@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
I fecking wouldn't.
The blokes a multi millionaire whose fecked up the Club we love. I'd ask for double.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.
And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.
Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Just about all, if not all, of those ex directors also wrote off significant sums to support our football club in the past.
Then they agreed to non-interest bearing open-ended loans on the never-never for the sake of this football club. I have no issue at all with them holding out for repayment in quite a generous and non-onerous future deal.
If this came as a surprise to Roland because he didn't do DD (like looking up public info on Companies House), then more fool him.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
But it RD‘s debt. Otherwise the new buyer will have to repay the loans should they want outright ownership.
No clue if the case, but I wonder if the reason Bowyer has not bolted yet is....
1. He knows who the new owners (might) be
2. They have told him they will give him some "reasonable" money to spend
3. They want to sign him, first thing, once it goes through
And so he is being more patient than he otherwise might be?
1. He told the fans and the players that we are on a journey together. You can’t bail out at the first whiff of a fiver. 2. He does not give a shit who the new owners are or maybe because he can’t influence that. It is what it is. 3. He trusts his management team to get in the players that will make us competitive enough to stay in the league. 4. He has a promise that he can at least sign one good player for about £800k
If Bowyer left now I don’t think you could really say he was “bailing out at the first whif of a fiver”.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.
And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.
Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.
And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.
Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.
Am I incorrect?
Yes and no, the losses are being covered by loans he himself is paying, so the only way it's not going to cost him anything is if the sale price covers *all* existing debt, that would require the club to increase in value by 10/15m each year, clearly RD is going to have to write off huge amounts of money, or find a moron to buy the club.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.
And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.
Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.
Am I incorrect?
Yes and no, the losses are being covered by loans he himself is paying, so the only way it's not going to cost him anything is if the sale price covers *all* existing debt, that would require the club to increase in value by 10/15m each year, clearly RD is going to have to write off huge amounts of money, or find a moron to buy the club.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.
And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.
Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.
Am I incorrect?
Yes and no, the losses are being covered by loans he himself is paying, so the only way it's not going to cost him anything is if the sale price covers *all* existing debt, that would require the club to increase in value by 10/15m each year, clearly RD is going to have to write off huge amounts of money, or find a moron to buy the club.
A moron...... why do you say that?
Only a moron would pay c80m pounds for a business that loses 10m a year.
I don't actually think such a person exists, which is why the club remains for sale after all this time.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.
And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.
Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.
Am I incorrect?
Yes and no, the losses are being covered by loans he himself is paying, so the only way it's not going to cost him anything is if the sale price covers *all* existing debt, that would require the club to increase in value by 10/15m each year, clearly RD is going to have to write off huge amounts of money, or find a moron to buy the club.
A moron...... why do you say that?
Only a moron would pay c80m pounds for a business that loses 10m a year.
I don't actually think such a person exists, which is why the club remains for sale after all this time.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.
And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.
Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.
Am I incorrect?
Charlton are spending money they don’t have loaned to them with interest from Duchatelet through one of his holdings. Whichever way you paint the picture the money owed will never fully get repaid. The debt rises week on week, month on month, year on year. The only way Duchatelet can claw back some of the money owed is by selling the club and taking a haircut. I’ve no idea but doubt any of his losses can be offset against tax. Whether the money loaned to Charlton is from his own bank account or via one of his companies, it’s still costing him and when he finally goes it will have cost him a lot.
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.
I bet Roland wouldn't do a deal with the ex-directors where they both take the same percentage haircut on the club being sold. A significantly bigger amount of loss for him but maybe a fairer perspective?
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
They need to spend money to catch up - with a club that has about a dozen contracted first-team players, some of whom have never played above L1. If you say so? This is about wages, not fees.
i think you’ll find Brentford, for example, are way ahead of us in terms of squad quality and depth. That’s why they were able to buy and pay Konsa.
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.
Only one of those stats matter, where we finished last season, they *all* finished above us, so no, they are not the ones with catching up to do.
Would you like a little wager that we won't be promoted this season, takeover or no takeover, loser pays the Upbeats?
Lies, lies and more lies plus some more let's blame everyone but myself from Roland.
That was my impression. Don’t think this is positive sadly. Sounds like petulant, spoilt brat mode, maybe because the takeover isn’t quite going how he likes it or as quickly.
I’m hardly his biggest fanboy, but I have a feeling he might be being being fairly straightforward in this instance. Of course it’s also the case that he might be able to sort out the loans issue by getting out his chequebook.
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
They need to spend money to catch up - with a club that has about a dozen contracted first-team players, some of whom have never played above L1. If you say so? This is about wages, not fees.
i think you’ll find Brentford, for example, are way ahead of us in terms of squad quality and depth. That’s why they were able to buy and pay Konsa.
If I have read correctly, I admit I might not have done, they made 4 million loss despite a player trading profit of about 8 million.
The summer they bought Konsa they sold about £30 millions worth of players. They are a great example of data driven recruitment, maybe Roland should send little Tommy there on work experience. He could help make the tea or something.
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.
You've got to be on a wind up surely?
What on earth have attendances got to do with anything? Did you not see Luton winning the league whilst Sunderland finished 5th?
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.
They need to spend money to catch up - with a club that has about a dozen contracted first-team players, some of whom have never played above L1. If you say so? This is about wages, not fees.
i think you’ll find Brentford, for example, are way ahead of us in terms of squad quality and depth. That’s why they were able to buy and pay Konsa.
If I have read correctly, I admit I might not have done, they made 4 million loss despite a player trading profit of about 8 million.
The summer they bought Konsa they sold about £30 millions worth of players. They are a great example of data driven recruitment, maybe Roland should send little Tommy there on work experience. He could help make the tea or something.
Cue: fifty cups of tea. All cold. None with milk in. Very few with water. Or tea.
One of them doesn't taste like coffee and is presented as a complete triumph.
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?
Comments
The blokes a multi millionaire whose fecked up the Club we love. I'd ask for double.
Then they agreed to non-interest bearing open-ended loans on the never-never for the sake of this football club. I have no issue at all with them holding out for repayment in quite a generous and non-onerous future deal.
If this came as a surprise to Roland because he didn't do DD (like looking up public info on Companies House), then more fool him.
Am I incorrect?
Consequently we are left in the position as it is at present.
I don't actually think such a person exists, which is why the club remains for sale after all this time.
Unfortunately, he already owns the club.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
i think you’ll find Brentford, for example, are way ahead of us in terms of squad quality and depth. That’s why they were able to buy and pay Konsa.
Would you like a little wager that we won't be promoted this season, takeover or no takeover, loser pays the Upbeats?
The summer they bought Konsa they sold about £30 millions worth of players. They are a great example of data driven recruitment, maybe Roland should send little Tommy there on work experience. He could help make the tea or something.
What on earth have attendances got to do with anything? Did you not see Luton winning the league whilst Sunderland finished 5th?
One of them doesn't taste like coffee and is presented as a complete triumph.
Tommy has his picture taken with a large urn.
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?