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.
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.
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 reasons
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.
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!
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 = NO
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?
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.
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 .
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.
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.
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.
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.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.
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.
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 reasons
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.
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!
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 = NO
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?
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.
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 .
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.
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.
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.
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.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.
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?
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.
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
At least England aren't sellable.
Or come to that I'm beginning to think Charlton aren't too. But for very different reasons.
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
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.
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 reasons
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.
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!
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 = NO
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?
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.
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 .
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.
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.
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.
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.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.
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?
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.
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.
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
I'd prefer a Charlton CL win, but I wouldn't presume to call others with a different opinion insane.
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.
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.
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.
I think a lot of it comes down to what the Aussies think they are buying. If their offer is the £40m as quoted before and they bid that price based on receiving the whole club with no debts etc. And then they are told that the ex director charges are to still remain. They have then effectively just agreed to a £7m increase in cost (albeit not a realised cost until charges need to be cleared).
Perhaps some of the recent delay has been a renegotiation around this point?
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
Agree. However only one of these has a chance in our lifetimes.
I've been out all day Sunday so came back to over 150 pages. Can someone do a summary?
To @Davidsmith my apologies if my challenges to what I saw as inconsistencies came over to you as abuse. I didn't think I was at all abusive but I do find the frequent use of "why don't the....." statements frustrating. I shouldn't have let that frustration affect the way I posted though.
Regardless, I hope you reconsider and continue posting.
As the Aussies, they will have to prove themselves if and when they actually take over and begin to run the club.
Until then, it will continue to be, as someone once said, a bumpy ride
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.
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 reasons
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.
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!
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 = NO
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?
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.
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 .
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.
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.
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.
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.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.
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?
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.
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.
I have no direct knowledge of this but would guess they’d want simplicity. But guys, it really isn't worth arguing about. I've got into a few contretemps myself, including with @Stu_of_Kunming , but at the end of the day he's got a point when he says no one knows anything. I've formed opinions based on my knowledge of GM, and the beer meeting, but it doesn't mean I'm right. And if people want to form a negative opinion about the Aussies then fine, the Aussies will have a chance to alter that opinion once they have ownership, (if they have ownership).
I'll have a beer with GM after the sale and will quiz him then, although I imagine the info about what went on will be in the public domain by then, or at least some of it will be.
I say let 'em get on with it, worrying about it won't make it happen any faster.
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.
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 reasons
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.
Can I reiterate, the debentures are only repayable in the Prem when £7m will be change down the back of the sofa. MOVE ON!!!
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 = NO
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?
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.
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 .
Don't always consult Companies House b4 I post.
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.
FFS, you'll never understand. Even though Red Chaser has explained it to you in detail. Just give it up.
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.
BTW Red, I have filed Companies House returns, several hundred TR1s, and advised solicitors on lease and freehold issues.
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?
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.
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.
Paul Elliott has been noticeably quiet since his..........in the pub ‘next week’ revelations!
sorry, I should have said.......
I saw him in my local Co-op at the weekend......he appeared from behind a pillar, tapped the side of his nose and said "you haven't seen me....right" and promptly left.
pinned to the back of his dark raincoat were the words
Paul Elliott has been noticeably quiet since his..........in the pub ‘next week’ revelations!
sorry, I should have said.......
I saw him in my local Co-op at the weekend......he appeared from behind a pillar, tapped the side of his nose and said "you haven't seen me....right" and promptly left.
pinned to the back of his dark raincoat were the words
Am i right in thinking the transfer window shuts 9th August for signings this year? If correct that gives as a month to complete the takeover and make any signings to start the season with.
I've been out all day Sunday so came back to over 150 pages. Can someone do a summary?
To @Davidsmith my apologies if my challenges to what I saw as inconsistencies came over to you as abuse. I didn't think I was at all abusive but I do find the frequent use of "why don't the....." statements frustrating. I shouldn't have let that frustration affect the way I posted though.
Regardless, I hope you reconsider and continue posting.
