First off can I just say that I respect the views and reasons why any of the former directors feel about getting paid in full. That is purely for them to decide.
What I will say though is that given the loans are not paid in full until the football club returns to The Premier League. I don’t find it completely surprising that in order to “cash out” early on a bet that might never come in that they are being offered something less.
We have heard of a previous derisory offer which completely fits in with the Belgian maniacs modus operandi and has rightly been rejected but my point stands that any offer now to clear the loans might be less than the full amount.
Thats not to say each of the former former directors have to accept that.
They are not asking to cash out and seem happy to wait, someone else wants to take their chips without paying full price, it's a piss take.
I have a feeling this is the end game now and the club will be sold by the end of the month.
RD trying to pressure the directors into taking a haircut through outing it while laying it on thick how hard it will be budget wise next year is his last card to play thinking it will get the fans on their back.
Once this plays out and it comes clear they will not budge and fans will not turn on them he will blink and it will be done.
I hope you're right, but he's hardly blinked for 5 years.
I have a feeling this is the end game now and the club will be sold by the end of the month.
RD trying to pressure the directors into taking a haircut through outing it while laying it on thick how hard it will be budget wise next year is his last card to play thinking it will get the fans on their back.
Once this plays out and it comes clear they will not budge and fans will not turn on them he will blink and it will be done.
The three directors RD has blamed for holding up the takeover are owed a total of £2.65m.
If he for example only wants to pay them 50% then RD is delaying the takeover for the sake of £1.32m.
Even if the clubs losses are cut to say £6m a season, the takeover dragging on another 3 months means he may have to put another £1.5m into the club.
He’s likely to get £30m+ by selling the club and potentially further payments if we’re experience any success on the pitch.
Have the other directors agreed to be paid a % of their loan and therefore RD is refusing to pay any of them off in full?
That would be a kick in the b@llocks from the Aussies aswell then. No it's not thier debt , but after all this time and the season 2 months away the Aussies are going to mess about over £1.3 million. Can't see it. If Roland decides to settle the £1.3 million just before the start of the season the Aussies will have a few weeks to get in the players the manager wants.
I believe it’s £7m the Aussies are dealing with now. I’ve a possible solution to the current impasse, but it would involve compromise by Roland, which might be a stumbling block.
But it's not.
The ex Directors are prepared to take a hair cut, as long as he sells lock, stock and barrel. RDs post suggests that he has already agreed with the majority of the ex Directors (though David White has questioned that).
At least the position seems more fluid now that LvT has contacted them at last.
There are some wrong assumptions on CL about what Roland has and hadn’t done, and what his current position is. He isn’t offering to pay the ex directors at all now, is he?
He is.
Just at a discounted rate. And as long as he sells CAFC as a complete entity, then my understanding that they may well be acceptable to the ex Directors.
Obviously dependant on the level of the 'discount'.
If you wait a few days I imagine all will be revealed about the directors’ loans. The Roland discount issue is not applicable.
Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification
Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?
I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)
OR
Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?
(i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)
I'm not 100% certain. However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges. The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered. Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ? The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.
Chappell, Whitehand and Sumner put out a statement via VOTV saying they were not prepared to take a haircut. They said they want repayment in full.
As for Murray, Hatter, Hughes and White, we don't know what their views are. However, Dave White said he had been recently contacted, was willing to have a discussion, but no discussion had taken place.
This is the part that I thought you meant before we reach the promised land of the Premier. Wherein fact those 3 at least don't mind a roll over. Why can't I be an expert like some on here ?
So the situation is not an impasse but a total stalemate. Why did Chappel, Whitehand and Sumner make loans which would be paid back if we make the Premier yet now want to be paid out in full ?
Did they invest money with Neil Woodford or Richard Rufus and now have cash flow problems ?
They’d be happy to wait til the Premier League. But if someone wants to pay them off in order to obtain clean title, then they can either accept a discount, or ask for the full amount.
So, a salient reminder to us all that Roland Duchatalet is a lying Shitweasel.
