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?
Without reading the full debenture document rather than the extract at Companies House I cannot know whether consent would be formally required. However since the charge relates to all the assets of the club present and future with the exception of the operating assets then as you correctly highlight it would be a fool that buys them without securing the agreement of the charge holders. Remember that the charge would extend to such things as the incomplete and non operational undersoil heating and the IP of the club such as trade marks.
It is indeed the reason why a more complex ownership may wish to have individual charges themselves to rank above the current charges. It is possible that Muir will own the Company but the investors in the consortium will seek to have an element of control by means of a charge rather than through equity.
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.
Actually the new owners would own the assets in mortgaged form, they could not do anything with the fixed assets without the lenders permission.Thus the need to remove charges upfront, as any funding they wished to do would be secondary to the Directors Loans and unsecured. Negative Pledge is key as it prevents anyone from taking any secondary charge behind Directors without their permission, therefore if assets were worth say £40mn and current charges are £7mn the new buyer can't use the other £33mn as security on loans without Directors permission. As someone above said what Investor other then Roland would put themselves in that predicament, they would want clean title. When Roland bought the Club the Directors Loans were behind the Bank giving the Overdraft and the Mortgage on the Stadium, Roland repaid both and charges were released thus moving Directors Loans to top of the Debt pile and to First Charge over Assets, not sure he ever realised what he did at that point, until recently.
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.
Well, who knows? But I personally don't see "consortium members" as "lending" money. I'd see them as becoming "members", in common parlance, shareholders, in the Australian Football Consortium Ltd. That entity's skimpy website seems clear on little other than it is raising "capital". Unless they are using incorrect terminology, I'd read that as seeking shareholders rather than lenders.
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.
Take off your rose-tinted specs. The offers received haven't yet been large enough to cover the costs of paying off BFG the balance of his contract. He was signed at the peak of CAFC fuckwit value contracts, hence he's still with us. That and roly's tenure has seen ludicrous amounts paid to agents. Bolton, Blackburn or whoever will need to stump up plenty gelt to obtain BFG and to leave tooshits with a few €uros to pay down any of his brainless losses. As soon as the offer nets the plutotwat a divi, he'll green light it. Add in the chance that BFG might get to the point he thinks he'll be better of some/anywhere else and our best hope of keeping him is if he does a hammy on August 7th.
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.
That’s not my point though is it. Yes of course there is a correlation between money spent and relative success. My point is that a well run club doing things in the right way with a manager and supporters in alignment can be more than the sum of its parts.
If you want another example I’ll give you Shrewsbury last season.
Exactly how much would you be willing to bet that Millwall don’t scare us again next season ? Get back to me.
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.
That’s not my point though is it. Yes of course there is a correlation between money spent and relative success. My point is that a well run club doing things in the right way with a manager and supporters in alignment can be more than the sum of its parts.
If you want another example I’ll give you Shrewsbury last season.
Exactly how much would you be willing to bet that Millwall don’t scare us again next season ? Get back to me.
I dream of being a yo-yo club
The only problem is that neither of your examples actually achieved promotion...
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?
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.
That’s not my point though is it. Yes of course there is a correlation between money spent and relative success. My point is that a well run club doing things in the right way with a manager and supporters in alignment can be more than the sum of its parts.
If you want another example I’ll give you Shrewsbury last season.
Exactly how much would you be willing to bet that Millwall don’t scare us again next season ? Get back to me.
I dream of being a yo-yo club
The only problem is that neither of your examples actually achieved promotion...
True but it does show that you can compete with the right ownership. A manager that fits the club and the whole club including supporters pulling together. Sadly Millwall have all of that in place.
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.
That’s not my point though is it. Yes of course there is a correlation between money spent and relative success. My point is that a well run club doing things in the right way with a manager and supporters in alignment can be more than the sum of its parts.
If you want another example I’ll give you Shrewsbury last season.
Exactly how much would you be willing to bet that Millwall don’t scare us again next season ? Get back to me.
I dream of being a yo-yo club
The only problem is that neither of your examples actually achieved promotion...
True but it does show that you can compete with the right ownership. A manager that fits the club and the whole club including supporters pulling together. Sadly Millwall have all of that in place.
Right, of course, but if your plan was to get to the Premier League in five years you’d surely be preparing to spend Wolves type money to get there rather than relying on a Millwall/Shrewsbury style near miss?
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.
You are familiar are you not, that businesses routinely need/use overdraft facilities, factoring, invoice financing, to manage their working capital, specifically cash needs? Not so long ago CAFC's working overdraft facility was of the order of £1M - just for day to day cashflow management. VAT bills, PAYE/NI bills to name just 2 can be seriously spiky and, officially at least, there is no credit facility to be had. The existence of a list of first charges is highly likely to compromise this business's access to overdraft and credit facilities, with consequences for the cost of any such financing. In the absence of affordable working capital finance, any putative new regime would have to have, and maintain, liquid funds sufficient to meet all foreseeable overheads and liabilities, in a business which at the last count was paying staff costs 1.5 times higher than its total income, total operating costs almost 3 times the revenue. I put it to you that the existence of prior claims on Charlton's assets is critical to any reasoned assessment of it's viability. The very fact that tooshits completely overlooked or ignored it 4 and a bit years ago, just adds weight to how important this theoretical £7M actually is. Of course if £7M is the sort of sum you've got down the back of the sofa, then cough up and we and the Aussies can get on with the future unencumbered by such a triviality.
