Well if that is all that is holding up the deal I despair. We are losing in the region of 10 million per year. A five year plan will cost us 50 million. 75 if Napa does the maths.
So if the pissing amount owed to the directors is truly holding up the deal I am gobsmacked.
A five year plan is currently costing circa £60 million. I would suggest a five year plan would be nearer £150m, total cost £200m, for a Premier league team. It's a big gamble
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
I think everyone accepts that, but why has such a large hidden "cost", only come to light now and not at any time in the last 10 odd months?
If the Club is worth £40m. The Aussies should pay Rolly £33m and the others the £7m. I think the problem is that Rolly wants the £40 for himself.
If I was investing on the slim chance of getting into the Prem, I would want my full share of any profit. Not my share after £7m has been paid out to someone else.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
I think everyone accepts that, but why has such a large hidden "cost", only come to light now and not at any time in the last 10 odd months?
Its been common knowledge for years. What seems to be the issue is RD still not being able to pay down the loans and offer the buyers clear title.
Questions should be aimed at him. Like, "if you've agreed a price to sell something you don't fully own, when are you going to sort out the mess"?
Think I would like to hear Belgium side of the what is causing hold up. Last week it was stated as a fact that the Aussies were holding it up, now we are being told presumably by the Aussie side it’s the Belgium side. Wonder what we will hear next week?
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
I think everyone accepts that, but why has such a large hidden "cost", only come to light now and not at any time in the last 10 odd months?
Its been common knowledge for years. What seems to be the issue is RD still not being able to pay down the loans and offer the buyers clear title.
Questions should be aimed at him. Like, "if you've agreed a price to sell something you don't fully own, when are you going to sort out the mess"?
I know that!, but why has it only come up now and not at any time previously?
Well if that is all that is holding up the deal I despair. We are losing in the region of 10 million per year. A five year plan will cost us 50 million. 75 if Napa does the maths.
So if the pissing amount owed to the directors is truly holding up the deal I am gobsmacked.
A five year plan is currently costing circa £60 million. I would suggest a five year plan would be nearer £150m, total cost £200m, for a Premier league team. It's a big gamble
Totally agree with you mate. That's what makes it so hard to believe a piddling little amount owed to the directors is truly holding up the deal .
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
This seems madness and I struggle to believe this is an issue with serious businessmen. They are only repayable in the Prem where they will be tbe equivalent of change down the back of the sofa. Meanwhile we face another two years in L1 due to weak squad and only 40 days to re-enforce, which I am sure is not in their 5 year plan.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
If they agreed for that to be rolled on, with agreement with the Directors, then they would not have to spend £7million. What’s the big deal with clean title ?
Would you not want a clean break from this shit show? Can imagine they were open minded coming into the process but with RD (it seems) constantly moving the goal posts, I can imagine they just want rid and a blank canvass to create there own legacy & not having to deal with the leftovers of RDs legacy.
Thanks @king addick & @RedChaser. I can follow what you saying @king addick. Is it enough to break the whole deal though ?
I also find it difficult to understand how the issue of the directors loans would not have been picked up in due diligence. Its not like its a secret. This takeover thing & Aussie interest has been going on for nearly as long as an elephant's pregnancy.
Regading rolling on of the loans. Some of the Directors may be a bit more annoying, but surely they would not be able to have any particular say in the running of the team going forward ? Murray had a nominal title but had no specific influence on things, I could see. I can still remember the conscending look of Duchatelet & incredulous look Meire gave Murray in the beginning when Murray was blathering on about Charlton not having to sell any of the young players.
Seeing as the Aussies can do a deal and the loans will roll without even the need for consulation over them is strange why it hasn't happened. Is it because they need them cleared because they want to borrow against The Valley or is it because they feel its Roland's problem to sort as he inherited them. And to be fair its not their fault Roland didnt bother doing DD when he purchased the Club. I believe its the latter .
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
If they agreed for that to be rolled on, with agreement with the Directors, then they would not have to spend £7million. What’s the big deal with clean title ?
