Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
I reckon they're trying to turn you over after yesterday's result.The Prince-e-Paul said:In some other countries it is common to take on someone else's debts and pay their loans. In Sweden where I'm looking to buy, it is common to advertise a house for sale with the details of the mortgage held against the property which may be passed from seller to buyer, with the rest of the purchase price taken on a second mortgage.
Get yourself a good brief.
4 -
Unknown yes. But Roland is a known quantity... We KNOW he is an arrogant, deluded egotistic twat. I would rather take a chance on new ownership that may or may not be awful rather than sticking with one we know will be awful.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
But then the Aussies are unknown quantity when it come all the above as well.bigstemarra said:
Yes, but that relies on the somewhat questionable assumption that RD is a reasonable, rational individual.nth london addick said:@i_b_b_o_r_g they def existed mate they may now have been sorted I have not asked nor spoken about it .
The charges are an ongoing issue and have been for months
I am gutted @Davidsmith has been chased off from here as he always posted very reliable snipets and imo yesterday his posts were disected to read in a totally different way to how he posted them
What I don’t get is if RD wants out and the Aussies want in why a compromise between the two can’t be sort
Remember, this is the man who thinks he can buy an asset at a knock-down price, totally fuck it up beyond recognition and then sell for multiple times the price he bought it for....I'm not optimistic myself!9 -
Boras is cheap.The Prince-e-Paul said:In some other countries it is common to take on someone else's debts and pay their loans. In Sweden where I'm looking to buy, it is common to advertise a house for sale with the details of the mortgage held against the property which may be passed from seller to buyer, with the rest of the purchase price taken on a second mortgage.
0 -
Hats off to @i_b_b_o_r_g for persistence!
When The Boomerangs move from the Ayers Rock Stadium in Floyd Rd to the Digereedoo Stadium on the Peninsula, he can say 'told you so' ;-)1 -
Smug offJamesSeed said:
Hats off to @i_b_b_o_r_g for persistence!
When The Boomerangs move from the Ayers Rock Stadium in Floyd Rd to the Digereedoo Stadium on the Peninsula, he can say 'told you so' ;-)3 -
With the interview that Roland gave a Belgium national newspaper the other day i am starting to think the local elections coming up in the autumn of this year in Sint Truiden are starting to concern him.
Why i have to ask myself,...........is it his belief he will still be our owner at that given time.
Something is very wrong.6 -
Blimey it was clearly a joke man.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Smug offJamesSeed said:
Hats off to @i_b_b_o_r_g for persistence!
When The Boomerangs move from the Ayers Rock Stadium in Floyd Rd to the Digereedoo Stadium on the Peninsula, he can say 'told you so' ;-)
I've already said your Aussie players at The Valley theory might have legs.
As I was saying earlier, I think it would be a good idea to wait and see what happens, as people are getting so het up. Even emojis don't work any more it seems.2 -
The charges originated when the spivs bought the club. The land is owned by Baton 2010 that RD/Staprix bought and now he is selling this holding company. I have explained this many times. Keep up. Who is the WUM?RedChaser said:
Do me a favour Land cannot change hands with prior charges on it. If your house has a mortgage outstanding on it could you sell it without your Bank / Building society wanting repayment or a rearrangement of facilities? Answer = NOharveys_gardener said:
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!RedChaser said:
So would I and I'd hope it was but as has been put forward before on here maybe the goalposts moved on the sale price which could have been for several reasonsharveys_gardener said:I am not a wealthy businessman but before spending £1m on DD, I would spend 100 pence at Land Registry looking at charges on assets. Even if I didn't it would be top of the list for my team. I wouldn't spend £1m then ask if RD owns everything outright. Thus the £7m isn't the issue.
Whatever, if they are not prepared to pay off the debentures and I wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place, then that's their call. It doesn't make them dodgy or unfit to be owners does it, it says to me they want value for money and the club they looked at way back when, is not worth that today as it's assets (staff on and off the pitch), have been watered down and it's league standing is still third tier.2 -
Anyone but that twunt Roland .
Even if we don’t find out the next lot are back and fronts for a few months that will be a few months without the certain knowledge that our owners are shit useless twunts .
Prick Roland goes , my kids get new footy kits , have a day as a mascot , I’ll sponsor a match , my extended football family will rejoin up and I’ll see niece and nephews a bit more as will my kids see their cousins a bit more .