His entire stewardship has been characterised by the industrial quantities of bullshit that he and his cronies have spread around SE7 in order to attempt to justify their fuckwittery and deflect the blame for their own mistakes onto others.
I can't wait until him and his gang of bullshitters stop stinking up the place and piss off somewhere else.
The phrase 'taking a haircut' is now pissing me off so much that I don't even want to have an actual haircut any more.
Agreed. It's up there with great 'piece' for me. Both phrases kind of implying that the writer has an in depth knowledge of business deals and writing. Lots of more worthy things in the world to get annoyed about of course but credit where its due for pointing it out. Could swop haircut for 'Reduction' possibly??
First off can I just say that I respect the views and reasons why any of the former directors feel about getting paid in full. That is purely for them to decide.
What I will say though is that given the loans are not paid in full until the football club returns to The Premier League. I don’t find it completely surprising that in order to “cash out” early on a bet that might never come in that they are being offered something less.
We have heard of a previous derisory offer which completely fits in with the Belgian maniacs modus operandi and has rightly been rejected but my point stands that any offer now to clear the loans might be less than the full amount.
Thats not to say each of the former former directors have to accept that.
They are not asking to cash out and seem happy to wait, someone else wants to take their chips without paying full price, it's a piss take.
That’s not my point. I fully understand both their right and attitude to wanting it paid in full and being prepared to wait.
What I am saying is that it’s reasonable for someone to make an offer at something less than the full amount to settle the debt before it becomes due.
Its probably a poor analogy as it doesn’t include a house but when a footballer is sold with the inclusion of a sell on clause it is not unusual for at some point for the initial selling club to receive a negotiated figure before the sell on clause is in fact triggered. A bird in the hand scenario if you like.
im not suggesting that those directors are doing anything wrong or damaging to the club. It’s already been said but Duchatelet is trying to put pressure on them with his latest statement by turning the fans. That won’t work and is a despicable tactic but what else would we expect from the man.
I can't remember why the Australian consortium want to buy a second / third division football club? Or why they want one so much that they are willing to dick around for 3 years over it?
Are they dicking around or is it RD?
I meant it in the sense that there has been a lot of dicking around and they seem to be willing to go along with it rather than just fold and move on...
I have a feeling this is the end game now and the club will be sold by the end of the month.
RD trying to pressure the directors into taking a haircut through outing it while laying it on thick how hard it will be budget wise next year is his last card to play thinking it will get the fans on their back.
Once this plays out and it comes clear they will not budge and fans will not turn on them he will blink and it will be done.
Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification
Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?
I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)
OR
Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?
(i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)
I'm not 100% certain. However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges. The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered. Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ? The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.
Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages ! Did this come from a spokesman for the Aussies ?
Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification
Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?
I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)
OR
Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?
(i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)
I'm not 100% certain. However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges. The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered. Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ? The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.
Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification
Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?
I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)
OR
Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?
(i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)
I'm not 100% certain. However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges. The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered. Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ? The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.
Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
They’d be happy to wait til the Premier League. But if someone wants to pay them off in order to obtain clean title, then they can either accept a discount, or ask for the full amount.
Somone? So either RD or the potential purcahsers then.
My uderstanding is that LdT is the one who's been in contact with the ex Directors. Is he moonlighting for Muir now then?
Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification
Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?
I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)
OR
Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?
(i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)
I'm not 100% certain. However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges. The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered. Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ? The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.
Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages ! Plus by whom ?
Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies. The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them. The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off. So it's common sense.
I vaguely remember the term "haircut" from when I used to have to sit basic financial exams 25 years ago when I worked in IT in the city. Its use in this thread did not make sense to me so I checked on Google. Unless the directors are planning to use these loans as collateral then the use of the term in this thread is completely wrong.
They’d be happy to wait til the Premier League. But if someone wants to pay them off in order to obtain clean title, then they can either accept a discount, or ask for the full amount.
Somone? So either RD or the potential purcahsers then.
