Wolves have just won Promotion to the Premier with a wind fall of 200 million because of TV rights etc.
If the ex directors payments are 7 million for promotion to the promise land then WHY is this such a stumbling block, as in that unlikely senario it would be 3.5% of said windfall.
7 million is a fortune to a struggling league 1 club who are penny pinching and buying at Poundland, BUT not to a newly promoted Premier club buying at Harrods.
Do the payments to the ex directors go up pro rata on the monies received from TV, increased crowds and merchandising etc when premier status is achieved ?
I'm still believe Duchatelet is to blame for this impasse but i can't see why this has become such a problem ?
I think some people are getting a little ahead of themselves. If the Aussies do manage to buy us, what makes you think it is a given that we will get to the Championship let alone the top flight?
£7m would represent a huge transfer budget at this level and to have to pay this money out unnecessarily makes no business sense at all.
It makes complete sense that Roland would clear the debt to make the sale though. As we know though Roland isn't known for making sensible business choices around football matters.
You haven't read what I said !
In the unlikely event of Cafc getting into the premier( it ain't going to happen)
Then and only then will the 7 million need to be paid. Wolves will make 200 million for getting into the premier. 3.5% if they had a similar issue of 7 million to be paid.
I did, but perhaps didn't allow enough for your emphisis, however, I assume that the Aussies will have ambitions to get into the Prem, unlike Roland. Nothing wrong with ambition.
If I were a businessman looking to get a club into the Prem, then I wouldn't want this debt to have to be paid up taking the gloss and most importantly, profit off the achievement. The debt is Roland's and he needs to clear it or reduce the fee for the club by £7m.
Take a look at the last figures for Prem clubs, there are some big profits for some clubs, but Watford only made £3m, £2m the year before. Man City didn't make a profit, others lost money. Simply getting an extra £200m income doesn't guarantee a profit. If I was in the Aussie consortium, I wouldn't take the club unless the £7m debt was cleared beforehand.
Yes, I probably wouldn't want to pay it either but as I said in an earlier post, its time to shit or get off the pot. Finding £7m sometime in the future isn't really the problem if you now have to find another £5m in 1-2 years time because you dithered around for months & your spanking new toy has slithered its way into League 2. Just total false economy in my view. Last time I talk about it as I see lots of you have a different opinion...........but I'll let you know I'll be the one shouting out at the twonks when we're playing Bury or Carlise next season.
Wolves have just won Promotion to the Premier with a wind fall of 200 million because of TV rights etc.
If the ex directors payments are 7 million for promotion to the promise land then WHY is this such a stumbling block, as in that unlikely senario it would be 3.5% of said windfall.
7 million is a fortune to a struggling league 1 club who are penny pinching and buying at Poundland, BUT not to a newly promoted Premier club buying at Harrods.
Do the payments to the ex directors go up pro rata on the monies received from TV, increased crowds and merchandising etc when premier status is achieved ?
I'm still believe Duchatelet is to blame for this impasse but i can't see why this has become such a problem ?
I think some people are getting a little ahead of themselves. If the Aussies do manage to buy us, what makes you think it is a given that we will get to the Championship let alone the top flight?
£7m would represent a huge transfer budget at this level and to have to pay this money out unnecessarily makes no business sense at all.
It makes complete sense that Roland would clear the debt to make the sale though. As we know though Roland isn't known for making sensible business choices around football matters.
You haven't read what I said !
In the unlikely event of Cafc getting into the premier( it ain't going to happen)
Then and only then will the 7 million need to be paid. Wolves will make 200 million for getting into the premier. 3.5% if they had a similar issue of 7 million to be paid.
I did, but perhaps didn't allow enough for your emphisis, however, I assume that the Aussies will have ambitions to get into the Prem, unlike Roland. Nothing wrong with ambition.
If I were a businessman looking to get a club into the Prem, then I wouldn't want this debt to have to be paid up taking the gloss and most importantly, profit off the achievement. The debt is Roland's and he needs to clear it or reduce the fee for the club by £7m.
Take a look at the last figures for Prem clubs, there are some big profits for some clubs, but Watford only made £3m, £2m the year before. Man City didn't make a profit, others lost money. Simply getting an extra £200m income doesn't guarantee a profit. If I was in the Aussie consortium, I wouldn't take the club unless the £7m debt was cleared beforehand.
Yes, I probably wouldn't want to pay it either but as I said in an earlier post, its time to shit or get off the pot. Finding £7m sometime in the future isn't really the problem if you now have to find another £5m in 1-2 years time because you dithered around for months & your spanking new toy has slithered its way into League 2. Just total false economy in my view. Last time I talk about it as I see lots of you have a different opinion...........but I'll let you know I'll be the one shouting out at the twonks when we're playing Bury or Carlise next season.