So yeah fuck off Roland and I’m 99% certain the next owners will be better and so will my Charlton Life once that prick is clear from us .17 -
Theres a real danger that we'll reach 1111 pages this week, and satelites will fall from the sky meaning the
revolutionWorld Cup Final will not be televised.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Yes I'm fully aware of all that, it's your persistence that the Debentures can be rolled over and are not repayable until the club reaches the Premier League. That is only possible if all the ex directors agree to it and apparently three did not re a lease arrangement. Therefore if the Aussies want a clean title to the land as purported then they (ex directors) need to be paid off. So all this 'it shouldn't be an issue it's change down the back of the soda' mantra is your opinion and not one I or it would seem the Aussies share. I've probably had more dealings with charges over property including debentures than you've had hot dinners by the way.harveys_gardener said:
The charges originated when the spivs bought the club. The land is owned by Baton 2010 that RD/Staprix bought and now he is selling this holding company. I have explained this many times. Keep up. Who is the WUM?RedChaser said:
Do me a favour Land cannot change hands with prior charges on it. If your house has a mortgage outstanding on it could you sell it without your Bank / Building society wanting repayment or a rearrangement of facilities? Answer = NOharveys_gardener said:
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!RedChaser said:
So would I and I'd hope it was but as has been put forward before on here maybe the goalposts moved on the sale price which could have been for several reasonsharveys_gardener said:I am not a wealthy businessman but before spending £1m on DD, I would spend 100 pence at Land Registry looking at charges on assets. Even if I didn't it would be top of the list for my team. I wouldn't spend £1m then ask if RD owns everything outright. Thus the £7m isn't the issue.
Whatever, if they are not prepared to pay off the debentures and I wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place, then that's their call. It doesn't make them dodgy or unfit to be owners does it, it says to me they want value for money and the club they looked at way back when, is not worth that today as it's assets (staff on and off the pitch), have been watered down and it's league standing is still third tier.
And try taking your own advice on 'Keeping Up' wasn't it you the other day who didn't know that Bob Whitehand had used his company as the vehicle for one of the debentures
. 2 -
B0
-
still can't get over the fact that 14 people (so far) have liked a post saying they'd rather England won the WC than Charlton won the Champions League. idk, i'm enjoying Competent England going far and it'd be nice to win the thing but that is total raving insanity imo15
-
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.RedChaser said:
Yes I'm fully aware of all that, it's your persistence that the Debentures can be rolled over and are not repayable until the club reaches the Premier League. That is only possible if all the ex directors agree to it and apparently three do not. Therefore if the Aussies want a clean title to the land as purported then they (ex directors) need to be paid off. So all this 'it shouldn't be an issue it's change down the back of the soda' mantra is your opinion and not one I or it would seem the Ausdies share. I've probably more dealings with charges over property including debentures than you've had hot dinners by the way.harveys_gardener said:
The charges originated when the spivs bought the club. The land is owned by Baton 2010 that RD/Staprix bought and now he is selling this holding company. I have explained this many times. Keep up. Who is the WUM?RedChaser said:
Do me a favour Land cannot change hands with prior charges on it. If your house has a mortgage outstanding on it could you sell it without your Bank / Building society wanting repayment or a rearrangement of facilities? Answer = NOharveys_gardener said:
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!RedChaser said:
So would I and I'd hope it was but as has been put forward before on here maybe the goalposts moved on the sale price which could have been for several reasonsharveys_gardener said:I am not a wealthy businessman but before spending £1m on DD, I would spend 100 pence at Land Registry looking at charges on assets. Even if I didn't it would be top of the list for my team. I wouldn't spend £1m then ask if RD owns everything outright. Thus the £7m isn't the issue.
Whatever, if they are not prepared to pay off the debentures and I wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place, then that's their call. It doesn't make them dodgy or unfit to be owners does it, it says to me they want value for money and the club they looked at way back when, is not worth that today as it's assets (staff on and off the pitch), have been watered down and it's league standing is still third tier.
And try taking your own advice on 'Keeping Up' wasn't it you the other day who didn't know that Bob Whitehand had used his company as the vehicle for one of the debentures .
