Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
I wouldn't. I went to Belgium before, and I'll go again if he doesn't sell the club. But I wouldn't go, if he sold the club but retained the ground. Not that anyone really has a Scooby about the deal anyway; all we've got to go on is a poorly worded Mail article. At least I wouldn't go unless something else happened, like him trying to redevelop it.cantersaddick said:
I'll be up for going to Belgium again and again to get him to sell the ground...Scoham said:
It might seem odd that I wouldn't demonstrate given those circumstances, but here's why: We wouldn't know that Bruce and Sheila actually want to buy the ground or even if they did, whether they had access to the necessary cash. Then what? Who would we be trying to force Duchatelet to sell to? Someone? Anyone? Whoever bought it wouldn't be doing so for the benefit of the club. They'd be spending millions, but looking to use that sale to generate more money. How might they do that? As far as I can see there's only two ways. They could, if they could get all the necessary permissions lined up, tear the whole thing down and redevelop it. Not exactly the outcome we'd be looking for. Or they could seek to screw the club into the ground by charging exorbitant rents. Again, not a scenario any fan would want to see. Either way I still think we'd be better taking a chance on Duchatelet.
As it happens though, I really don't think we need to worry too much about that at this stage. It seems to me that £20m is at the very top end of any workable valuation for the club. It's more than Two Shats paid for it and it's in a considerably worse state now that it was then. Despite whatever he's spent on the club, a bit of pipework, a few red seats and a new coat of yellow paint in the exits is not enough to significantly up its value. Whoever buys Charlton knows that they will lose money for at least two years. Probably longer. Possibly a whole lot longer. Why on Earth would anyone spend that amount of money and not get complete control of The Valley? Frankly if they spend £20m and don't get The Valley included, I'd be more worried that we'd have another set of nut-cases in charge than I would be about anything Duchatelet might do.14 -
There will be a huge degree of worry and uncertainty if he sells. There will be short term compensation in watching all the fan hating apologist club staff leaving though.
Good morning Mr Keohane. You get two slices of bread, spread on some margarine or butter, place some veggie cheese and some fresh sliced tomatoes on top, put the other slice (spread portion facing down) on top of that.
Hey presto a cheese and tomato sandwich, a skill once learned will stand you in good stead for life.
We can move on to making a decent cup of tea when the time is right.8 -
I see the raising funds bit, as assessing the future costs of owning us and as an effort to negotiate a better deal with the Belgian one.0
-
The ultimate shame is that SKY etc. havent challenged the club on their statement yesterday... Bryan Swanson came out with the tweet from the club that we werent for sale and that we were concentrating on League One status.
Surely this is a great time to challenge their lies... i.e.
SKY: You said the club werent for sale, what do you say about the current rumours?
CAFC: We stand by the current statement, the club isnt for sale and we're concentrating on the League status
SKY: So what do you say about the rumours then.
i.e. For the lies that we've received the last few years, this is a real chance for the Media to either back them into a corner and prove the fans right that they've been lying all along or more less likely, prove that the club maybe havent been lying.7 -
One would hope that , if there is a takeover, then messrs Meire,Keohane will all be given the heave-ho, along with Robinson.16
-
'Their mission makes no secret of the fact that the UK club acquired will have an Australian feel to it and a strong presence in the UK and in Australia, using Australian sporting practice – science, psychology, management techniques and high performance culture – in the process.'The_President said:One would hope that , if there is a takeover, then messrs Meire,Keohane will all be given the heave-ho, along with Robinson.
I think we can assume that they will!0 -
Talking purely sentiments here but wouldn't it still feel weird going to watch Charlton play at "Roland's Valley"?
I don't want that bastard connected to the club in any way, shape or form.17 -
You'd have to admire his sense of humour if that's what he renamed it.forzajuve_27 said:Talking purely sentiments here but wouldn't it still feel weird going to watch Charlton play at "Roland's Valley"?
