So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.
Don't worry, if the belgian remains here we will be
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Yes imo. As stated many times the ex-director loans DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPAID NOW.......unless you want clean title. Imo the only reason why you would want clean title from day one is if you want to borrow money against the club. If not you could repay them at any time - not necessarily when /if we reached the Prem - but in a year or two when we are established in the Championship & have more money. So why the INSISTENCY of them having to be repaid now ??
Edit.
Posted the above before reading the last page, so I will ask this very nicely to @JamesSeed. Please can you tell us why the ex-director loans HAVE to be repaid before the takeover goes through & specifically why by RD ?? What do the new owners what to achieve by it ? As @Airman Brown has just stated, the club has been sold twice before without the need for them to be repaid.....so why now ??
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
They should be told to f*** off, no way should the ex directors have to take any form of financial hit, they already do that due to inflation/no interest.
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Why ? I have no idea of what is going on but have a bad feeling about all of this. A concerted effort regarding what is a relatively small amount of money ? The Aussies still hanging around after 2 years negotiating with this madman, why ? They're not Charlton supporters, there's plenty of other clubs that they could have bought if they wanted to own a football club. The mad Belgian seemingly preferring the Aussie bid to the extent that he turned down 45mill from elsewhere while the Aussies don't appear to have the money to buy the club anyway. I get the feeling that any deal between these two is not going to be for the benefit of Charlton Athletic Football Club.
I don't know why anybody thinks £4.4m is a relatively small amount of money?!
It's the equivalent of 8 players earning £10k a week! Vital for the side's chances in the Championship perhaps. ...
£4.4mil is obviously a large amount of money. But when you looking at the amount of money it will take to buy Charlton it only comes to about 10%. So it is a small amount of money in the wider sense.
so the key purpose of this statement is to put pressure on the ex directors to take a hit so the takeover can happen. surely rd is losing money by not sorting this out with his daily loses and the new owners are losing the opportunity to start making a difference and risk starting their tenure without a brilliant young manager and a group of fantastic players with a great spirit. between them they need to sort this fast.
So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.
Don't worry, if the belgian remains here we will be
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Yes, by the spivs and Roland Duchâtelet, which you’ll agree is a pretty low benchmark. Buying the club without sorting the loans would be like buying a house with some outstanding loans secured on the buildings. You’d have to be a bit crazy to do that. The Aussies have always asked for clean title.
So as I’ve said, the sorting out of the loans are holding up the sale of the club. Roland doesn’t want to pay them off in full, and would like it if we blamed someone else for that, whether it’s GM or the ex-Directors. Some of the ex Directors want repaying in full, others are happy to take a haircut in order to get their money back in advance of any future return to the Premier League. Not blaming anyone here btw. I’d certainly want 100% back, despite the fact that I could pass away before we return to the Premier League. Does anyone know if they all have be settled at the same rate (i.e. 100% or 50% or whatever). Or can some agree to take a hit, while others are repaid in full?
This situation has been ongoing for sometime by the sounds of it.
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Why ? I have no idea of what is going on but have a bad feeling about all of this. A concerted effort regarding what is a relatively small amount of money ? The Aussies still hanging around after 2 years negotiating with this madman, why ? They're not Charlton supporters, there's plenty of other clubs that they could have bought if they wanted to own a football club. The mad Belgian seemingly preferring the Aussie bid to the extent that he turned down 45mill from elsewhere while the Aussies don't appear to have the money to buy the club anyway. I get the feeling that any deal between these two is not going to be for the benefit of Charlton Athletic Football Club.
The Aussie bid appears to be the only serious bid. They’re the only ones who haven’t walked away after talking to Roland and learning about all the crap that’s gone on in the past. It’s been a big investment in terms of both time and money for the Aussies to get to this stage, and clearly no one else has has the stomach for it, otherwise they’d be smashing the door down now with the club in the Championship.
So the Aussies would have to be mad to walk away after two years. And bear in mind they’re business men who aren’t waiting to take the club over so they can start earning a living. They can afford to wait while the club gets its act together, if they have to.
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?
I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored.
These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Yes, by the spivs and Roland Duchâtelet, which you’ll agree is a pretty low benchmark. Buying the club without sorting the loans would be like buying a house with some outstanding loans secured on the buildings. You’d have to be a bit crazy to do that. The Aussies have always asked for clean title.
So as I’ve said, the sorting out of the loans are holding up the sale of the club. Roland doesn’t want to pay them off in full, and would like it if we blamed someone else for that, whether it’s GM or the ex-Directors. Some of the ex Directors want repaying in full, others are happy to take a haircut in order to get their money back in advance of any future return to the Premier League. Not blaming anyone here btw. I’d certainly want 100% back, despite the fact that I could pass away before we return to the Premier League. Does anyone know if they all have be settled at the same rate (i.e. 100% or 50% or whatever). Or can some agree to take a hit, while others are repaid in full?