The 'repayable in the Prem' issue must be a legal contract with Baton 2010 by spivs or else RD would have needed to pay them up when he purchased.0 -
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07326155/charges
So not tied to Jiminez or Duchatelet so not to Ozzies specifically, just whomever buys Baton 2010.0 -
Agreed. Have seen England winning the World Cup once. I think we'll get to the final, but Belgium or France will be tough opponents.Leuth said:still can't get over the fact that 14 people (so far) have liked a post saying they'd rather England won the WC than Charlton won the Champions League. idk, i'm enjoying Competent England going far and it'd be nice to win the thing but that is total raving insanity imo
1 -
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.harveys_gardener said:
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.RedChaser said:
Yes I'm fully aware of all that, it's your persistence that the Debentures can be rolled over and are not repayable until the club reaches the Premier League. That is only possible if all the ex directors agree to it and apparently three do not. Therefore if the Aussies want a clean title to the land as purported then they (ex directors) need to be paid off. So all this 'it shouldn't be an issue it's change down the back of the soda' mantra is your opinion and not one I or it would seem the Ausdies share. I've probably more dealings with charges over property including debentures than you've had hot dinners by the way.harveys_gardener said:
The charges originated when the spivs bought the club. The land is owned by Baton 2010 that RD/Staprix bought and now he is selling this holding company. I have explained this many times. Keep up. Who is the WUM?RedChaser said:
Do me a favour Land cannot change hands with prior charges on it. If your house has a mortgage outstanding on it could you sell it without your Bank / Building society wanting repayment or a rearrangement of facilities? Answer = NOharveys_gardener said:
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!RedChaser said:
So would I and I'd hope it was but as has been put forward before on here maybe the goalposts moved on the sale price which could have been for several reasonsharveys_gardener said:I am not a wealthy businessman but before spending £1m on DD, I would spend 100 pence at Land Registry looking at charges on assets. Even if I didn't it would be top of the list for my team. I wouldn't spend £1m then ask if RD owns everything outright. Thus the £7m isn't the issue.
Whatever, if they are not prepared to pay off the debentures and I wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place, then that's their call. It doesn't make them dodgy or unfit to be owners does it, it says to me they want value for money and the club they looked at way back when, is not worth that today as it's assets (staff on and off the pitch), have been watered down and it's league standing is still third tier.
And try taking your own advice on 'Keeping Up' wasn't it you the other day who didn't know that Bob Whitehand had used his company as the vehicle for one of the debentures .
The 'repayable in the Prem' issue must be a legal contract with Baton 2010 by spivs or else RD would have needed to pay them up when he purchased.2 -
This thread is like Groundhog Day. Dull.
However, I can’t stop reading it! Love it. We will all miss this thread when it happens. Sad day.4 -
The charges were created when Murray became sole owner, so the club has already changed hands twice with them in place. The ex-directors themselves have confirmed that their consent is not needed for a change of ownership, but it is needed for changes that might amount to a disposal of the fixed assets, which can include the granting of a lease.12
-
1066 coming up soon, we'll be taken over by the French.9
- Sponsored links:
-
Sorry what has Red Chaser explained? He speculates that Muir wants clear title but I have proved that title is with Baton and not payable until the Prem, otherwise RD should have settled on purchase. He has speculated, wrongly, that the land can't change hands without charges settled and I have proved they can because it is not the Valley being sold but Baton.Covered End said:
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.harveys_gardener said:
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.RedChaser said:
Yes I'm fully aware of all that, it's your persistence that the Debentures can be rolled over and are not repayable until the club reaches the Premier League. That is only possible if all the ex directors agree to it and apparently three do not. Therefore if the Aussies want a clean title to the land as purported then they (ex directors) need to be paid off. So all this 'it shouldn't be an issue it's change down the back of the soda' mantra is your opinion and not one I or it would seem the Ausdies share. I've probably more dealings with charges over property including debentures than you've had hot dinners by the way.harveys_gardener said:
The charges originated when the spivs bought the club. The land is owned by Baton 2010 that RD/Staprix bought and now he is selling this holding company. I have explained this many times. Keep up. Who is the WUM?RedChaser said:
Do me a favour Land cannot change hands with prior charges on it. If your house has a mortgage outstanding on it could you sell it without your Bank / Building society wanting repayment or a rearrangement of facilities? Answer = NOharveys_gardener said:
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!RedChaser said:
So would I and I'd hope it was but as has been put forward before on here maybe the goalposts moved on the sale price which could have been for several reasonsharveys_gardener said:I am not a wealthy businessman but before spending £1m on DD, I would spend 100 pence at Land Registry looking at charges on assets. Even if I didn't it would be top of the list for my team. I wouldn't spend £1m then ask if RD owns everything outright. Thus the £7m isn't the issue.
