Just days ago at the Valley Gold meeting the finance officer, CEO and PR man painted an entirely different picture.
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.
What I don't see is why anyone would pay £20m to take on £50m of debt.
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.
Because the club has a value and the loans become irrelevant if they far exceed the value!
Really!?!
Yes, a buyer will only pay what the club is worth, not how much money you have blown on it over the years!
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?
I suppose because it is now third-party debt secured on the assets. In fact, there were vast sums written off in 2009. This is just the money that was put in after relegation to League One to keep the club going, prior to Murray taking sole control of it.
-sticking with RD and plummeting towards non-league football with an ever-increasing debt burden that has the benefit of charging the club interest whilst being told what a great job is being done and that footballing achievement is a secondary if not tertiary aim. (This option extrapolates on past behaviour)
-splintering the club away from its greatest asset (discounting us lot of course ) and the untold troubles this could potentially cause in the future. Being owned by a group that although has the often bandied about 5 year blueprint to get back to the promised land doesn't seem to have the means to achieve this - if they don't have the £20mill what happens when inevitably the 5 year plan hits some bumps in the road and more money is needed? (This option is purely conjecture and based on the pessimism of the last few years).
Personally I would be surprised if there are not more interested parties but that might just be my biased view of how much potential we have.
Only one winner in all this financially it seems if mail Aussie scenario is right and the sale offered by the Belgian is of just the football arm...... Duchatelet.
He is selling off the non profitable part (the football club) with its debt to him, but keeping the main asset.
So net he will end up having bought the Valley for a price less than current value, be in a position to sweat that asset and sell parts off, whilst getting 3% interest on his loans to the sold football part?
Probably the target set for Mire in the first place. Develop the ground whilst her being allowed a free hand for fun on the football side.
But fans will win too because they will be gone from the football side and ambitious football owners could lead to exciting seasons. Premier league or bust? Just that that fun may be stunted as the Valley changes and the massive debt constrains football development.
The problem with Premier League or bust is if it's not Premier League.
Only one winner in all this financially it seems if mail Aussie scenario is right and the sale offered by the Belgian is of just the football arm...... Duchatelet.
He is selling off the non profitable part (the football club) with its debt to him, but keeping the main asset.
So net he will end up having bought the Valley for a price less than current value, be in a position to sweat that asset and sell parts off, whilst getting 3% interest on his loans to the sold football part?
Probably the target set for Mire in the first place. Develop the ground whilst her being allowed a free hand for fun on the football side.
But fans will win too because they will be gone from the football side and ambitious football owners could lead to exciting seasons. Premier league or bust? Just that that fun may be stunted as the Valley changes and the massive debt constrains football development.
The problem with Premier League or bust is if it's not Premier League.
And then it is Administration and a rise from the ashes, no ones ever done that have they and then gone on to win the Premier League..........hang on a minute who was that team that played in Madrid last night .
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.
Because the club has a value and the loans become irrelevant if they far exceed the value!
Really!?!
Yes, a buyer will only pay what the club is worth, not how much money you have blown on it over the years!
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?
Because, If you are buying from the owner of Starprix, they will never sell unless they write off some of the debt! They can't write of Murray's debt, but they can write off their own! Failure to sell will mean they will continue to incur more debt. Which if they realise is not going to be paid off as a result of success on the pitch, surely makes no sense!
At least we have another thread from @PragueAddick detailing the going rate to lease a stadium 3 times bigger than ours. Surely just divide that number by 3 and cafc-AFC would only have to pay Roland about forty quid a month and he'd then have to provide the stadium, the police, the corner flags and every bluddy other thing too.....
I'll be up for going to Belgium again and again to get him to sell the ground...
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.
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.
I would agree with this - we have to be worth less than what Duchatelet paid for us - largely thanks to his mis-management! It may be that Duchatelet would rather sell the whole club, and the leasing option is a compromise on favourable terms to the consortium, which still gives him an opportunity of a return if their plan is a success!
If Charlton are no longer owned by the despicable, malignant Roland Duchatalet, I will be happy.
If Charlton are owned by experienced sports business people, with the stated intention of seeing the club promoted back to the Premier League, I will be happy.
If Charlton continue to play at the Valley and make use of a (near) state-of-the-art training facility at Sparrows Lane, I will be happy.
AFC seem to be run by a group of people who know what they're doing, communicate in English, live in England, understand football in this country, have a plan and are working hard to make the most of the footballing potential for Charlton. None of these things can be said of RD.
