Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1112911301132113411352265

Comments

  • For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    They shouldn't have to find the £7m at all. It's not their debt, it belongs to Roland, he bought the club with it. If they want a clean title, it's their prerogative to insist the debentures are settled. None of us have the right to tell any prospective buyer what the parameters of their deal should be, it's not a red herring, like it or not, it's a legitimate reason for delaying a purchase. We all want a deal to go through, but it's not our money, and if Roland doesn't settle the debt, regardless whether the Aussies have to find the money now or later, it's £7m, it's not pocket change, and they clearly feel it's not their debt to pay off.
    But it's not £7m

    It's £7m sometime in the future, after a low probability series of events have happened. An actuary valuing this would give it a much smaller valuation, given the relatively small chance of it ever happening, and inflation eroding the "real" value of £7m.

    If this is the reason the takeover has been delayed, then EVERYONE is losing, Roland, the Aussies, the ex directors, the fans. And all for what is a tiny sum of money in the bigger picture (when you consider the annual loss we make)
  • edited July 2018
    So we agree......

    The ex-directors don't have a say whether the loans are rolled over - so none of the 7 are unilaterally holding up the deal. They do not need to be consulted.

    The amount to be repaid is sometime in the future.....maybe never. When it is repaid it is at a time when (all thing being equal) the amount to be repaid is a small amount of what would be then available.

    Good. Glad thats settled.

  • edited July 2018

    JamesSeed said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
    Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.

    And you can tell that to GM !!
    And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
    No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.

    Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
  • JamesSeed said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
    Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.

    And you can tell that to GM !!
    And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
    No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.

    Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
    I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.

    Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.

    In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.
  • JamesSeed said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
    Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.

    And you can tell that to GM !!
    And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
    No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.

    Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
    I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.

    Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.

    In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.

    What is holding it up then?
  • Oggy Red said:

    bobcafc7 said:

    I heard something similar from old bill because Mick Everitt has told them it will happen after the Norwich game, we will see.

    The deadline has passed.

    No because it will happen after the Norwich game

    1 day after, 1 week after, 1 month after, 1 light year after...
    Can't be 1 light year, as staff are now allowed to put the lights on.
  • Sponsored links:


  • shhhhhhhhh its"after" the Norwich game ---------- an tumble weed
  • se9addick said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
    No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.

    I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
    So what are the other issues then?
  • JamesSeed said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
    Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.

    And you can tell that to GM !!
    And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
    No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.

    Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
    I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.

    Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.

    In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.
    BOOM!! Knowledge is power!!
  • Maybe CARD should try raise 100k and place it on the 70/1 with 188bet about to finish bottom pay off the directors ourselves.
  • se9addick said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
    No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.

    I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
    So before the start of the season is unrealistic?
  • So we agree......

    The ex-directors don't have a say whether the loans are rolled over - so none of the 7 are unilaterally holding up the deal. They do not need to be consulted.

    The amount to be repaid is sometime in the future.....maybe never. When it is repaid it is at a time when (all thing being equal) the amount to be repaid is a small amount of what would be then available.

    Good. Glad thats settled.

    I think we’ve known those details for some time, but it’s more a question of whether or not this issue is holding up the sale. I think it’s highly unlikely to be the only issue.
  • Valley11 said:

    JamesSeed said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
    Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.

    And you can tell that to GM !!
    And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
    No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.

    Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
    I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.

    Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.

    In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.

    What is holding it up then?
    New CEO is just waiting for the next DFS sale to start..
  • se9addick said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
    No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.

    I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
    So if this is such a sticking point with the Aussies, shouldn't we be a bit concerned about what they intend to with the land?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Rothko said:

    se9addick said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
    No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.

    I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
    So what are the other issues then?
    Roland fell over trying to put his kecks on in his bedroom, broke his fall with his arms but fractured both wrists which are now in plaster and he can't sign the contract.
  • So we agree......

    The ex-directors don't have a say whether the loans are rolled over - so none of the 7 are unilaterally holding up the deal. They do not need to be consulted.

    The amount to be repaid is sometime in the future.....maybe never. When it is repaid it is at a time when (all thing being equal) the amount to be repaid is a small amount of what would be then available.

    Good. Glad thats settled.

    Plus whoever takes us over and gets us to the Premier League would easily afford the 7 million when the rewards would be sailing through the 150 million barrier.
  • So we agree......

    The ex-directors don't have a say whether the loans are rolled over - so none of the 7 are unilaterally holding up the deal. They do not need to be consulted.

    The amount to be repaid is sometime in the future.....maybe never. When it is repaid it is at a time when (all thing being equal) the amount to be repaid is a small amount of what would be then available.

    Good. Glad thats settled.

    Let’s say you were buying a house and agreed to pay 200k. Just before exchange of contracts you discovered that the owner owes a family member 50k and wants you to also pay that debt back. However you can do so any time in the next ten years, whenever it’s most convenient for you. Be happy with that would you?
    That’s not an accurate comparison at all. It would be more accurate to say that you have to agree to pay the current owners family member £50K only after you win the jackpot on the lottery.
  • DOUCHER said:

    se9addick said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
    No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.

    I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
    So if this is such a sticking point with the Aussies, shouldn't we be a bit concerned about what they intend to with the land?
    Behave.
  • Valley11 said:

    JamesSeed said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
    Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.

    And you can tell that to GM !!
    And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
    No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.

    Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
    I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.

    Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.

    In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.

    What is holding it up then?
    RD is gonna sell all our players first to leave us in the shite! That will be his revenge!!!
  • uie2 said:

    Valley11 said:

    JamesSeed said:

    For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.

    Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.

    Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

    The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??

    To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.

    So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.

    Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
    Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.

    And you can tell that to GM !!
    And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
    No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.

    Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
    I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.

    Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.

    In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.

    What is holding it up then?
    RD is gonna sell all our players first to leave us in the shite! That will be his revenge!!!
    Why bother making signings in that case?
  • vffvff
    edited July 2018
    On one level, I completely agree with golf addick, who says why should the ex directors loans be an issue, given the rewards of reaching the Premiership.

    On another level, I also completely see why new owners would baulk at taking on the debt on a number of different levels.

    They are already over paying & Duchatelet is busy deconstructing the squad that looks like making this season a write off in terms of anything but preparing for a promotion push next season. If the settlement of ex directors loans wasn’t clear (find this difficult to believe) or goal posts moved ( more believable) it is 7 million on an already over inflated price. I would worry about the financial acumen of the new owners.

    Then I am reading that the ex directors is a red herring & not the only or even main issue. It is some unstated thing that I am presuming no one can talk about due to commercial confidentiality or non disclosure agreements.

    Whilst all this goes on, Duchatelet downgrades the squad & replaces stronger players with weaker ones with incomprehensible dumb player deals. The club being spun closer to league 2 than getting out of league 1.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!