Whatever, if they are not prepared to pay off the debentures and I wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place, then that's their call. It doesn't make them dodgy or unfit to be owners does it, it says to me they want value for money and the club they looked at way back when, is not worth that today as it's assets (staff on and off the pitch), have been watered down and it's league standing is still third tier.
And try taking your own advice on 'Keeping Up' wasn't it you the other day who didn't know that Bob Whitehand had used his company as the vehicle for one of the debentures .
The 'repayable in the Prem' issue must be a legal contract with Baton 2010 by spivs or else RD would have needed to pay them up when he purchased.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.2 -
just caught up reading 8 pages straight off. Time i'll never get back5
-
You're lucky you only have 8 pages under your belt.Taxi_Lad said:just caught up reading 8 pages straight off. Time i'll never get back
0 -
Perhaps I should clarify that by 'change of hands' I meant a disposal. What if the Aussies do not buy Baton 2010 lock stock and barrel like RD did and the titles of the property are transferred into the names of the new Company that the Aussies have opened up for the takeover. Are you telling me the Land Registry would not contact the chargees?harveys_gardener said:
Sorry what has Red Chaser explained? He speculates that Muir wants clear title but I have proved that title is with Baton and not payable until the Prem, otherwise RD should have settled on purchase. He has speculated, wrongly, that the land can't change hands without charges settled and I have proved they can because it is not the Valley being sold but Baton.Covered End said:
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.harveys_gardener said:
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.RedChaser said:
Yes I'm fully aware of all that, it's your persistence that the Debentures can be rolled over and are not repayable until the club reaches the Premier League. That is only possible if all the ex directors agree to it and apparently three do not. Therefore if the Aussies want a clean title to the land as purported then they (ex directors) need to be paid off. So all this 'it shouldn't be an issue it's change down the back of the soda' mantra is your opinion and not one I or it would seem the Ausdies share. I've probably more dealings with charges over property including debentures than you've had hot dinners by the way.harveys_gardener said:
The charges originated when the spivs bought the club. The land is owned by Baton 2010 that RD/Staprix bought and now he is selling this holding company. I have explained this many times. Keep up. Who is the WUM?RedChaser said:
Do me a favour Land cannot change hands with prior charges on it. If your house has a mortgage outstanding on it could you sell it without your Bank / Building society wanting repayment or a rearrangement of facilities? Answer = NOharveys_gardener said:
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!RedChaser said:
So would I and I'd hope it was but as has been put forward before on here maybe the goalposts moved on the sale price which could have been for several reasonsharveys_gardener said:I am not a wealthy businessman but before spending £1m on DD, I would spend 100 pence at Land Registry looking at charges on assets. Even if I didn't it would be top of the list for my team. I wouldn't spend £1m then ask if RD owns everything outright. Thus the £7m isn't the issue.
Whatever, if they are not prepared to pay off the debentures and I wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place, then that's their call. It doesn't make them dodgy or unfit to be owners does it, it says to me they want value for money and the club they looked at way back when, is not worth that today as it's assets (staff on and off the pitch), have been watered down and it's league standing is still third tier.
And try taking your own advice on 'Keeping Up' wasn't it you the other day who didn't know that Bob Whitehand had used his company as the vehicle for one of the debentures .
The 'repayable in the Prem' issue must be a legal contract with Baton 2010 by spivs or else RD would have needed to pay them up when he purchased.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.
All of this is of course immaterial, if as we are led to believe (note I'm not speculating although others may have) that the Aussies want a clean title to the property now which you conveniently continue to ignore.2 -
At least England aren't sellable.Leuth said:still can't get over the fact that 14 people (so far) have liked a post saying they'd rather England won the WC than Charlton won the Champions League. idk, i'm enjoying Competent England going far and it'd be nice to win the thing but that is total raving insanity imo
Or come to that I'm beginning to think Charlton aren't too. But for very different reasons.2 -
True.iainment said:
At least England aren't sellableLeuth said:still can't get over the fact that 14 people (so far) have liked a post saying they'd rather England won the WC than Charlton won the Champions League. idk, i'm enjoying Competent England going far and it'd be nice to win the thing but that is total raving insanity imo
But Wembley is.
