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.
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.
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.
Perhaps there will be another 5 year plan? And a couple of years to sort it out? As I said just my thoughts and off course a 5 year plan does not imply anything specific at the end but by the fact people (not me) state its is a 5 year plan there must be some contingency (or get out) for investors at the end if the plan fails to deliver it goals.
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 ?
Look up the average money spent by clubs to get out of L1 to the PL the last 10 years and then get back to me. Your one single example of a shoestring does not compare to what others have spent. Especially those who stayed a while like Leicester, Watford, Bournemouth, even Palace. Huddersfield are toast this year because they just don't have enough infrastructure to compete. I don't want to be a yo-yo club.
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.
New owners would not need a charge on the assets because they own the assets! A charge-holder could be, for example, a bank that had lent them the money to acquire. (In a way very similar to the charge held by the bank which provided finance for the north stand development, which has since been paid off.)
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.
Well quite - but that is EXACTLY what Roland Duchatelet did. Various people have expressed their incredulity on that point to me many times.
It’s presumably because the charges are over the assets rather than the owners that consent is not required, was not sought in 2014 and was not received, although it was needed from the banks in both 2010 and 2014. There now being no bank debt, those charges have been released (one very recently).
It was always my assumption consent on the debentures was needed. It was the ex-directors who told me otherwise. I assume they would know.
I guess the fact that Staprix is sole owner negates the need to take a charge that secures the Staprix loan but explains why a more complex ownership might need to do so?
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.
This is the view of at least half a dozen posters on here. (Including me) This is the perception of the two sides. Of course the Aussies would prefer to wipe the slate clean at the beginning because that is the normal business template BUT this is the crazy world of football where agent fees far exceed 7 million in the premier.
This really shouldn't be the big issue that it's reporting to be by folk in contact with ex directors.
The big losers in this impasse is our football club, Charlton Athletic, the club many of us said we would support till we die. No get out clause from that; HELP.
Your wrong Johnny because it felt like any money would buy our current players, and replaced by free transfers on less wages.
Patrick Bauer who has been a steady player for CAFC was signed on a half decent Championship wage. If he has been offered (doesn't say accepted) a new contract then it can't be more but is it the same or even slightly less than he was on before ?
Definitely news, and surprising in the current Charlton Rexit negotiations.
I think that Bauer being offered a new contract is positive news regarding the takeover. The new owners recognise the importance of signing up our best players in readiness for the promotion push
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.
New owners would not need a charge on the assets because they own the assets! A charge-holder could be, for example, a bank that had lent them the money to acquire. (In a way very similar to the charge held by the bank which provided finance for the north stand development, which has since been paid off.)
I was very specific in referring to a "consortium" not a new owner. The consortium members may wish to each take a charge over the assets to secure their individual lending to the consortium. It has always been referred to as a consortium not an individual or a single legal corporate entity that would be acquiring. IT could be that the lead individual (Muir) is acquiring the equity and the consortium members are lending into his organisation and would therefore need their own security.
Comments
Good luck with that
You woke up thirty eight minutes earlier than me.
“An exciting week ahead
Well quite - but that is EXACTLY what Roland Duchatelet did. Various people have expressed their incredulity on that point to me many times.
It’s presumably because the charges are over the assets rather than the owners that consent is not required, was not sought in 2014 and was not received, although it was needed from the banks in both 2010 and 2014. There now being no bank debt, those charges have been released (one very recently).
It was always my assumption consent on the debentures was needed. It was the ex-directors who told me otherwise. I assume they would know.
I guess the fact that Staprix is sole owner negates the need to take a charge that secures the Staprix loan but explains why a more complex ownership might need to do so?
This is the perception of the two sides.
Of course the Aussies would prefer to wipe the slate clean at the beginning because that is the normal business template BUT this is the crazy world of football where agent fees far exceed 7 million in the premier.
This really shouldn't be the big issue that it's reporting to be by folk in contact with ex directors.
The big losers in this impasse is our football club, Charlton Athletic, the club many of us said we would support till we die.
No get out clause from that;
HELP.
Patrick Bauer who has been a steady player for CAFC was signed on a half decent Championship wage. If he has been offered (doesn't say accepted) a new contract then it can't be more but is it the same or even slightly less than he was on before ?
Definitely news, and surprising in the current Charlton Rexit negotiations.
Edit: Bauer news.
I thought we already knew that?