As the Aussies, they will have to prove themselves if and when they actually take over and begin to run the club.
Until then, it will continue to be, as someone once said, a bumpy ride
WIOTOS
Apology accepted. Just passing on what I know and hear. In response to Harveys Gardener, I agree why pay £7mn interest free loan off and then borrow at 4 to 6%, we all understand that. But then you are stuck with charges that stop you from leasing any assets like the Stadium or Training Ground or Buildings. Also as someone mentioned maybe Roland never informed them about these restrictions and they agreed a price based on what they thought was clear title, thus now having to accept restrictions or pay up £7mn more now or except a £7mn future liability. Either way they will be paying £7mn more, you can argue that then they would be awash with Premier League cash and won't care. But they have to accept that £7mn uplift in price now, even if its payment date is delayed. Also James Seed maybe check with GM, but maybe this is the reason GM never in last 12 months contacted Ex Directors, as he only recently found this problem.
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
At least England aren't sellable
True.
But Wembley is.
I know this is slightly off topic, but I'd like to reassure anyone with reservations about this that it's not something I'd be too worried about.
The move from Shad Khan to purchase Wembley is more so he is the "London guy" for the NFL and won't really compromise our national stadium.
He won't move the Jags (my team) to London. He's basically choosing the city market with the highest potential upside (even if it is across the Atlantic) to strengthen the actual team in Jacksonville, and ensures they can remain in Jax. We've gone from 31st in popularity in the UK to 7th in the last two or three years, so this is a further consolidation.
By buying Wembley, it (and London) becomes a Jaguars "stronghold", ensuring our popularity in the UK, and therefore our sustainability in Jacksonville.
Comments
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.
Or come to that I'm beginning to think Charlton aren't too. But for very different reasons.
But Wembley is.
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.
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.
Perhaps some of the recent delay has been a renegotiation around this point?
To @Davidsmith my apologies if my challenges to what I saw as inconsistencies came over to you as abuse. I didn't think I was at all abusive but I do find the frequent use of "why don't the....." statements frustrating. I shouldn't have let that frustration affect the way I posted though.
Regardless, I hope you reconsider and continue posting.
As the Aussies, they will have to prove themselves if and when they actually take over and begin to run the club.
Until then, it will continue to be, as someone once said, a bumpy ride
WIOTOS
I'll have a beer with GM after the sale and will quiz him then, although I imagine the info about what went on will be in the public domain by then, or at least some of it will be.
I say let 'em get on with it, worrying about it won't make it happen any faster.
I saw him in my local Co-op at the weekend......he appeared from behind a pillar, tapped the side of his nose and said "you haven't seen me....right" and promptly left.
pinned to the back of his dark raincoat were the words
next week.
In response to Harveys Gardener, I agree why pay £7mn interest free loan off and then borrow at 4 to 6%, we all understand that.
But then you are stuck with charges that stop you from leasing any assets like the Stadium or Training Ground or Buildings.
Also as someone mentioned maybe Roland never informed them about these restrictions and they agreed a price based on what they thought was clear title, thus now having to accept restrictions or pay up £7mn more now or except a £7mn future liability.
Either way they will be paying £7mn more, you can argue that then they would be awash with Premier League cash and won't care.
But they have to accept that £7mn uplift in price now, even if its payment date is delayed.
Also James Seed maybe check with GM, but maybe this is the reason GM never in last 12 months contacted Ex Directors, as he only recently found this problem.
The move from Shad Khan to purchase Wembley is more so he is the "London guy" for the NFL and won't really compromise our national stadium.
He won't move the Jags (my team) to London. He's basically choosing the city market with the highest potential upside (even if it is across the Atlantic) to strengthen the actual team in Jacksonville, and ensures they can remain in Jax. We've gone from 31st in popularity in the UK to 7th in the last two or three years, so this is a further consolidation.
By buying Wembley, it (and London) becomes a Jaguars "stronghold", ensuring our popularity in the UK, and therefore our sustainability in Jacksonville.