1 -
Er. Given a choice of buying an asset (CAFC) now and paying an extra £7m now or buying the same package (Baton) with a non-interest bearing pay-off further down the track which would you chose as an astute businessman? Show me some evidence that the Aussies want clean title. JS who has their ear has not suggested so. If. If. If. Land Registry only get involved if presented with a TR1. Not neccessary with the sale of a holding company. See Airman Brown above. You are becoming somewhat tiresome.RedChaser said:
Perhaps I should clarify that by 'change of hands' I meant a disposal. What if the Aussies do not buy Baton 2010 lock stock and barrel like RD did and the titles of the property are transferred into the names of the new Company that the Aussies have opened up for the takeover. Are you telling me the Land Registry would not contact the chargees?harveys_gardener said:
Sorry what has Red Chaser explained? He speculates that Muir wants clear title but I have proved that title is with Baton and not payable until the Prem, otherwise RD should have settled on purchase. He has speculated, wrongly, that the land can't change hands without charges settled and I have proved they can because it is not the Valley being sold but Baton.Covered End said:
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.harveys_gardener said:
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.RedChaser said:
Yes I'm fully aware of all that, it's your persistence that the Debentures can be rolled over and are not repayable until the club reaches the Premier League. That is only possible if all the ex directors agree to it and apparently three do not. Therefore if the Aussies want a clean title to the land as purported then they (ex directors) need to be paid off. So all this 'it shouldn't be an issue it's change down the back of the soda' mantra is your opinion and not one I or it would seem the Ausdies share. I've probably more dealings with charges over property including debentures than you've had hot dinners by the way.harveys_gardener said:
The charges originated when the spivs bought the club. The land is owned by Baton 2010 that RD/Staprix bought and now he is selling this holding company. I have explained this many times. Keep up. Who is the WUM?RedChaser said:
Do me a favour Land cannot change hands with prior charges on it. If your house has a mortgage outstanding on it could you sell it without your Bank / Building society wanting repayment or a rearrangement of facilities? Answer = NOharveys_gardener said:
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!RedChaser said:
So would I and I'd hope it was but as has been put forward before on here maybe the goalposts moved on the sale price which could have been for several reasonsharveys_gardener said:I am not a wealthy businessman but before spending £1m on DD, I would spend 100 pence at Land Registry looking at charges on assets. Even if I didn't it would be top of the list for my team. I wouldn't spend £1m then ask if RD owns everything outright. Thus the £7m isn't the issue.
Whatever, if they are not prepared to pay off the debentures and I wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place, then that's their call. It doesn't make them dodgy or unfit to be owners does it, it says to me they want value for money and the club they looked at way back when, is not worth that today as it's assets (staff on and off the pitch), have been watered down and it's league standing is still third tier.
And try taking your own advice on 'Keeping Up' wasn't it you the other day who didn't know that Bob Whitehand had used his company as the vehicle for one of the debentures .
The 'repayable in the Prem' issue must be a legal contract with Baton 2010 by spivs or else RD would have needed to pay them up when he purchased.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.
All of this is of course immaterial, if as we are led to believe (note I'm not speculating although others may have) that the Aussies want a clean title to the property now which you conveniently continue to ignore.0 -
I'd prefer a Charlton CL win, but I wouldn't presume to call others with a different opinion insane.Leuth said:still can't get over the fact that 14 people (so far) have liked a post saying they'd rather England won the WC than Charlton won the Champions League. idk, i'm enjoying Competent England going far and it'd be nice to win the thing but that is total raving insanity imo
0 -
Er As a member of a consortium, I think I would want some security behind my investment from the outset and not have prior claims over its assets in the event of things going pear shaped. Furthermore with a clean title this issue won't raise its head at some future point when the business is sold on again. I'll let @JamesSeed comment on the clean title aspect if he so wishes.
On the contrary, you give me some evidence that the Aussies intend to buy Baton 2010 lock stock and barrel and won't dispose of the assets. You can't so we have a stalemate the feelings are mutual, night night.1 -
Yawn! Borrowing to pay debentures before we got in Prem would be at least 4%. So £280k pa. On a 5 year plan £1.4m but with probable waste of this year, six, so £1.68m. Why? Much prefer to have ex-directors loan me £7m at 0% interest. Simples!
Without being ITK I am more convinced that this is a FFP issue. RD losses are loans. If converted to equity they would offset spending, players wages max 60% of income. The other upside is incoming transfer fees but only when the cash is received. So if the Lookman money was in installments, our absent CFO may have mistakenly counted the whole lot. The lack of finality on QPR overspend is clouding issue.
A much more likely scenario than director's loans which the whole of CL knew about long before the Aussies turned up.0
This discussion has been closed.
