The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
That was Ivan Gazidis, not Usmanov.nth london addick said:Was linked with being the ceo of an Italian club last week as well
All player sales right now are a sign to me he is using the cash to pay the bills
Taking from peter to pay Paul my nan would’ve said
That’s why when big josh left I believe that was the sign the deal is dead
The Aussies (should they miraculously have found the investors required to bridge the gap ) would be bat shit crazy to buy this club and have no chance in getting in the players required to stabilize it until the next window opens2 -
It's good but not right, same as my Blackpool shout but even more recent as last season. Now Championship.randy andy said:Swansea
0 -
One missing from premier league but ex 4th is Cardiff1 -
Proof that the deluded old plum was wrong in everything he aimed to do.The Red Robin said:9 -
23
-
We're doomed I tell ye, doomed!cfgs said:
Proof that the deluded old plum was wrong in everything he aimed to do.The Red Robin said:
0 -
Some intriguing theories - indeed at the FF when I questioned whether the arrangement for player sales was like for like (off the asking price) I was told no but there was a ‘mechanism’ for dealing with it. Perhaps even the number of sales or positions or even named players or a combination of the above, that could be potentially sold was agreed? Might explain a lot, big assumption though of course, but it explains Bowyers assertion around the number of outs/ins, also explains the painful 2 weeks comment, although the real world is a different matter, but perhaps, perhaps...
Edit: the best part of this theory for me would be NLA being ‘wrong’.. 2 -
I have no idea what any of those sentences mean.razil said:Some intriguing theories - indeed at the FF when I questioned whether the arrangement for player sales was like for like (off the asking price) I was told no but there was a ‘mechanism’ for dealing with it. Perhaps even the number of sales or positions or even named players or a combination of the above, that could be potentially sold was agreed? Might explain a lot, big assumption though of course, but it explains Bowyers assertion around the number of outs/ins, also explains the painful 2 weeks comment, although the real world is a different matter, but perhaps, perhaps...
14 -
Those sorts of numbers do show the complete financial mess Roland made of running the clubThe Red Robin said:
It also shows that calling him an "asset stripper" is inaccurate, as that would imply he's making money out of his ownership of us, when in reality what's he's doing is trying to reduce the losses he's made (caused by his mismanagement). When a club is losing money, either you have to put in money (from the owner or bank) to cover the losses OR you sell the family silver (i.e. players) to cover the losses...
0 -
Best I can do on a bus from Heraklion airportChizz said:
I have no idea what any of those sentences mean.razil said:Some intriguing theories - indeed at the FF when I questioned whether the arrangement for player sales was like for like (off the asking price) I was told no but there was a ‘mechanism’ for dealing with it. Perhaps even the number of sales or positions or even named players or a combination of the above, that could be potentially sold was agreed? Might explain a lot, big assumption though of course, but it explains Bowyers assertion around the number of outs/ins, also explains the painful 2 weeks comment, although the real world is a different matter, but perhaps, perhaps...
5 - Sponsored links:
-
Hull and Wigan have also been in the prem since they were in the 4th tierSheffieldRed said:
One missing from premier league but ex 4th is Cardiff1 -
Good job we've got a decent youth system otherwise he would have lost some serious money!The Red Robin said:2 -
Should've written it in Greek and given us a chance to comprehend itrazil said:
Best I can do on a bus from Heraklion airportChizz said:
I have no idea what any of those sentences mean.razil said:Some intriguing theories - indeed at the FF when I questioned whether the arrangement for player sales was like for like (off the asking price) I was told no but there was a ‘mechanism’ for dealing with it. Perhaps even the number of sales or positions or even named players or a combination of the above, that could be potentially sold was agreed? Might explain a lot, big assumption though of course, but it explains Bowyers assertion around the number of outs/ins, also explains the painful 2 weeks comment, although the real world is a different matter, but perhaps, perhaps...
