huge amounts were written off by the ex directors.
When you state some amounts were converted to equity that now has no value what equity are you referring to?
And last question, and I am been lazy here but you know off the top of your head, apart from Richard Murray, who are the other ex directors that have this charge?
As well as Murray's £2.6m, Derek Chappell and Bob Whitehand each have £1.2m outstanding, Sir Maurice Hatter £1m, David Hughes £500,000 and David Sumners and David White £250,000 each.
Sir Maurice Hatter would probably stand with Murray (which is more than half), and Derek Chappell, Bob Whitehand and David Sumners stick together.
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
No.
And would they need to be approached before they receive the funds paying off what they are owed by the club?
Wonder if Murray will insist on being part of the new board?
I thought it had been mooted on here somewhere that he would be like to be involved.
He can fuck right off.
I share you concern but he is owed £2.6m against a charge and it may be worth sucking it up if he is the stumbling block but hopefully the owners might pay all the former directors off and have done with it.
I have no problem at all with Silly Uncle Dick wanting to sit in the directors box a bit longer, if it makes a deal go through quicker or indeed at all.
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
No.
And would they need to be approached before they receive the funds paying off what they are owed by the club?
It's in the buyer's interests to see if they would take less than 100%, which I speculate would depend on what they thought of the new owner.
But as above we're potentially now talking about making a saving of a percentage of £3.4m (£7m less £2.6m less £1m).
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
No.
And would they need to be approached before they receive the funds paying off what they are owed by the club?
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
So there is an NDA and two of the ex-directors are saying they haven't been approached.
Maybe they haven't or maybe they are being discreet. They do have lot of money, and the club they support, at stake.
That @Swisdom, someone closer to the regime than most (although not a blind apologist ) is saying the story has legs is good news.
Be like Slade, be patient
WIOTOS
Henry, much earlier in this thread you made cryptic reference to Swiss Cottage and Gerrard st when talking about potential buyers. The Gerrard st reference obviously points to Chinese interest. Still not been able to make sense of the Swiss Cottage reference. Have you any more cryptic clues to keep us amused whilst we wait for concrete news?
So there is an NDA and two of the ex-directors are saying they haven't been approached.
Maybe they haven't or maybe they are being discreet. They do have lot of money, and the club they support, at stake.
That @Swisdom, someone closer to the regime than most (although not a blind apologist ) is saying the story has legs is good news.
Be like Slade, be patient
WIOTOS
Henry, much earlier in this thread you made cryptic reference to Swiss Cottage and Gerrard st when talking about potential buyers. The Gerrard st reference obviously points to Chinese interest. Still not been able to make sense of the Swiss Cottage reference. Have you any more cryptic clues to keep us amused whilst we wait for concrete news?
So there is an NDA and two of the ex-directors are saying they haven't been approached.
Maybe they haven't or maybe they are being discreet. They do have lot of money, and the club they support, at stake.
That @Swisdom, someone closer to the regime than most (although not a blind apologist ) is saying the story has legs is good news.
Be like Slade, be patient
WIOTOS
Henry, much earlier in this thread you made cryptic reference to Swiss Cottage and Gerrard st when talking about potential buyers. The Gerrard st reference obviously points to Chinese interest. Still not been able to make sense of the Swiss Cottage reference. Have you any more cryptic clues to keep us amused whilst we wait for concrete news?
So there is an NDA and two of the ex-directors are saying they haven't been approached.
Maybe they haven't or maybe they are being discreet. They do have lot of money, and the club they support, at stake.
That @Swisdom, someone closer to the regime than most (although not a blind apologist ) is saying the story has legs is good news.
Be like Slade, be patient
WIOTOS
Henry, much earlier in this thread you made cryptic reference to Swiss Cottage and Gerrard st when talking about potential buyers. The Gerrard st reference obviously points to Chinese interest. Still not been able to make sense of the Swiss Cottage reference. Have you any more cryptic clues to keep us amused whilst we wait for concrete news?
So there is an NDA and two of the ex-directors are saying they haven't been approached.
Maybe they haven't or maybe they are being discreet. They do have lot of money, and the club they support, at stake.
That @Swisdom, someone closer to the regime than most (although not a blind apologist ) is saying the story has legs is good news.
Be like Slade, be patient
WIOTOS
Henry, much earlier in this thread you made cryptic reference to Swiss Cottage and Gerrard st when talking about potential buyers. The Gerrard st reference obviously points to Chinese interest. Still not been able to make sense of the Swiss Cottage reference. Have you any more cryptic clues to keep us amused whilst we wait for concrete news?
If you can't work out which country I was hinting at from "Swiss Cottage" then I don't think I can help : - )
I don't know, you go away and turn your back on this thread of a couple of hours and .... boom , 100 new posts and we still don't know if any things happening!
So there is an NDA and two of the ex-directors are saying they haven't been approached.
Maybe they haven't or maybe they are being discreet. They do have lot of money, and the club they support, at stake.
That @Swisdom, someone closer to the regime than most (although not a blind apologist ) is saying the story has legs is good news.
Be like Slade, be patient
WIOTOS
Henry, much earlier in this thread you made cryptic reference to Swiss Cottage and Gerrard st when talking about potential buyers. The Gerrard st reference obviously points to Chinese interest. Still not been able to make sense of the Swiss Cottage reference. Have you any more cryptic clues to keep us amused whilst we wait for concrete news?
Comments
http://the72.co.uk/78863/involved-australian-consortium-trying-buy-charlton/
David White was owed £250,000 of that, Bob Whitehand, Dave Sumners and Derek Chappell represent £2.65 combined.
Sir Maurice Hatter is owed £1m and David Hughes £500k.
As well as Murray's £2.6m, Derek Chappell and Bob Whitehand each have £1.2m outstanding, Sir Maurice Hatter £1m, David Hughes £500,000 and David Sumners and David White £250,000 each.
Sir Maurice Hatter would probably stand with Murray (which is more than half), and Derek Chappell, Bob Whitehand and David Sumners stick together.
But as above we're potentially now talking about making a saving of a percentage of £3.4m (£7m less £2.6m less £1m).
Maybe they haven't or maybe they are being discreet. They do have lot of money, and the club they support, at stake.
That @Swisdom, someone closer to the regime than most (although not a blind apologist ) is saying the story has legs is good news.
Be like Slade, be patient
WIOTOS
I thank you
Number of promotes for thread starter for this thread: 0