I don't want that bastard connected to the club in any way, shape or form.13 -
It now ought to be clear to people why there is a distinction between (a) lending money to a club and (b) giving money to a club to invest. It's not so much the danger from being a tenant of Staprix, it's the danger from being a creditor of Staprix. His losses have not been crystallised, they have been converted to debt and it is debt that will stay with the club on a sale unless it is paid on top of the purchase price. That debt can only ever be recovered from future profits, assuming there is not a fairy godmother who conjures up £60m from thin air.Airman Brown said:
A lease doesn't have to work like that. Commercial leases I have dealt with seemed to work entirely in favour of the tenant. The devil is in the detail.ken_shabby said:My view too. If you take away the ground and traing ground, whst exactly does your 20m buy you? The prestige of being owner of a club in a tailspin, a fairly ordinary set of footballers, and the right to pay off ongoing debts. Plus being at the mercy of any future rises in the cost of leasing the ground the ex owner chooses to demand. Sounds a real bargain.
If RD is looking to retain The Valley but not Sparrows Lane it's almost certainly because he cannot recover his losses up front from selling the whole club. That's his own fault, but it's our problem.
The protection it may offer him is against a buyer going bust without achieving their PL ambitions, which would trigger a further payment. But that still wouldn't give him the right to develop the site.
We seem to be assuming anyone entering into such a lease is naive, which they might be but we cannot know at this stage.
The combination of rent and debt repayment liabilities will now need to be funded by cash from turnover or, as now, new loans or cash in return for equity.
If the club fails to make it, cash dries up, and we default on debt repayments, then Staprix can put the club into administration and force a liquidation and sale of assets.
So Duchatalet shows his business acumen, he has failed to make a success of the business but by using debt, not equity, positioned himself so that he can withdraw and ensure his accumulated losses are repaid through the efforts of new owners or by liquidating the club whose existence he no longer has any interest in. Finding a buyer at that stage would entail repaying the whole debt, making it an impossible financial proposition.
Of course, if it is true, as is believed by fans in other places, that Duchatalet is our guardian angel he will have no hesitation in himself taking responsibility, acknowledging they are his own debts and writing off the loans rather than putting them on the shoulders of whoever wants to buy the club. If he does not, it will be a crime that the man who is 100% responsible for creating such losses can just walk away in the knowledge that it's someone else's responsibility to repay what are effectively his own debts.
So I agree, I don't have a real problem with being a tenant, as long as the ground and assets are not readily marketable, and the terms are commercially fair, my real concern is not having the debt written off and the club remaining a creditor of Duchatelet.
So yes, Duchatelet rescued Charlton with his money, but he made sure he could get it back one way or another, even if it means destroying the club in the process. Only the fools in other places thought he was giving away his money for the love of the club and i doubt they will even now get it.
So if the deal is as imagined, it will introduce more financial risk but a vast improvement in the probability of an improving squad and improving results. Despite all the potential negatives, I would rather have 5 years of hope than 5 years of misery and protesting.
22 -
How will you know it's on page 100 without checking?Chrissy\\\'s Army!! said:I'll check this thread again when it's on page 100
1 - Sponsored links:
-
Agreed, the deal could be structured with a vendor loan note, possibly with the Valley as security. This would mean that part of the current shareholder loan from Staprix (hopefully only part, and a relatively small one at that) would remain on the books as owed to RD. Repayment would either be at a defined future date or, similar to the loans from Murray and co, contingent on a future event. If the latter, this could also be structured to rank before the Murray loan (either an event happening earlier, e.g. promotion back to the Championship or after a set period of time e.g. 2-3 years) or otherwise by reaching a separate agreement with Murray. Or he could roll his claim into a similar agreement to Murray whereby all the former investors get their cut only when (if) the promised land is reached.Airman Brown said:
I think the idea that The Valley is retained as security against a later payment makes a lot of sense, but of course that doesn't mean it's what he's doing.LargeAddick said:Wouldn't surprise me that The Valley is included but Roland defers some of the price until such time as we reach the PL or until a set date in the future where they have to cough up.
Whilst RD would be retaining a financial interest, this sort of structure seems hugely preferable to a full legal separation of football club and the Valley. In this scenario, the actual price (enterprise value) could turn out to be much higher than £20m for RD and he would get his return - if the football club is finally successful.
All speculation of course, just putting some structuring scenarios out there!4 -
TK would want to keep his job and will probably fall under TUPE?The_President said:One would hope that , if there is a takeover, then messrs Meire,Keohane will all be given the heave-ho, along with Robinson.
0 -
The value of Staprix's loans far exceed what might be raised in a liquidation sale of Charlton's assets. I don't see the logic of Staprix forcing Charlton into administration.2
-
I don't understand why people think Charlton's loans from Staprix will be written off by this deal. Unless the purchase price rises to £60-70 million.0
-
This just proves that protests should continue!
