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 ?
Stop falling for Roland's lies.
The three directors are not blocking any takeover.
They don't have to be paid now, any owner can roll the bonds over.
But if the current owner wants them settled he has to pay them in full, to those three at least.
Why do people not still grasp that blaming the three directors is what Duchatelet wants you to do so you don't blame him.
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 !
Would you make a loan and not expect it to be paid in full? The ex-directors are obliged to wait until the club get's to the Premier League for payment, unless other things happen, like a new owner wanting clean title. It's not the ex-directors fault. Blame Roland for not doing due diligence, and getting clean title himself!
The difference is, I would've had a date for the loan to be paid back, say 5 years, Not the unlikely event of Charlton ever getting to the Premier again.
If I was a potential new owner ( it ain't happening sam) I would get in touch with the Ex directors and promise a bonus if they sit tight because I know the TV revenue would cover the Promotion to the premier. Not just cover it but be less than 8% of the amount paid to promoted clubs.
This is why new owners wanting clean titles doesn't have to be the case.
Lack of a skilled broker who can sweet talk the shit weasel and bring a resolution to this issue as well.
The hero to Zero status of Richard Murray who has 50% of the 7 million loans isn't helping with his relationship with the rest of the directors.
Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans.
So why not let them roll over again? Why do the Aussies need them paid off?
It's simply about the money, nothing else. I assume RD is the villain here and possibly indicated he would pay the loans off and has now back tracked.
However, as you say why can't RD & the Aussies sign the deal and then the Aussies pay the ex-directors off ? If they have the money and are not reliant on outside funding then they can.
So it still boils down to a rangle over £7M whether we call it the ex-director loans or whether we say it isn't.
Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans.
If he doesn't pay them off there is no deal then........ simples.
How on earth the Aussies and that doughnut managed to think they had a deal without that important issue being resolved is amateur. Both sides have to take some of the flack as it should have been agreed before they started telling the world that they had one.
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 !
Would you make a loan and not expect it to be paid in full? The ex-directors are obliged to wait until the club get's to the Premier League for payment, unless other things happen, like a new owner wanting clean title. It's not the ex-directors fault. Blame Roland for not doing due diligence, and getting clean title himself!
The difference is, I would've had a date for the loan to be paid back, say 5 years, Not the unlikely event of Charlton ever getting to the Premier again.
If I was a potential new owner ( it ain't happening sam) I would get in touch with the Ex directors and promise a bonus if they sit tight because I know the TV revenue would cover the Promotion to the premier. Not just cover it but be less than 8% of the amount paid to promoted clubs.
This is why new owners wanting clean titles doesn't have to be the case.
Lack of a skilled broker who can sweet talk the shit weasel and bring a resolution to this issue as well.
The hero to Zero status of Richard Murray who has 50% of the 7 million loans isn't helping with his relationship with the rest of the directors.
This reads as if you still don't understand. The ex-directors can sit tight forever. They need do absolutely nothing. They will be repaid in full if we reach The Prem, or a current owner can choose to repay them in full earlier.
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?
1675, Charles II lays the foundation stone as work begins on Greenwich Royal Observatory.
Meanwhile the potential king Charles III the prince in waiting, is waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting, IF he becomes king he will be older than William IV who became King at 69 and is the oldest prince ever to ascend to the throne.
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 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?
I get why the Aussies want the loans paid back and I get why the ex-Directors want the full amount, the only solution here is for RD to pay them off now in full so we can move on...
RD - FFS do us all a favour (including you) and just pay them what’s owed!!!!!
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.
We know RD is not competent as a football club owner - but he has always claimed competence as a billionaire business owner. The fact that he is taking so long to sell a concern the size of Charlton when there have been interest from numerous buyers really just raises a huge question mark over his competence as a businessman. Has he no pride or self awareness?
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.
Comments
I wonder what skeletons we will find when RD eventually goes?
The three directors are not blocking any takeover.
They don't have to be paid now, any owner can roll the bonds over.
But if the current owner wants them settled he has to pay them in full, to those three at least.
Why do people not still grasp that blaming the three directors is what Duchatelet wants you to do so you don't blame him.
If I was a potential new owner ( it ain't happening sam) I would get in touch with the Ex directors and promise a bonus if they sit tight because I know the TV revenue would cover the Promotion to the premier.
Not just cover it but be less than 8% of the amount paid to promoted clubs.
This is why new owners wanting clean titles doesn't have to be the case.
Lack of a skilled broker who can sweet talk the shit weasel and bring a resolution to this issue as well.
The hero to Zero status of Richard Murray who has 50% of the 7 million loans isn't helping with his relationship with the rest of the directors.
I assume RD is the villain here and possibly indicated he would pay the loans off and has now back tracked.
However, as you say why can't RD & the Aussies sign the deal and then the Aussies pay the ex-directors off ?
If they have the money and are not reliant on outside funding then they can.
So it still boils down to a rangle over £7M whether we call it the ex-director loans or whether we say it isn't.
If he doesn't pay them off there is no deal then........ simples.
How on earth the Aussies and that doughnut managed to think they had a deal without that important issue being resolved is amateur. Both sides have to take some of the flack as it should have been agreed before they started telling the world that they had one.
The ex-directors can sit tight forever.
They need do absolutely nothing.
They will be repaid in full if we reach The Prem, or a current owner can choose to repay them in full earlier.
Not a lot of people know that
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)
RD - FFS do us all a favour (including you) and just pay them what’s owed!!!!!
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.
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 ?