4 -
Come onto this thread occasionally and I am now convinced this takeover is well and truly dead so we can look forward to the old fucker pillaging what is left.4
-
I guess it depends on what he does with inward funds. For example, did Lookman money (in real terms to the club debt) go on the training ground, covering running costs or into RD’s pocket? Is there a way he could have taken that money for himself as a kind of dividend and loaned it back to the club?killerandflash said:
Those sorts of numbers do show the complete financial mess Roland made of running the clubThe Red Robin said:
It also shows that calling him an "asset stripper" is inaccurate, as that would imply he's making money out of his ownership of us, when in reality what's he's doing is trying to reduce the losses he's made (caused by his mismanagement). When a club is losing money, either you have to put in money (from the owner or bank) to cover the losses OR you sell the family silver (i.e. players) to cover the losses...1 -
The Lookman money went to balance that years accounts, so that Staprix did not have to loan any more money (at a 2% interest rate) to the Football Club. RD did not take any of it for his pocket. We were told it was earmarked to pay for the training ground (which would have been bankrolled by Staprix no doubt), but that is obviously not what happened as they have only dug a trench since then.Chrispy51 said:
I guess it depends on what he does with inward funds. For example, did Lookman money (in real terms to the club debt) go on the training ground, covering running costs or into RD’s pocket? Is there a way he could have taken that money for himself as a kind of dividend and loaned it back to the club?killerandflash said:
Those sorts of numbers do show the complete financial mess Roland made of running the clubThe Red Robin said:
It also shows that calling him an "asset stripper" is inaccurate, as that would imply he's making money out of his ownership of us, when in reality what's he's doing is trying to reduce the losses he's made (caused by his mismanagement). When a club is losing money, either you have to put in money (from the owner or bank) to cover the losses OR you sell the family silver (i.e. players) to cover the losses...6 -
Our position is only this way because the cost of acquiring is included in the figures as a loan rather than as a share ownership. This is because of the sister company Strapix. Also this sister company trousers some of the transfers fees so in no way is this correct financial position. The other clubs ownership are not shown this way hence the massive difference. Its friendly debt although that may have changed and doesn't have any direct security other than players contracts1
-
Effectively running costsChrispy51 said:
I guess it depends on what he does with inward funds. For example, did Lookman money (in real terms to the club debt) go on the training ground, covering running costs or into RD’s pocket? Is there a way he could have taken that money for himself as a kind of dividend and loaned it back to the club?killerandflash said:
Those sorts of numbers do show the complete financial mess Roland made of running the clubThe Red Robin said:
It also shows that calling him an "asset stripper" is inaccurate, as that would imply he's making money out of his ownership of us, when in reality what's he's doing is trying to reduce the losses he's made (caused by his mismanagement). When a club is losing money, either you have to put in money (from the owner or bank) to cover the losses OR you sell the family silver (i.e. players) to cover the losses...
At a MUCH smaller level, when we sold the likes of Minto, Webster and Bowyer in the 90s, these also helped cover the annual deficit
Other than the early work on the stadium (pitch, boilerless undersoil heating, some new seats) very little capital expenditure has been carried out, either at The Valley or Sparrows Lane.2 -
Feck this thread.
Feck this club.
Feck all the feckity stuff.3 -
And Daisy previously commented that most of the Kermorgant money went on the new pitch.killerandflash said:
Effectively running costsChrispy51 said:
I guess it depends on what he does with inward funds. For example, did Lookman money (in real terms to the club debt) go on the training ground, covering running costs or into RD’s pocket? Is there a way he could have taken that money for himself as a kind of dividend and loaned it back to the club?killerandflash said:
Those sorts of numbers do show the complete financial mess Roland made of running the clubThe Red Robin said:
It also shows that calling him an "asset stripper" is inaccurate, as that would imply he's making money out of his ownership of us, when in reality what's he's doing is trying to reduce the losses he's made (caused by his mismanagement). When a club is losing money, either you have to put in money (from the owner or bank) to cover the losses OR you sell the family silver (i.e. players) to cover the losses...
At a MUCH smaller level, when we sold the likes of Minto, Webster and Bowyer in the 90s, these also helped cover the annual deficit
Other than the early work on the stadium (pitch, boilerless undersoil heating, some new seats) very little capital expenditure has been carried out, either at The Valley or Sparrows Lane.1 - Sponsored links:
-
RD is a self-eating cannibal. Bon appetit!!
