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'?
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?
It might be because they want to be able to secure loans on the ground. Or it might be because, given the choice of having clean title and not having clean title, they'd prefer the former.
From day one it was agreed club and grounds, and as far as I know, clean title. Might have been because of advice from lawyers, or perhaps it was because of the can of worms they discovered while doing DD re the ownership issues from the Jiminez era. I think they’re trying to do the right thing. Others who know more about takeovers than I do, say clean title tends to be the norm.
@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.
There is one such person.
Unfortunately, he already owns the club.
He paid less than 20 million for a championship side because the spivs needed a quick sale so forget about DD and sign on the dotted line. So not so moronic at that price. Plus he thought Fair play rules would keep his annual losses down and people would flock to the valley from all parts of London and knowing about football tourists who come to see 2 matches over a weekend would replace the over 65 fan base ! ( That was RD's logic not mine as voiced by Meire.)
In Greenwich mean time in June 2019, Roland wants between 65 to 75 million depending who's bidding.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent prick ? (Roland Duchatelet not Sir Henry Irving)
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'?
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?
It might be because they want to be able to secure loans on the ground. Or it might be because, given the choice of having clean title and not having clean title, they'd prefer the former.
From day one it was agreed club and grounds, and as far as I know, clean title. Might have been because of advice from lawyers, or perhaps it was because of the can of worms they discovered while doing DD re the ownership issues from the Jiminez era. I think they’re trying to do the right thing. Others who know more about takeovers than I do, say clean title tends to be the norm.
Clean title would seem to be the sensible thing if you are the buyer but I wonder where Charlton would.be if those loans hadn’t been there. If new buyers ever do come along and take over the club let’s hope they have the financial backing behind them to build on what they acquired and not be planning to asset strip, make a short term profit and fuck off leaving the club in a far worse position.
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'?
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?
It might be because they want to be able to secure loans on the ground. Or it might be because, given the choice of having clean title and not having clean title, they'd prefer the former.
From day one it was agreed club and grounds, and as far as I know, clean title. Might have been because of advice from lawyers, or perhaps it was because of the can of worms they discovered while doing DD re the ownership issues from the Jiminez era. I think they’re trying to do the right thing. Others who know more about takeovers than I do, say clean title tends to be the norm.
Clean title would seem to be the sensible thing if you are the buyer but I wonder where Charlton would.be if those loans hadn’t been there. If new buyers ever do come along and take over the club let’s hope they have the financial backing behind them to build on what they acquired and not be planning to asset strip, make a short term profit and fuck off leaving the club in a far worse position.
Luckily for us there are basically no assets left to strip, which is probably the only thing stopping your hero from doing exactly that.
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'?
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?
Precisely. If a bunch of rich arabs bought us then I doubt they would matter. An ever changing consortium who have taken 18 months to stump up with just the purchase monies just maybe looking to borrow against the club.
After re reading Rolands update you can just tell he is just toying with us fans. Making fun of us. He will still be here next season. And he will delibratley leave us short with tranfers hoping we will get relegated.
Hes never wanted us to be in premiere league or championship. He never wanted promotion. I wouldn't be suprised if he is delibratley offering a poor contract to bowyer in hope he walks away. The takeover dragging on. it's all a game to him to get back at fans.
As I posted elsewhere clean title means in the event of administration the former directors are not in front of the new investors chances of getting any money back
It could also be (or have been) a hidden element of the true asking price
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'?
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?
Precisely. If a bunch of rich arabs bought us then I doubt they would matter. An ever changing consortium who have taken 18 months to stump up with just the purchase monies just maybe looking to borrow against the club.
If he has agreed £33M, which is doubtful if he turned down £45M, then presumably that is with the ex-director loans still outstanding ?
If I'm trying to be more than fair, I think £33M is a not an unreasonable sum. But I doubt it's true.
Where did £33m come from? I saw it mentioned by a former member of this site on the forum that shall not be named. Same person is saying we need the ex directors loans to be sorted for the deal to go through.
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
He’s told me who his source is, and if true, it’s entirely possible that £33m is the agreed figure, and it is the Directors loans holding things up (which I heard elsewhere, although he’s said the same thing.)
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
He’s told me who his source is, and if true, it’s entirely possible that £33m is the agreed figure, and it is the Directors loans holding things up (which I heard elsewhere, although he’s said the same thing.)
So if £33M has been agreed and the ex-director loans are the sticking point. What is the agreement re the ex-director loans, because there must be one ?
My insider says that ‘there’s a meeting on Friday with RD with a group mainly based in Austria ... not sure if there they’re new or one of the existing groups that have shown
So looking at this as best I can, RD has potentially agreed a price of £33m. Some £12m less than he apparently turned down recently. The Directors loans are holding up the sale which amount to circa £7m. If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion? I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway! No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
James, with your track record of providing info obtained from a fella who's normally pretty good, you'll forgive me for taking a rain check on this one.
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
He’s told me who his source is, and if true, it’s entirely possible that £33m is the agreed figure, and it is the Directors loans holding things up (which I heard elsewhere, although he’s said the same thing.)
So if £33M has been agreed and the ex-director loans are the sticking point. What is the agreement re the ex-director loans, because there must be one ?
It was always agreed that Roland would pay them off, I believe.
So looking at this as best I can, RD has potentially agreed a price of £33m. Some £12m less than he apparently turned down recently. The Directors loans are holding up the sale which amount to circa £7m. If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion? I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway! No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.
Yes. But what if the new owners simply don't want to add another £3.5m to the cost of buying the club? Why should they fork out anything at all?
Or, let me put it another way. What's the best way for the new owners to spend £3.5m - use it to clear up the Belgian waffler's debts or give it to Lee Bowyer to spend on new signings?
Comments
Might have been because of advice from lawyers, or perhaps it was because of the can of worms they discovered while doing DD re the ownership issues from the Jiminez era.
I think they’re trying to do the right thing.
Others who know more about takeovers than I do, say clean title tends to be the norm.
In Greenwich mean time in June 2019, Roland wants between 65 to 75 million depending who's bidding.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent prick ?
(Roland Duchatelet not Sir Henry Irving)
Hes never wanted us to be in premiere league or championship. He never wanted promotion. I wouldn't be suprised if he is delibratley offering a poor contract to bowyer in hope he walks away. The takeover dragging on. it's all a game to him to get back at fans.
It could also be (or have been) a hidden element of the true asking price
Also i'm pretty sure he wouldn't have released yesterdays statement if he'd accepted a new bid.
If I'm trying to be more than fair, I think £33M is a not an unreasonable sum. But I doubt it's true.
What is the agreement re the ex-director loans, because there must be one ?
If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion?
I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway!
No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.
Or, let me put it another way. What's the best way for the new owners to spend £3.5m - use it to clear up the Belgian waffler's debts or give it to Lee Bowyer to spend on new signings?
@NapaAddick is lying down in a dark room somewhere.