Would you not want a clean break from this shit show? Can imagine they were open minded coming into the process but with RD (it seems) constantly moving the goal posts, I can imagine they just want rid and a blank canvass to create there own legacy & not having to deal with the leftovers of RDs legacy.
Thanks @king addick & @RedChaser. I can follow what you saying @king addick. Is it enough to break the whole deal though ?
I also find it difficult to understand how the issue of the directors loans would not have been picked up in due diligence. Its not like its a secret. This takeover thing & Aussie interest has been going on for nearly as long as an elephant's pregnancy.
Regading rolling on of the loans. Some of the Directors may be a bit more annoying, but surely they would not be able to have any particular say in the running of the team going forward ? Murray had a nominal title but had no specific influence on things, I could see. I can still remember the conscending look of Duchatelet & incredulous look Meire gave Murray in the beginning when Murray was blathering on about Charlton not having to sell any of the young players.
I would tend to agree with this.
Also bear in mind these are all ex-directors - rolling over the loans doesn't give any of them any power in commercial decision making. Uncle Dickie can still be kicked into the long grass with or without a first charge on the assets.
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Every time I see a photo of Keohane he looks paler than before. I reckon he's a vampire.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
This seems madness and I struggle to believe this is an issue with serious businessmen. They are only repayable in the Prem where they will be tbe equivalent of change down the back of the sofa. Meanwhile we face another two years in L1 due to weak squad and only 40 days to re-enforce, which I am sure is not in their 5 year plan.
I guess it depends on what was offered. Using the £40m that has been banded about, if they were offered the club in full, all sold, for that sum the Aussies would fairly assume that they would own the club and there would be no charges left on it. If they got to the exchange of contracts stage and they are told they are paying £40m and there is a £7m debt still to pay that will quite rightly piss them off and lead to some renegotiation.
If I was putting £40m of my cash in with up to 5 others on a five year deal I'd wouldn't want any debts or interests in front, would you?
Just because Roland was daft enough to do that, doesn't mean others are. The Spivs only paid a quid (effectively £7m) for us (or whatever the F Director debt is).
Bottom line is people wouldn't have been getting worked up about the takeover til xmas - or this summer - had Meire not decided to jump ship - if the Aussies hadn't been leaking info for the last 18 months and getting everybody's hopes up prematurely. Nothing happening in October and certainly apparent a full DD had not been undertaken - price agreed in February, further DD and now a reduction in the offer by the Aussies - that's my take on it and now we have a stand off but hopefully they will resolve it soon
If I was putting £40m of my cash in with up to 5 others on a five year deal I'd wouldn't want any debts or interests in front, would you?
Just because Roland was daft enough to do that, doesn't mean others are. The Spivs only paid a quid (effectively £7m) for us (or whatever the F Director debt is).
It depends how much I was worth and how much we thought would need investing over the next few years.
This is what I can't understand. If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.
You could always release £3.5million out your pension pot.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
I think investors have been promised clean title as a precondition. You can't then go back to them and say, sorry, there's this weird fella with duck tape who won't clear these debts. Would you mind doing it?
For what it's worth, Twitter poll. 251 votes.
67% 5 year plan Aussies 10% Mystery Brits 09% Roland Devil U Know 14% Others - Saudis?
This is what I can't understand. If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.
You could always release £3.5million out your pension pot.
Fuck off That would only leave me with £15 million
@vff Murray has been very influential, wasn't he made non exec Chairnan and would have certainly had KMs ear and more latterly that of RD. We know he and Varney didn't get on and would not have sung his praises when he was trying to broker a deal. RD also thinks Muzza is a top fella huh. Also KM came out with the move to the Peninsular cock and bull about Varney, wonder who sowed that seed.
The compromise issue aside and apart from the Aussies wanting a clean title on the land (I most certainly would if I was an investor) the ex directors might just want out and their money back. Why should they roll it over if they don't want to none of them are spring chickens and they may want to share it amongst / enjoy it with their families now, I would.