My uderstanding is that LdT is the one who's been in contact with the ex Directors. Is he moonlighting for Muir now then?
Well he might work for Roland, but his job is to handle the sale.
I vaguely remember the term "haircut" from when I used to have to sit basic financial exams 25 years ago when I worked in IT in the city. Its use in this thread did not make sense to me so I checked on Google. Unless the directors are planning to use these loans as collateral then the use of the term in this thread is completely wrong.
In finance, a haircut is the difference between the market value of an asset used as loan ... creditors, or, in other words, a reduction in the face value of a troubled borrower's debts, as in "to take a haircut": to accept or receive less than is owed.
Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans.
Of course he is. If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
Please believe me, he isn’t.
i think people (might just be me) are reluctant to believe in any way that
1. The issue of the o/s loans is holding up the deal
2. that a consortium talking about investment plans of approx 150M would endanger a deal for 7M
3. that patience with both RD and the Australian consortium has worn thin because of the stories that have been put out by both of the above parties have turned out to be 100% BS.
to this ill add a fourth. without Lee Bowyer last season I have a feeling there is a large chance we would be facing liquidation this post-season as we would now be League 2. if you spent all this time and money on due diligence, as claimed, why would you let the target asset liquidate? its not a restaurant chain where u can TUPE-transfer the workforce, extend the ground rents and carry on under a new brand. The failure to complete would mean:
1. Now in League 2
2. Lost all sorts of assets on the playing side
3. lost all sorts of supporters who got fed up with it
4. 15-30 point deduction
still no evidence to rebutt @nladdick who is no doubt correct when he states, while they may have enough money personally, they havent the cash to buy the club.
if we had any credible prospective owner with a long-term plan, we would have been sold by now. all we have is people looking to speculate on the assets and make a little coin as they don't think we have hit rock bottom yet and their is still more value to leverage. personally, i think this is massively incorrect.
@JamesSeed thanks for the info given so far. However I have a question, if RD isn't paying off the loans and the Aussies arn't, we surely have an impasse and any deal will be off? Unless I'm missing something!
Comments
However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales.
The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.
Wherein fact those 3 at least don't mind a roll over.
Why can't I be an expert like some on here ?
His entire stewardship has been characterised by the industrial quantities of bullshit that he and his cronies have spread around SE7 in order to attempt to justify their fuckwittery and deflect the blame for their own mistakes onto others.
I can't wait until him and his gang of bullshitters stop stinking up the place and piss off somewhere else.
Please let that be soon.
Agreed. It's up there with great 'piece' for me. Both phrases kind of implying that the writer has an in depth knowledge of business deals and writing. Lots of more worthy things in the world to get annoyed about of course but credit where its due for pointing it out. Could swop haircut for 'Reduction' possibly??
What I am saying is that it’s reasonable for someone to make an offer at something less than the full amount to settle the debt before it becomes due.
Its probably a poor analogy as it doesn’t include a house but when a footballer is sold with the inclusion of a sell on clause it is not unusual for at some point for the initial selling club to receive a negotiated figure before the sell on clause is in fact triggered. A bird in the hand scenario if you like.
im not suggesting that those directors are doing anything wrong or damaging to the club. It’s already been said but Duchatelet is trying to put pressure on them with his latest statement by turning the fans. That won’t work and is a despicable tactic but what else would we expect from the man.
Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
Did this come from a spokesman for the Aussies ?
You're welcome
If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
I’m sure more details will come out soon.
Somone? So either RD or the potential purcahsers then.
My uderstanding is that LdT is the one who's been in contact with the ex Directors. Is he moonlighting for Muir now then?
Anyone on here up for lending us a million on the never never?
Got this great new plan where I’ll give you a tenner for the debt. Better than nowt discounted?
Got a lame greyhound out the back I’ll chuck in for a tenner back. Be a winner when she gets back to full fitness.
The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
So it's common sense.
Tbh I can’t remember what’s in the public domain.