2 -
Nopesammy391 said:
Believe it’s arround an 18% stakeCovered End said:
Doesn't Harris own a stake in Palace ?sammy391 said:Two points I’ve been thinking about recently :
Could the ‘two weeks of problems but it’ll be worth it’ be a reference to essentially Duchâtelet asset stripping and making as much cash as he can in order for him to lower his price to enable the Aussies to buy at the price their happy/can afford?
And secondly , having just listened to Jon salako talking about his ‘wealthy investors’ who would want to move to the peninsular - how likely is that to be josh Harris?
In the radio interview , salako was waiting for his man to return from New York ... and surely salako has had dealings with harris from his time at Crystal Palace - as well as Harris knowing about the benefits etc of Charlton at the peninsular after seeing slater& Jimenez’ plans when he was interested in the club months/weeks before Duchâtelet finally bought us
Whether he would sell that is another question (if it even is Harris who’s interested!) but I’m under the assumption that you can own up to 25% of another club before it becomes a problem?
EDIT: think it may be 30% allowance
“The fit and proper test applies to all directors and individuals holding more than a 30% shareholding. Anyone who owns more than this shareholding in a FA Premier League football club would fall outside the remit of the fit and proper test and would be unable to own another club.”
The F&P test may only apply to 30+% holders but multiple holdings in football clubs is broadly prohibited by the FA/EFL.
Holdings in other clubs are only disregarded if they constitute less than 10% of voting rights in the other club(s) and are accepted as held only for investment purposes, i.e. the holder has no practical business involvement arising from that holding.
Clever people will always find ways to make their situations fit the rules written by less clever people. For the purposes of clarity: the FA and EFL are the less clever people in this example. By contrast mick'n'tony spiv were much cleverer than FA & EFL and we now know precisely how clever they actually were.
Stung by recent exposures of how far from 'Fit For Purpose' they have been, EFL & FA are making sure to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously and all that so any even slightly complex ownership structure will delay them aeons while they thumb back and forth through 'Company Law for Dummies', 'Football Ownership 101', 'Janet & John Go To The Match' and all the other organs of reference on the subject.4 -
It wasn't reinvested in anything CAFC.Pedro45 said:
The Lookman money went to balance that years accounts, so that Staprix did not have to loan any more money (at a 2% interest rate) to the Football Club. RD did not take any of it for his pocket. We were told it was earmarked to pay for the training ground (which would have been bankrolled by Staprix no doubt), but that is obviously not what happened as they have only dug a trench since then.Chrispy51 said:
I guess it depends on what he does with inward funds. For example, did Lookman money (in real terms to the club debt) go on the training ground, covering running costs or into RD’s pocket? Is there a way he could have taken that money for himself as a kind of dividend and loaned it back to the club?killerandflash said:
Those sorts of numbers do show the complete financial mess Roland made of running the clubThe Red Robin said:
It also shows that calling him an "asset stripper" is inaccurate, as that would imply he's making money out of his ownership of us, when in reality what's he's doing is trying to reduce the losses he's made (caused by his mismanagement). When a club is losing money, either you have to put in money (from the owner or bank) to cover the losses OR you sell the family silver (i.e. players) to cover the losses...
It effectively reduced (temporarily) the endebtedness to Staprix.
The lying twunt has overall control of Staprix.
Ergo the lying twunt benefited from the sale proceeds.
He didn't technically pocket any cash cos there's (still) a supermassive black hole into which all CAFC revenue disappears.
That supermassive black hole was created solely by the delusions of the lying twunt, and magnified by the "cock up, lie about it, spend more money trying to retrieve the cock up, but finding another new way to up cocks, repeat" management farce conducted by the lying twunt and his unqualified/unwitting/unspeakable/unforgiven underlings.