And remember @harveys_gardener the land cannot be sold unless they are paid off in full, or leased without all of their consents so no they don't have to wait until we get to the Prem in the case of the former and again I would ask why the hell should they.
The Douchbag has buried his head in the sand on this issue and thought he could steamroller all in his way at sale time like he usually does. Big mistake, not this time Rolly, you've failed big time. Sadly though we the fans are the collateral damage but he's the only person who should be at the brunt of people's frustrations, no one else.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
This seems madness and I struggle to believe this is an issue with serious businessmen. They are only repayable in the Prem where they will be tbe equivalent of change down the back of the sofa. Meanwhile we face another two years in L1 due to weak squad and only 40 days to re-enforce, which I am sure is not in their 5 year plan.
I guess it depends on what was offered. Using the £40m that has been banded about, if they were offered the club in full, all sold, for that sum the Aussies would fairly assume that they would own the club and there would be no charges left on it. If they got to the exchange of contracts stage and they are told they are paying £40m and there is a £7m debt still to pay that will quite rightly piss them off and lead to some renegotiation.
As an accountant, charges on property assets would be top of my DD and would/could be done before any approach is made for £1 at Land Registry. Again £7m is a drop in the ocean compared to the £150m+ needed to finance the 5 year plan and need not be paid until Prem. This is a red addock herring
I don’t get this “£7m is not a lot of money”. It is. It is also a considerable increase in price.
Speculation that it may cost £200m to get into the Prem is simply not valid. It may not be the only objective, or the only way they believe it could be achieved.
Comments
If I was investing on the slim chance of getting into the Prem, I would want my full share of any profit. Not my share after £7m has been paid out to someone else.
Questions should be aimed at him. Like, "if you've agreed a price to sell something you don't fully own, when are you going to sort out the mess"?
That's what makes it so hard to believe a piddling little amount owed to the directors is truly holding up the deal .
I also find it difficult to understand how the issue of the directors loans would not have been picked up in due diligence. Its not like its a secret. This takeover thing & Aussie interest has been going on for nearly as long as an elephant's pregnancy.
Regading rolling on of the loans. Some of the Directors may be a bit more annoying, but surely they would not be able to have any particular say in the running of the team going forward ? Murray had a nominal title but had no specific influence on things, I could see. I can still remember the conscending look of Duchatelet & incredulous look Meire gave Murray in the beginning when Murray was blathering on about Charlton not having to sell any of the young players.
Also bear in mind these are all ex-directors - rolling over the loans doesn't give any of them any power in commercial decision making. Uncle Dickie can still be kicked into the long grass with or without a first charge on the assets.
Just because Roland was daft enough to do that, doesn't mean others are. The Spivs only paid a quid (effectively £7m) for us (or whatever the F Director debt is).
For what it's worth, Twitter poll. 251 votes.
67% 5 year plan Aussies
10% Mystery Brits
09% Roland Devil U Know
14% Others - Saudis?
That would only leave me with £15 million
The compromise issue aside and apart from the Aussies wanting a clean title on the land (I most certainly would if I was an investor) the ex directors might just want out and their money back. Why should they roll it over if they don't want to none of them are spring chickens and they may want to share it amongst / enjoy it with their families now, I would.
And remember @harveys_gardener the land cannot be sold unless they are paid off in full, or leased without all of their consents so no they don't have to wait until we get to the Prem in the case of the former and again I would ask why the hell should they.
The Douchbag has buried his head in the sand on this issue and thought he could steamroller all in his way at sale time like he usually does. Big mistake, not this time Rolly, you've failed big time. Sadly though we the fans are the collateral damage but he's the only person who should be at the brunt of people's frustrations, no one else.
WIOTOS
addockherringIt is.
It is also a considerable increase in price.
Speculation that it may cost £200m to get into the Prem is simply not valid. It may not be the only objective, or the only way they believe it could be achieved.