Don't let this news distract from protests and what we want to do!0 -
A point to remember he cannot Lease Valley or Training Ground to purchasers as charged to former Directors,so in order to do that will have to write a check for £7mn to remove charges.
Once removed and he has full access to assets he can do what he wants.8 -
Because the club has a value and the loans become irrelevant if they far exceed the value!Red_in_SE8 said:I don't understand why people think Charlton's loans from Staprix will be written off by this deal. Unless the purchase price rises to £60-70 million.
1 -
Really!?!MuttleyCAFC said:
Because the club has a value and the loans become irrelevant if they far exceed the value!Red_in_SE8 said:I don't understand why people think Charlton's loans from Staprix will be written off by this deal. Unless the purchase price rises to £60-70 million.
0 -
Just days ago at the Valley Gold meeting the finance officer, CEO and PR man painted an entirely different picture.0
-
charltonkeston said:
Just days ago at the Valley Gold meeting the finance officer, CEO and PR man painted an entirely different picture. Liars
14 - Sponsored links:
-
Yes, a buyer will only pay what the club is worth, not how much money you have blown on it over the years!Red_in_SE8 said:
Really!?!MuttleyCAFC said:
Because the club has a value and the loans become irrelevant if they far exceed the value!Red_in_SE8 said:I don't understand why people think Charlton's loans from Staprix will be written off by this deal. Unless the purchase price rises to £60-70 million.
4 -
cant believe that any potential buyer would not want the valley as part of the deal to me the fans and the Valley is Charlton athletic football Club if there not buying that what are they buying? Come on Varney get your offer in pronto17
-
I suppose it depends on the terms of the lease. If the plan has been costed, they may see it as a priority to have those funds in place. You can also build in an option to buy at a fair price.0
-
Makes me wonder if Duchatelet has been talking to Ron Noades...
Come what may, Duchatelet is going to lose a lot of money on this sale. I wonder if the stubborn fool now regrets not listening to the Varney consortium offer that Meire seemed to block? Any chance that that deal can be resurrected?4 -
I don't think they even got as far as speaking to Duchatelet as his PA Meire stopped it getting it that far.thewolfboy said:Makes me wonder if Duchatelet has been talking to Ron Noades...
Come what may, Duchatelet is going to lose a lot of money on this sale. I wonder if the stubborn fool now regrets not listening to the Varney consortium offer that Meire seemed to block? Any chance that that deal can be resurrected?0 -
It was probably more Murray than Meire who stopped it in its tracks.The Red Robin said:
I don't think they even got as far as speaking to Duchatelet as his PA Meire stopped it getting it that far.thewolfboy said:Makes me wonder if Duchatelet has been talking to Ron Noades...
Come what may, Duchatelet is going to lose a lot of money on this sale. I wonder if the stubborn fool now regrets not listening to the Varney consortium offer that Meire seemed to block? Any chance that that deal can be resurrected?0 -
Why does the club still owe £7 million? to Richard Murray and other directors? Because they did not 'blow' the money on Charlton....they lent it. How is the debt to Staprix different?MuttleyCAFC said:
Yes, a buyer will only pay what the club is worth, not how much money you have blown on it over the years!Red_in_SE8 said:
Really!?!MuttleyCAFC said:
Because the club has a value and the loans become irrelevant if they far exceed the value!Red_in_SE8 said:I don't understand why people think Charlton's loans from Staprix will be written off by this deal. Unless the purchase price rises to £60-70 million.
0 -
Gonna struggle to speak to Noades unfortunately4
-
If you assume their view is that the deal isn't going to happen, their picture makes sense. It's just the "not for sale" claim that isn't valid. I doubt that Rubashow has a clue what's been going on though. I wonder what Robinson knows.charltonkeston said:Just days ago at the Valley Gold meeting the finance officer, CEO and PR man painted an entirely different picture.
What I don't see is why anyone would pay £20m to take on £50m of debt.
I've had a ramble round some of the issues at www.votvonline.com.
7 -
Ron Noades is dead. So unless there is an afterlife and Roland is dead too or Roland is a kind of resurrected Doris Stokes, that seems unlikely.thewolfboy said:Makes me wonder if Duchatelet has been talking to Ron Noades...
3
This discussion has been closed.
