Fair play to Jim White, telling us what he knows. It's not always accurate but he's giving us info in good faith and it's more than we've had in a long time.
Then what's the point in doing that.
I've been told the earth is flat. It might not be accurate but hey ho.....
Whats the point in what? Telling people what you've been told in good faith (no doubt by someone very high up in the process)? No one cares what your flat earth theory might be, but someone with a reputation in sport like Jim White, people want to hear from.
After Saturday, think I’ll just try and enjoy the competitive football that’s going on because if this nutter still owns us next season it might be the last time we see that for a while. Appreciate everyone trying to find out what’s going on including JW.
I've felt for some time this is going to be one for his heirs to sort out. He's the sort of stubborn old fool who will carry on losing £6 million a year while holding out for an extra £1 million to show that he was successful after all. I really hope Bowyer gets us up this season to give us a cushion from L2/non-league. We're punching above our weight at the moment and this is down to LB/JJ. Should anything go wrong, the owner may well revert to type.
Aussies pulling out, not pulling out, sale on, sale off..... Gawd knows where this is all heading. All I know is that the only pulling out I wished had happened was Roland's Dad - would have saved the world of football so much heartache both here and in Belgium.
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
The splitting of club and its assets is very bad if true. I fear that would start the beginnings of the end for us. If that was the deal RD was trying to get over the line I hope it fails.
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
Not if he sells the whole thing (Baton) to one entity. It just depends on how the business was structured going forward.
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
Totally agree, as much as I can't stand RD, I think you're be the the devil you know. As some have been saying for quite a while now
Next stage is; The documents are waiting/are with the football league. Which will then be batted around for a few more weeks with the league saying they haven't seen them and the club saying oh yes you have and the silent buyers leaking that a deal is close to completion and that they have completed all relevant documents and agreed a price. While simultaneously two bit hacks on two bit news programmes and two bit newspapers release vague messages, pretending they have the ear of the purchasers or the inside mole at the club. They might as well look at pine cones, they would be just as accurate as has been proved by their past predictions.
The Aussies/whoever didn't want to stump up the cash in the past or didn't have the cash in the past, nothing much has changed from last season when we were play off material to this year when we are play off material once more. That's about as much as most really know or can conclude from what has not happened.
As I said about 60 pages back and 6 days ago. Only my speculation about the next stage looks like wishful thinking now.
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
My understanding was that ACV was about preventing or at least giving the public time to oppose a change of use ie a pub being turned into flats rather than the pub changing landlord.
The ACV was for five years and so would have now expired in November 2018. Have the Supporters' Trust renewed it?
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.
Only a hypothesis, but in effect the Aussies buy Baton - the club and the assets - with US backing which is secured with a new charge over the assets. The land isn’t going anywhere and as we know is a good long-term bet, even though it’s not prime development land or anything like.
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
Just to clear one thing up - Has it been discussed if this new Aussie involvement has got anything at all to do with the old one? Sorry, but I've been skipping 60 odd pages at a time on this thread.
Amazing to see all the ITK folk backtrack all at once following JW's comments today. No one knows anything, as has been proved time and time again. Aussies, Usmanov, Red Bull and US investors, has anyone actually matched the over inflated price tag yet? Have they f...
Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal. FFS!
I don’t, I’m afraid. The prediction made to me is that they will back away from getting involved.
So are you saying the Americans have just decided to back out of it all at this late stage?
The speculation is that the Americans would be landlords and the Aussies would have the day to day running of the club. That's why i speculated if that had ever worked in Pro football and been successful.
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.
Only a hypothesis, but in effect the Aussies buy Baton - the club and the assets - with US backing which is secured with a new charge over the assets. The land isn’t going anywhere and as we know is a good long-term bet, even though it’s not prime development land or anything like.
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
Was it the Aussies or Americans who were introduced as the new owners?
Comments
I really hope Bowyer gets us up this season to give us a cushion from L2/non-league. We're punching above our weight at the moment and this is down to LB/JJ. Should anything go wrong, the owner may well revert to type.
All I know is that the only pulling out I wished had happened was Roland's Dad - would have saved the world of football so much heartache both here and in Belgium.
It seems like Jim White has fallen into Shark infested waters by getting overexcited like a school boy who has found out a rumour.
I bet he had a Whale of a time, just a shame it appears to be a red Herring.
I shall Harbour no Eel feelings towards him.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
Only my speculation about the next stage looks like wishful thinking now.
The ACV was for five years and so would have now expired in November 2018. Have the Supporters' Trust renewed it?
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
That's why i speculated if that had ever worked in Pro football and been successful.
How can the fog keep getting thicker.