If the £7m was paid off it would only increase the value of the club. The only issue with it is likely the value each party is placing on it as a liability. The Aussies might be treating it as a full £7m liability whilst Roland might be arguing that it isn't due to it being paid back at time when it would be chump change in comparison to the premier league money.
Anyone who has a 5-year plan to get into the PL that does not include, at minimum, £100M in spending in that period... is a fool.
To get to (and have a chance at staying) in the PL, we would need tens of millions in infrastructure improvements at The Valley (it would be one of the smallest stadiums in the PL), another £10-20M at the training ground (It took Wolves a total of £40M to reach Category One), and probably FFP-busting levels of spending.
It took Brighton almost a decade and £200M to do so.
Getting out of L1 is one thing.... getting out of the Championship when every year three new clubs get massive parachute payments to compete against you and at any one time there might be 6-7 teams getting some level of them, and other teams are willing to risk going bust every year (Villa, for example).... is entirely another.
Anyone who has a 5-year plan to get into the PL that does not include, at minimum, £100M in spending in that period... is a fool.
To get to (and have a chance at staying) in the PL, we would need tens of millions in infrastructure improvements at The Valley (it would be one of the smallest stadiums in the PL), another £10-20M at the training ground (It took Wolves a total of £40M to reach Category One), and probably FFP-busting levels of spending.
It took Brighton almost a decade and £200M to do so.
Getting out of L1 is one thing.... getting out of the Championship when every year three new clubs get massive parachute payments to compete against you and at any one time there might be 6-7 teams getting some level of them, and other teams are willing to risk going bust every year (Villa, for example).... is entirely another.
Millwall scared the shit out of all of us last year on a shoestring budget. It’s not easy but it’s possible to have a good run at it despite the PL teams dropping down. Remind me where Sunderland are ?
Scratching. Please stop guessing. Golfie has provided a logical arguement. I have not even seen any evidence that the debentures have led to a charge on the Valley. Can someone do a simple Land Registry sesrch to clarify? SE7 8BL.
A debenture is a long-term security yielding a fixed rate of interest, issued by a company and secured against assets.
Yet you are questioning whether there is a charge, unbelievable.
Your questioning is no different to questioning whether someone with a mortgage has a charge on their property by the lender.
Scratching. Please stop guessing. Golfie has provided a logical arguement. I have not even seen any evidence that the debentures have led to a charge on the Valley. Can someone do a simple Land Registry sesrch to clarify? SE7 8BL.
A debenture is a long-term security yielding a fixed rate of interest, issued by a company and secured against assets.
Yet you are questioning whether there is a charge, unbelievable.
Your questioning is no different to questioning whether someone with a mortgage has a charge on their property by the lender.
And although unlikely, the land might still be Unregistered, in which case a search at the Land Registry would not reveal anything. You would then need to search on the Land Charges Register IIRC. This would have been a basic simultaneous procedure for lawyers acting for the former Directors when registering the Debentures at Companies House and the LR or on the LCR.
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.
What about if they want to sell the club in 2-3 years time and we haven't reached the premier league, and the new buyer insists they cover off the 7m debt?
Ticket income isn’t that important in the Prem as it’s dwarfed by tv money, Valley we are told is ‘Premier grade’ anyway. Yes training ground needs work but we knew that.
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.
Or they literally are only in this for 5 years. If they make the premiership the loans do mean a great deal as they can get out with a large profit! However if they dont (more likely) and they want out in 5 years the only real concrete assets are the ground and training facilities. Having a 7 mill exposure against them erodes their worth and thus consequently they will pay as it will affect any sale price and will reduce their ability to recoup a chunk of their losses! Just a thought
5 year plan doesn't imply they want to sell up after 5 years. Fairly sure that's not the intention.
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.
Or they literally are only in this for 5 years. If they make the premiership the loans do mean a great deal as they can get out with a large profit! However if they dont (more likely) and they want out in 5 years the only real concrete assets are the ground and training facilities. Having a 7 mill exposure against them erodes their worth and thus consequently they will pay as it will affect any sale price and will reduce their ability to recoup a chunk of their losses! Just a thought
5 year plan doesn't imply they want to sell up after 5 years. Fairly sure that's not the intention.
Suddenly we’re talking about them selling. Have I missed something ? I know we like to get ahead of ourselves on here but it’s still far from certain they will actually buy us.
Anyone who has a 5-year plan to get into the PL that does not include, at minimum, £100M in spending in that period... is a fool.