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.
You are familiar are you not, that businesses routinely need/use overdraft facilities, factoring, invoice financing, to manage their working capital, specifically cash needs? Not so long ago CAFC's working overdraft facility was of the order of £1M - just for day to day cashflow management. VAT bills, PAYE/NI bills to name just 2 can be seriously spiky and, officially at least, there is no credit facility to be had. The existence of a list of first charges is highly likely to compromise this business's access to overdraft and credit facilities, with consequences for the cost of any such financing. In the absence of affordable working capital finance, any putative new regime would have to have, and maintain, liquid funds sufficient to meet all foreseeable overheads and liabilities, in a business which at the last count was paying staff costs 1.5 times higher than its total income, total operating costs almost 3 times the revenue. I put it to you that the existence of prior claims on Charlton's assets is critical to any reasoned assessment of it's viability. The very fact that tooshits completely overlooked or ignored it 4 and a bit years ago, just adds weight to how important this theoretical £7M actually is. Of course if £7M is the sort of sum you've got down the back of the sofa, then cough up and we and the Aussies can get on with the future unencumbered by such a triviality.
Great news about Bauer. As Donald Fagan from Steeleye Span once said, an average player with a great attitude is better than a great player with an average attitude.
everyone getting excited about Bauer BUT he hasn't signed the offered contract and until he does there is definitely a chance someone will come in with an offer that Roland accepts. I'd hold fire until he signs one before getting carried away.
everyone getting excited about Bauer BUT he hasn't signed the offered contract and until he does there is definitely a chance someone will come in with an offer that Roland accepts. I'd hold fire until he signs one before getting carried away.
This, it looks a lot like a Roland come and get me ploy..........
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.
That’s not my point though is it. Yes of course there is a correlation between money spent and relative success. My point is that a well run club doing things in the right way with a manager and supporters in alignment can be more than the sum of its parts.
If you want another example I’ll give you Shrewsbury last season.
Exactly how much would you be willing to bet that Millwall don’t scare us again next season ? Get back to me.
I dream of being a yo-yo club
The only problem is that neither of your examples actually achieved promotion...
True but it does show that you can compete with the right ownership. A manager that fits the club and the whole club including supporters pulling together. Sadly Millwall have all of that in place.
Right, of course, but if your plan was to get to the Premier League in five years you’d surely be preparing to spend Wolves type money to get there rather than relying on a Millwall/Shrewsbury style near miss?
Oh I agree. Any serious ambition requires serious money but from what I gather if the Aussies do eventually buy us i think the plan will be more in alignment with trying to get the best background expertise and people in place to give the players every chance of achieving success rather than throwing money at it.
Great news about BFG. There must of been some highly persuasive chats behind the scene for him to even consider staying which should be seen as a positive sign for the future. It’s gonna happen!
Great news about Bauer. As Donald Fagan from Steeleye Span once said, an average player with a great attitude is better than a great player with an average attitude.
The debentures are with Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
Not true, no other charges can be made without Ex Directors permission and only one has to say no. The Negative Pledge stops subsequent charges, why did Roland not take charges because he couldn't, he remained unsecured.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
Comments
“Oh I see what you the good news first, and the bad news second”
It is indeed the reason why a more complex ownership may wish to have individual charges themselves to rank above the current charges. It is possible that Muir will own the Company but the investors in the consortium will seek to have an element of control by means of a charge rather than through equity.
Negative Pledge is key as it prevents anyone from taking any secondary charge behind Directors without their permission, therefore if assets were worth say £40mn and current charges are £7mn the new buyer can't use the other £33mn as security on loans without Directors permission.
As someone above said what Investor other then Roland would put themselves in that predicament, they would want clean title.
When Roland bought the Club the Directors Loans were behind the Bank giving the Overdraft and the Mortgage on the Stadium, Roland repaid both and charges were released thus moving Directors Loans to top of the Debt pile and to First Charge over Assets, not sure he ever realised what he did at that point, until recently.
The offers received haven't yet been large enough to cover the costs of paying off BFG the balance of his contract. He was signed at the peak of CAFC fuckwit value contracts, hence he's still with us. That and roly's tenure has seen ludicrous amounts paid to agents. Bolton, Blackburn or whoever will need to stump up plenty gelt to obtain BFG and to leave tooshits with a few €uros to pay down any of his brainless losses. As soon as the offer nets the plutotwat a divi, he'll green light it. Add in the chance that BFG might get to the point he thinks he'll be better of some/anywhere else and our best hope of keeping him is if he does a hammy on August 7th.
FECK THIS THREAD
If you want another example I’ll give you Shrewsbury last season.
Exactly how much would you be willing to bet that Millwall don’t scare us again next season ? Get back to me.
I dream of being a yo-yo club
As Donald Fagan from Steeleye Span once said, an average player with a great attitude is better than a great player with an average attitude.
Roland out!
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Negative Pledge stops subsequent charges, why did Roland not take charges because he couldn't, he remained unsecured.
There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ?
They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?