For these reasons, this looks to be a good deal for the future of Charlton Athletic. There may be unresolved issues regarding the ownership of the ground. But, if the club has a good, long-term tenancy deal at the Valley that prevents the ground being developed for non-football uses, then is there really problem in terms of who owns it?
Thirty years ago, the fans were fighting to secure Charlton's right to play at The Valley. More recently, the fans have fought to end Duchatalet's ownership. Both of these battles were won, resoundingly. We might be perusing some interesting details over the coming weeks and months, but I, for one, am extremey happy he's on his way out. And grateful for everyone who has helped to make it happen.
Would really love it if we had owners who actually care about Charlton Atheltic first and foremost, bringing through our academy talent and not using us as a stepping stone for players on the other side of the world.
The use of 'feeder' whatever way round it will be just sounds all too familiar.
If that is their actual website it seems like a bit of a joke.
Would really love it if we had owners who actually care about Charlton Atheltic first and foremost, bringing through our academy talent and not using us as a stepping stone for players on the other side of the world.
The use of 'feeder' whatever way round it will be just sounds all too familiar.
If that is their actual website it seems like a bit of a joke.
Do you think a consortium that buys Charlton with a stated aim of seeing them promoted to the Premier League "cares for" Charlton more or less than Roland Duchatalet? If their entire business plan is predicated on securing Premier League status, then every waking moment is going to be spent on making that happen - or getting as close as possible. Compare that to the current ownership. It's still not clear what Duchatalet's aim is with Charlton. And even if it were clear, is there any evidence that KM is capable of delivering it? I'd prefer to have owners who demonstrate their "care" for Charlton by publicising a clear plan and executing professionally against it, than for example a megalomaniac, clueless half-wit using a useless, inexperienced, bewildered lamb to deliver his.
If you don't like the word "feeder", is there a better, more accurate descriptor? "Finishing school", for instance? If the plan is for the best young players in Australia coming to London to complete their training and play in the highest possible level for Charlton, what's wrong with that? I would agree that being a "feeder" for other clubs (St Truiden, Standard Liege, Carl Zeiss Jena) is a dead-end. But in reality, what would be the purpose of "feeding" players from professional football in England to professional football in Australia? If Charlton are in the Premier League or Championship, the best players in the squad would prefer to stay at Charlton than to play in Australia - wouldn't they?
How important is the aesthetics of the website of the consortium that owns the club? Did Slater and Jiminez have great websites? Did Richard Murray spend his evenings updating his WordPress? Does Roland puzzle about how to get GIFs on his geocities? In reality, the website of the owners is amongst the very least things to get worked up about.
Are CARD planning to make a statement about the rumours?
Maybe there's insufficient agreement among fans, and can understand waiting til we have more details, but feel like it might be worth getting it out there that we are only happy if RD completely leaves, i.e. we won't accept the stadium not being part of a deal. Also maybe to say that we want assurances from any new owners that there won't be interference in player recruitment and selection etc...
It would be nice to have owners who have real money to splurge not just a few million quid. But never going to happen for Charlton, we are in the wrong part of London, the bit no one has any idea exists and secondly we are a forgotten team, just as we were 40 years ago.
Feeder is a misleading word I think. Technically Watford are a feeder team for Udinese. The Pozzos sent over some useful players to help get Watford up the league but stopped short of loading them up with dross like we had here. Watford were promoted, they've stayed up, and the link has become used far less now that the challenge levels of the leagues have changed. There's nothing really wrong with that system. The way I've read this Australian link isn't that we'll get sent over ever Australian with at least one working leg, but that when Australian teams do develop a player with real potential he will have a destination in English football - according to AFC preferably in the Premier League - where he can develop. The decent player would go abroad if he was any good anyway, and Charlton become the team who benefit. That was the player wins, the Australian national team wins, and hopefully we win too. Feeder is a dirtyword round here but it doesn't have to be a bad thing
Are CARD planning to make a statement about the rumours?
Maybe there's insufficient agreement among fans, and can understand waiting til we have more details, but feel like it might be worth getting it out there that we are only happy if RD completely leaves, i.e. we won't accept the stadium not being part of a deal. Also maybe to say that we want assurances from any new owners that there won't be interference in player recruitment and selection etc...
won't we? It would all depend on the terms and whether there is a right to buy once in the PL etc.
The Aussie players will come over become (hopefully) good players and then sold on for a profit - However the difference I think to Roly is the money would be reinvested to get the team to the premier league.