To get to (and have a chance at staying) in the PL, we would need tens of millions in infrastructure improvements at The Valley (it would be one of the smallest stadiums in the PL), another £10-20M at the training ground (It took Wolves a total of £40M to reach Category One), and probably FFP-busting levels of spending.
It took Brighton almost a decade and £200M to do so.
Getting out of L1 is one thing.... getting out of the Championship when every year three new clubs get massive parachute payments to compete against you and at any one time there might be 6-7 teams getting some level of them, and other teams are willing to risk going bust every year (Villa, for example).... is entirely another.
Disagree with your figures there mate (surprisingly considering it’s you ) 5-grand for a boiler, 5-grand to connect it, 30-grand for new Fryers that can cope with 22-chips in one go and bobs your uncle, chump change from £50k, might be able to fill in a couple of pot holes with that...
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.
Or they literally are only in this for 5 years. If they make the premiership the loans do mean a great deal as they can get out with a large profit! However if they dont (more likely) and they want out in 5 years the only real concrete assets are the ground and training facilities. Having a 7 mill exposure against them erodes their worth and thus consequently they will pay as it will affect any sale price and will reduce their ability to recoup a chunk of their losses! Just a thought
5 year plan doesn't imply they want to sell up after 5 years. Fairly sure that's not the intention.
Suddenly we’re talking about them selling. Have I missed something ? I know we like to get ahead of ourselves on here but it’s still far from certain they will actually buy us.
It was being talked about on here earlier. Some suspicions about their motives etc. (Not blaming anyone or anything!)
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.
Or they literally are only in this for 5 years. If they make the premiership the loans do mean a great deal as they can get out with a large profit! However if they dont (more likely) and they want out in 5 years the only real concrete assets are the ground and training facilities. Having a 7 mill exposure against them erodes their worth and thus consequently they will pay as it will affect any sale price and will reduce their ability to recoup a chunk of their losses! Just a thought
5 year plan doesn't imply they want to sell up after 5 years. Fairly sure that's not the intention.
Suddenly we’re talking about them selling. Have I missed something ? I know we like to get ahead of ourselves on here but it’s still far from certain they will actually buy us.
It was being talked about on here earlier. Some suspicions about their motives etc. (Not blaming anyone or anything!)
They actually have to complete first, which will in itself be a miracle
I would guess that the loans have a simple change of control clause which will require the loans to either be repaid in full on change of control or rolled over when the change of control happens. It would appear that the Aussies do not want to have the debt and have suggested that RD pays it off out of the consideration that they will pay. RD has to negotiate a fair value for the loans and the former directors are not giving away the potential right to future repayment on the cheap. Be clear, the former directors will have loaned the £7m and for them to take anything less than £7m back they will be making a personal loss The former directors will be unhappy about being nickle and dimed by RD particularly since, when they agreed the last rollover, we were a championship club with the potential to get into the premier league when the loans would have become due. RD is therefore attempting to increase his return on sale by reducing the value of loans made by the former directors at a time when the club was in dire straights. Possible to describe this as a vulture picking the bones clean.
Not according to the ex-directors or the person who drew up the deal - no consent is required.
Airman Review the debentures, some of the terms of which are shown in the charge schedule at Companies House. There is a clear Negative Pledge clause in the debenture which shows that no-one else can take a charge over the assets of the Company without the agreement of the debenture holders. No-one in their right mind would acquire a company whose fixed and floating assets are or can be taken under charge by the debenture holders. Therefore agreement of the debenture holders will be needed. They must have tacitly agreed to the acquisition by RD. However, if a consortium were to acquire the company they would want to secure the assets for themselves and would therefore look to take a first charge on the assets that they were acquiring and would look to relegate the the existing debenture to second rank otherwise they have bought fresh air. To do this they either have to buy out the debentures, have them bought out or seek agreement of the debenture holders to change the ranking of the debt.
The summary shown at companies house is fairly clear, but it doesn't of course include all of the terms in the debenture document only the terms which were considered salient at the time of filing. It is possible that a specific change of control clause is buried in the master document which will run to many more pages than the summary. However the negative pledge which is highlighted has a similar effect. I have attempted to link the document here but it may be simpler to go onto the companies house website to download. The charges are over Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, not the owners.
Anyone who has a 5-year plan to get into the PL that does not include, at minimum, £100M in spending in that period... is a fool.
To get to (and have a chance at staying) in the PL, we would need tens of millions in infrastructure improvements at The Valley (it would be one of the smallest stadiums in the PL), another £10-20M at the training ground (It took Wolves a total of £40M to reach Category One), and probably FFP-busting levels of spending.