The lying twunt is trying to liquidate anything liquifiable, there's just about nothing left to sell. All the stock has gone, he's forlornly left with the knackered old pasting table on which he'd laid out the stock. The deceitful crackpot probably borrowed the table off a neighbour and is hoping they've forgotten.9 -
No new owner will be re-paying the debt so it either gets written off by Staprix or continues to be serviced under the existing T&Cs of the loan. How "friendly" that debt is depends on whether the T&Cs have "unfriendly" conditions which can be applied at the discretion of Staprix.barstool said:Our position is only this way because the cost of acquiring is included in the figures as a loan rather than as a share ownership. This is because of the sister company Strapix. Also this sister company trousers some of the transfers fees so in no way is this correct financial position. The other clubs ownership are not shown this way hence the massive difference. Its friendly debt although that may have changed and doesn't have any direct security other than players contracts
I suspect it's a complex loan agreement given the official line at one stage was it is "quasi equity". The capital will have to be repaid, and to date only interest has been paid, and every loan has conditions covering when the capital must be repaid. So are there "unfriendly" terms that can be applied to force capital repayment if Staprix decides?
A "quasi equity" loan suggests that RD might have an interest in the debt being maintained by the club so that Staprix gets a return in excess of the loan interest if revenue exceeds costs at some future date. Why would RD write off the loan if he thinks he can force a buyer to keep the debt on so he can receive supplementary payments if performance improves, as it would if we got to the Premier League.
I'd be really interested to know how the debt has been dealt with in negotiations because I can't see the arrogant old fool writing it off and losing face. If it hasn't been written off, it's possible to speculate how he is insisting it is retained on the books on "friendly" terms with the new owner accepting the terms of the "quasi equity" deal for Staprix to get an uplift to the interest payments based on profitability. But realistically, what investor would want to put his money up to repay the old fool any part of the £65m he has spuncked up the wall.
2 -
Too much information.daveaddick said:Come onto this thread occasionally and I am now convinced this takeover is well and truly dead so we can look forward to the old fucker pillaging what is left.
2 -
A bit late, I know, I'd worry about Harris getting involved, he could just as easily be looking at making us (unofficially) a feeder club for a shite club in Croydon.sammy391 said:Two points I’ve been thinking about recently :
Could the ‘two weeks of problems but it’ll be worth it’ be a reference to essentially Duchâtelet asset stripping and making as much cash as he can in order for him to lower his price to enable the Aussies to buy at the price their happy/can afford?
And secondly , having just listened to John salako talking about his ‘wealthy investors’ who would want to move to the peninsular - how likely is that to be josh Harris?
In the radio interview , salako was waiting for his man to return from New York ... and surely salako has had dealings with harris from his time at Crystal Palace - as well as Harris knowing about the benefits etc of Charlton at the peninsular after seeing slater& Jimenez’ plans when he was interested in the club months/weeks before Duchâtelet finally bought us
0 -
I don't think the Aussies are wasting time. More likely they have made their offer and are sticking with it. Question is will RD get fed up with all the abuse he gets from us and the media, plus having to pay the bills. After next week he will be unable to sell the players, until January. Maybe the twat will finally give up and sell next week.1
-
It's only our window that closes next week, he can flog players to Europe for all of August.thewolfboy said:I don't think the Aussies are wasting time. More likely they have made their offer and are sticking with it. Question is will RD get fed up with all the abuse he gets from us and the media, plus having to pay the bills. After next week he will be unable to sell the players, until January. Maybe the twat will finally give up and sell next week.
1 -
The thing that I am clinging onto is that if it was over, I believe there would be some sort of statement saying so. That being said, nothing is beyond the realms of possibilities with this lot.2
-
I very much doubt that Roland gives a toss about what we say on an insignificant (to most people) forum about how he runs our club. You can insult him (verbally and in print) till the cows come home. Like most of his ilk he has a skin as thick as a Tiger tank so it's a pointless exercise.thewolfboy said:I don't think the Aussies are wasting time. More likely they have made their offer and are sticking with it. Question is will RD get fed up with all the abuse he gets from us and the media, plus having to pay the bills. After next week he will be unable to sell the players, until January. Maybe the twat will finally give up and sell next week.
0