Pompey's trust achieved ground ownership through the courts and for £3m apparently, and blocked Harris's consortium in the process. Splitting the ground from club operations is described as part of a 'Growth play' in this article, and one we should probably be wise of, and find a way to block. Where Pompey had a relatively successful outcome, for other reasons Coventry did not..
Extract follows- "A ‘growth play’ can be made through debt management and, as we know, football clubs tend to be run on debt. Remove historic debt that has to be paid to someone else (here is where administration comes in handy) and add debt that benefits the club (whether this is nominally from owners, unpaid fees for services rendered or from third parties such as ‘passive investors’) and you get a kind of repetitive ‘debt on, debt off’ manoeuvre. Third party debt can include a mark (to be exploited) or from those wishing to move money into a vehicle for various motives (legal or less than legal). Debt is what the modern football world is built upon as it allows tax-free income streams to occur.
Of course, such a play doesn’t necessarily allow for anything significant in the way of investment in or subsidy of the playing squad. However, a restructuring of income streams and liabilities means that a club can maximise existing income streams to give more room to allow a larger budget for players. The key thing is that growth and value has to come out of existing income streams. A growth play can see a club operate more efficiently in terms of customer experiences, but this is not a ‘sugar daddy’ investment plan – no matter how wealthy a region the new ‘investors’ come from. Often profits are made by ‘flipping’ the club on to new owners, although promotion to the Premier League can earn you dividends (see the Blackpool owner’s recent pay day, for example).
Harris’ bid for Pompey bears the promise of backing from Asia and the UK. In the light of the quality of person Harris has brought to Pompey in the past, fans were well aware of the need to check out the antecedents of Harris’ associates, even more so because the bid was from the man himself. In particular, where Harris has chosen to go head-to-head with a bid from the fans themselves in the form of the Supporters Trust, scrutiny was surely to be expected. This proved to be a sensitive area however. It may be thought that people shy of publicity may be well advised to be careful who they associate with, but then we don’t know and can’t tell in these particular circumstances why Harris’ ‘passive investors’ have chosen to back his bid, particularly as one is a complete unknown in the football world.
Harris made a bid to buy the club back in February which encompassed a lease back deal for the ground from debenture holder Portpin. How Portpin were to re-gain control of a ground, currently in the hands of the administrator, in order for this to happen was never explained. A powerless 15% sop of shares was offered to the Trust and rejected with the attitude, ‘why have 15% when we can get 100% with our own deal?’ Now we are told that Harris is prepared to lay out £6.3m to buy, not the club, not the ground, but the debenture held by Portpin on the ground. It seems to be an attempt to separate club and ground one way or another. You have to ask where this money has come from when six weeks ago there was no money for ground purchase. You can ask, but you cannot publish the answers you find without threats of court proceedings. Such is the transparency of the bid.
So, can you trust these ‘football men’? Ultimately you can only look at their actions and decide, for their words do not hold water. In words, Harris claims his bid will cut all ties with the past ownership history of the club. In deed, he brings on board as financial director John Redgate." ...
Comments
I can't decide what is worse:
-sticking with RD and plummeting towards non-league football with an ever-increasing debt burden that has the benefit of charging the club interest whilst being told what a great job is being done and that footballing achievement is a secondary if not tertiary aim. (This option extrapolates on past behaviour)
-splintering the club away from its greatest asset (discounting us lot of course
Personally I would be surprised if there are not more interested parties but that might just be my biased view of how much potential we have.
It's going to rain tomorrow
If Charlton are owned by experienced sports business people, with the stated intention of seeing the club promoted back to the Premier League, I will be happy.
If Charlton continue to play at the Valley and make use of a (near) state-of-the-art training facility at Sparrows Lane, I will be happy.
AFC seem to be run by a group of people who know what they're doing, communicate in English, live in England, understand football in this country, have a plan and are working hard to make the most of the footballing potential for Charlton. None of these things can be said of RD.
For these reasons, this looks to be a good deal for the future of Charlton Athletic. There may be unresolved issues regarding the ownership of the ground. But, if the club has a good, long-term tenancy deal at the Valley that prevents the ground being developed for non-football uses, then is there really problem in terms of who owns it?
Thirty years ago, the fans were fighting to secure Charlton's right to play at The Valley. More recently, the fans have fought to end Duchatalet's ownership. Both of these battles were won, resoundingly. We might be perusing some interesting details over the coming weeks and months, but I, for one, am extremey happy he's on his way out. And grateful for everyone who has helped to make it happen.
In reality how are these Aussies different to the SISU crowd?