It took Brighton almost a decade and £200M to do so.
Getting out of L1 is one thing.... getting out of the Championship when every year three new clubs get massive parachute payments to compete against you and at any one time there might be 6-7 teams getting some level of them, and other teams are willing to risk going bust every year (Villa, for example).... is entirely another.
I don’t know where you get your figures from but I doubt Burnley, Huddersfield etc spent anywhere near 100m to get into the PL.
As for ground size you don’t need a big capacity to survive in the PL because Gate income when compared to TV income is miniscule. Our capacity is already higher than a number of PL Clubs. Yes it could do with some improvements but tens of millions, no way.
ok, it's nowhere near the 7million owed to former directors but who has got my £50 which I put into The Valley Investment Plan many years ago?
My certificate (number 289) appears to be worded in such a way that it could be construed as being realised as a dividend some day.
If it is Roland's accrued debt then perhaps I should ask for it back although I don't necessarily want it, especially if it would hold up the takeover!!!
BTW the certificate is signed by Chris Parkes as authorised signatory for Charlton Athletic FC.
Comments
The only issue with it is likely the value each party is placing on it as a liability. The Aussies might be treating it as a full £7m liability whilst Roland might be arguing that it isn't due to it being paid back at time when it would be chump change in comparison to the premier league money.
It’s the name of a Palace fanzine....
To get to (and have a chance at staying) in the PL, we would need tens of millions in infrastructure improvements at The Valley (it would be one of the smallest stadiums in the PL), another £10-20M at the training ground (It took Wolves a total of £40M to reach Category One), and probably FFP-busting levels of spending.
It took Brighton almost a decade and £200M to do so.
Getting out of L1 is one thing.... getting out of the Championship when every year three new clubs get massive parachute payments to compete against you and at any one time there might be 6-7 teams getting some level of them, and other teams are willing to risk going bust every year (Villa, for example).... is entirely another.
A debenture is a long-term security yielding a fixed rate of interest, issued by a company and secured against assets.
Yet you are questioning whether there is a charge, unbelievable.
Your questioning is no different to questioning whether someone with a mortgage has a charge on their property by the lender.
It's then their debt and they've lost 7m.
You'll be surprised on how many people have disagreed with me on this in the past.
(surprisingly considering it’s you
5-grand for a boiler, 5-grand to connect it,
30-grand for new Fryers that can cope with 22-chips in one go and bobs your uncle, chump change from £50k, might be able to fill in a couple of pot holes with that...
(Not blaming anyone or anything!)
Review the debentures, some of the terms of which are shown in the charge schedule at Companies House. There is a clear Negative Pledge clause in the debenture which shows that no-one else can take a charge over the assets of the Company without the agreement of the debenture holders. No-one in their right mind would acquire a company whose fixed and floating assets are or can be taken under charge by the debenture holders. Therefore agreement of the debenture holders will be needed. They must have tacitly agreed to the acquisition by RD. However, if a consortium were to acquire the company they would want to secure the assets for themselves and would therefore look to take a first charge on the assets that they were acquiring and would look to relegate the the existing debenture to second rank otherwise they have bought fresh air. To do this they either have to buy out the debentures, have them bought out or seek agreement of the debenture holders to change the ranking of the debt.
The summary shown at companies house is fairly clear, but it doesn't of course include all of the terms in the debenture document only the terms which were considered salient at the time of filing. It is possible that a specific change of control clause is buried in the master document which will run to many more pages than the summary. However the negative pledge which is highlighted has a similar effect. I have attempted to link the document here but it may be simpler to go onto the companies house website to download. The charges are over Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, not the owners.
https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/UWwV_IDaZ2dloGGN4VDPMse2KmjkUR_Y5xiVfcT17Nw/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAIQN5XM5JG3BQVZUQ/20180729/eu-west-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20180729T214103Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=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&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=c3ce963d54cbf8aeefd99f3c6b2851e1a566d4a5c3a513c9fbde087a35318549
I don’t know where you get your figures from but I doubt Burnley, Huddersfield etc spent anywhere near 100m to get into the PL.
As for ground size you don’t need a big capacity to survive in the PL because Gate income when compared to TV income is miniscule. Our capacity is already higher than a number of PL Clubs. Yes it could do with some improvements but tens of millions, no way.
My certificate (number 289) appears to be worded in such a way that it could be construed as being realised as a dividend some day.
If it is Roland's accrued debt then perhaps I should ask for it back although I don't necessarily want it, especially if it would hold up the takeover!!!
BTW the certificate is signed by Chris Parkes as authorised signatory for Charlton Athletic FC.