This situation has been ongoing for sometime by the sounds of it.
I hate then “it’s like buying a house...” analogies but the directors loans are like buying a house with existing loans/charges secured against it that are only redeemable if you win the jackpot on the lottery. In that scenario I’m not sure you’d be hugely fussed and it might be better to put your (finite) resources to better use.
If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years Frying pan into the fire
Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure. Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. And yes, it’s frustrating.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?
I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored.
These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.
Indeed. Roland thinks because he is legally owed the vast amount of money he has borrowed from himself it should somehow be paid to him by new owners, but he seems to refuse to accept the right of the former directors to be paid in full too.
Could the strategy be for new owners to take out huge loans to fund a gamble for a push for promotion to the premier league?
Loans being secured against the assets ie valley and sparrows lane.
If it pays off and they hit the premier league jackpot they're heroes without spending any/ little of their own dough, and no one is any the wiser at the risk taken.
If it doesn't then they up sticks, sell up, go into administration, sell the valley and training ground to a private equity firm and bugger off into the night with minimal personal loss and zilch consequence whilst we all sit round scratching our heads.
Perhaps hugely overly simplistic but it could be why there is an insistence on clean title when as pointed out we've been sold twice previous without it seemingly being such an obstacle.
In the murky world of modern football ownership with an impotent and incompetent football league ruling body it wouldn't surprise me if such schemes formulate as there is no logical or commercial reason why any business people would buy a football club beyond the ego boost or high odds gamble of one day making a profit through conventional above board means.
Sunderland's leveraging of their takeover and use of the parachutes to fund the purchase speaks to this yet was approved by the authorities (if they even knew or understood it).
Would be good to understand why these loan repayments are so key to avoid such concerning speculation.
But Airman stated concerted effort to get the 3 not named to take a financial effort. I just don't equate concerted effort with ignored. No doubt others have information not overtly and clearly published which would clarify. We are left to speculate.
Could the strategy be for new owners to take out huge loans to fund a gamble for a push for promotion to the premier league?
Loans being secured against the assets ie valley and sparrows lane.
If it pays off and they hit the premier league jackpot they're heroes without spending any/ little of their own dough, and no one is any the wiser at the risk taken.
If it doesn't then they up sticks, sell up, go into administration, sell the valley and training ground to a private equity firm and bugger off into the night with minimal personal loss and zilch consequence whilst we all sit round scratching our heads.
Perhaps hugely overly simplistic but it could be why there is an insistence on clean title when as pointed out we've been sold twice previous without it seemingly being such an obstacle.
In the murky world of modern football ownership with an impotent and incompetent football league ruling body it wouldn't surprise me if such schemes formulate as there is no logical or commercial reason why any business people would buy a football club beyond the ego boost or high odds gamble of one day making a profit through conventional above board means.
Sunderland's leveraging of their takeover and use of the parachutes to fund the purchase speaks to this yet was approved by the authorities (if they even knew or understood it).
Would be good to understand why these loan repayments are so key to avoid such concerning speculation.
Although it’s possible the intention is to secure loans against the assets that runs back into the problem that the assets are worth a lot less than RD claims as part of his sales pitch. So the amount that could be borrowed against them is limited.
Could the strategy be for new owners to take out huge loans to fund a gamble for a push for promotion to the premier league?
Loans being secured against the assets ie valley and sparrows lane.
If it pays off and they hit the premier league jackpot they're heroes without spending any/ little of their own dough, and no one is any the wiser at the risk taken.
If it doesn't then they up sticks, sell up, go into administration, sell the valley and training ground to a private equity firm and bugger off into the night with minimal personal loss and zilch consequence whilst we all sit round scratching our heads.
Perhaps hugely overly simplistic but it could be why there is an insistence on clean title when as pointed out we've been sold twice previous without it seemingly being such an obstacle.
In the murky world of modern football ownership with an impotent and incompetent football league ruling body it wouldn't surprise me if such schemes formulate as there is no logical or commercial reason why any business people would buy a football club beyond the ego boost or high odds gamble of one day making a profit through conventional above board means.
Sunderland's leveraging of their takeover and use of the parachutes to fund the purchase speaks to this yet was approved by the authorities (if they even knew or understood it).
Would be good to understand why these loan repayments are so key to avoid such concerning speculation.
Although it’s possible the intention is to secure loans against the assets that runs back into the problem that the assets are worth a lot less than RD claims as part of his sales pitch. So the amount that could be borrowed against them is limited.
Another issue is just how liquid are those assets? Following a loan default the lenders are left with a football stadium and a field in Eltham, neither with or likely to get (The Valley at least) planning permission to do anything with the land.
Mr Seed i will be blunt,the loans tumour /spin is utter bollox ! They are to be paid back IF that's IF we ever get to the Prem. Again IF we ever get there then the amount to be repaid is tiny against the revenue that the Prem brings in.