The use of 'feeder' whatever way round it will be just sounds all too familiar.
If that is their actual website it seems like a bit of a joke.
If you don't like the word "feeder", is there a better, more accurate descriptor? "Finishing school", for instance? If the plan is for the best young players in Australia coming to London to complete their training and play in the highest possible level for Charlton, what's wrong with that? I would agree that being a "feeder" for other clubs (St Truiden, Standard Liege, Carl Zeiss Jena) is a dead-end. But in reality, what would be the purpose of "feeding" players from professional football in England to professional football in Australia? If Charlton are in the Premier League or Championship, the best players in the squad would prefer to stay at Charlton than to play in Australia - wouldn't they?
How important is the aesthetics of the website of the consortium that owns the club? Did Slater and Jiminez have great websites? Did Richard Murray spend his evenings updating his WordPress? Does Roland puzzle about how to get GIFs on his geocities? In reality, the website of the owners is amongst the very least things to get worked up about.
Maybe there's insufficient agreement among fans, and can understand waiting til we have more details, but feel like it might be worth getting it out there that we are only happy if RD completely leaves, i.e. we won't accept the stadium not being part of a deal. Also maybe to say that we want assurances from any new owners that there won't be interference in player recruitment and selection etc...
Pompey's trust achieved ground ownership through the courts and for £3m apparently, and blocked Harris's consortium in the process. Splitting the ground from club operations is described as part of a 'Growth play' in this article, and one we should probably be wise of, and find a way to block. Where Pompey had a relatively successful outcome, for other reasons Coventry did not..
http://twohundredpercent.net/can-we-really-trust-the-football-men/
Extract follows-
"A ‘growth play’ can be made through debt management and, as we know, football clubs tend to be run on debt. Remove historic debt that has to be paid to someone else (here is where administration comes in handy) and add debt that benefits the club (whether this is nominally from owners, unpaid fees for services rendered or from third parties such as ‘passive investors’) and you get a kind of repetitive ‘debt on, debt off’ manoeuvre. Third party debt can include a mark (to be exploited) or from those wishing to move money into a vehicle for various motives (legal or less than legal). Debt is what the modern football world is built upon as it allows tax-free income streams to occur.
Of course, such a play doesn’t necessarily allow for anything significant in the way of investment in or subsidy of the playing squad. However, a restructuring of income streams and liabilities means that a club can maximise existing income streams to give more room to allow a larger budget for players. The key thing is that growth and value has to come out of existing income streams. A growth play can see a club operate more efficiently in terms of customer experiences, but this is not a ‘sugar daddy’ investment plan – no matter how wealthy a region the new ‘investors’ come from. Often profits are made by ‘flipping’ the club on to new owners, although promotion to the Premier League can earn you dividends (see the Blackpool owner’s recent pay day, for example).
Harris’ bid for Pompey bears the promise of backing from Asia and the UK. In the light of the quality of person Harris has brought to Pompey in the past, fans were well aware of the need to check out the antecedents of Harris’ associates, even more so because the bid was from the man himself. In particular, where Harris has chosen to go head-to-head with a bid from the fans themselves in the form of the Supporters Trust, scrutiny was surely to be expected. This proved to be a sensitive area however. It may be thought that people shy of publicity may be well advised to be careful who they associate with, but then we don’t know and can’t tell in these particular circumstances why Harris’ ‘passive investors’ have chosen to back his bid, particularly as one is a complete unknown in the football world.
Harris made a bid to buy the club back in February which encompassed a lease back deal for the ground from debenture holder Portpin. How Portpin were to re-gain control of a ground, currently in the hands of the administrator, in order for this to happen was never explained. A powerless 15% sop of shares was offered to the Trust and rejected with the attitude, ‘why have 15% when we can get 100% with our own deal?’ Now we are told that Harris is prepared to lay out £6.3m to buy, not the club, not the ground, but the debenture held by Portpin on the ground. It seems to be an attempt to separate club and ground one way or another. You have to ask where this money has come from when six weeks ago there was no money for ground purchase. You can ask, but you cannot publish the answers you find without threats of court proceedings. Such is the transparency of the bid.
So, can you trust these ‘football men’? Ultimately you can only look at their actions and decide, for their words do not hold water. In words, Harris claims his bid will cut all ties with the past ownership history of the club. In deed, he brings on board as financial director John Redgate." ...
It means an end to RD/KM/RM and we should all be thankful of that.
I just hope the potential new owners are not reading this thread - they would probably be having second thoughts if they were.
;-)