It's a lie by RD to DEFLECT from his own utter incompetent ownership and more so his totally unrealistic asking price.
At the moment I'm wondering if RD and the Aussies are just using you in their negotiations to spin their version of BOLLOX.
If the Aussies don't want to pay the loans ---then don't---fall back on the "Prem agreement". If it's a negotiating tool to get RD to lower the price by £5 million it ISN'T working.
Seems we are back to micro analysing details without anyone really knowing whether those details are the real issue or not.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.
Could the strategy be for new owners to take out huge loans to fund a gamble for a push for promotion to the premier league?
Loans being secured against the assets ie valley and sparrows lane.
If it pays off and they hit the premier league jackpot they're heroes without spending any/ little of their own dough, and no one is any the wiser at the risk taken.
If it doesn't then they up sticks, sell up, go into administration, sell the valley and training ground to a private equity firm and bugger off into the night with minimal personal loss and zilch consequence whilst we all sit round scratching our heads.
Perhaps hugely overly simplistic but it could be why there is an insistence on clean title when as pointed out we've been sold twice previous without it seemingly being such an obstacle.
In the murky world of modern football ownership with an impotent and incompetent football league ruling body it wouldn't surprise me if such schemes formulate as there is no logical or commercial reason why any business people would buy a football club beyond the ego boost or high odds gamble of one day making a profit through conventional above board means.
Sunderland's leveraging of their takeover and use of the parachutes to fund the purchase speaks to this yet was approved by the authorities (if they even knew or understood it).
Would be good to understand why these loan repayments are so key to avoid such concerning speculation.
As I understand it the EFL raised concerns about the Sunderland take over but were told by Short that if they didn't let it go through he would wind the club up. Say what you like about the EFL but if you look at it like that they didn't have much choice.
Comments
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Edit.
Posted the above before reading the last page, so I will ask this very nicely to @JamesSeed. Please can you tell us why the ex-director loans HAVE to be repaid before the takeover goes through & specifically why by RD ?? What do the new owners what to achieve by it ? As @Airman Brown has just stated, the club has been sold twice before without the need for them to be repaid.....so why now ??
It's the equivalent of 8 players earning £10k a week! Vital for the side's chances in the Championship perhaps. ...
But when you looking at the amount of money it will take to buy Charlton it only comes to about 10%.
So it is a small amount of money in the wider sense.
So as I’ve said, the sorting out of the loans are holding up the sale of the club.
Roland doesn’t want to pay them off in full, and would like it if we blamed someone else for that, whether it’s GM or the ex-Directors. Some of the ex Directors want repaying in full, others are happy to take a haircut in order to get their money back in advance of any future return to the Premier League.
Not blaming anyone here btw. I’d certainly want 100% back, despite the fact that I could pass away before we return to the Premier League.
Does anyone know if they all have be settled at the same rate (i.e. 100% or 50% or whatever). Or can some agree to take a hit, while others are repaid in full?
This situation has been ongoing for sometime by the sounds of it.
So the Aussies would have to be mad to walk away after two years. And bear in mind they’re business men who aren’t waiting to take the club over so they can start earning a living. They can afford to wait while the club gets its act together, if they have to.
Didn't think that opened to 8 o'clock, and matinees at 2 o'clock ?
These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.
Indeed. Roland thinks because he is legally owed the vast amount of money he has borrowed from himself it should somehow be paid to him by new owners, but he seems to refuse to accept the right of the former directors to be paid in full too.
Loans being secured against the assets ie valley and sparrows lane.
If it pays off and they hit the premier league jackpot they're heroes without spending any/ little of their own dough, and no one is any the wiser at the risk taken.
If it doesn't then they up sticks, sell up, go into administration, sell the valley and training ground to a private equity firm and bugger off into the night with minimal personal loss and zilch consequence whilst we all sit round scratching our heads.
Perhaps hugely overly simplistic but it could be why there is an insistence on clean title when as pointed out we've been sold twice previous without it seemingly being such an obstacle.
In the murky world of modern football ownership with an impotent and incompetent football league ruling body it wouldn't surprise me if such schemes formulate as there is no logical or commercial reason why any business people would buy a football club beyond the ego boost or high odds gamble of one day making a profit through conventional above board means.
Sunderland's leveraging of their takeover and use of the parachutes to fund the purchase speaks to this yet was approved by the authorities (if they even knew or understood it).
Would be good to understand why these loan repayments are so key to avoid such concerning speculation.
It's a lie by RD to DEFLECT from his own utter incompetent ownership and more so his totally unrealistic asking price.
At the moment I'm wondering if RD and the Aussies are just using you in their negotiations to spin their version of BOLLOX.
If the Aussies don't want to pay the loans ---then don't---fall back on the "Prem agreement". If it's a negotiating tool to get RD to lower the price by £5 million it ISN'T working.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.