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.
No. It is the difference between the market value of an asset and the value ascribed to that asset when it is being used as collateral.
@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!
@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!
I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t
So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
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.
Common sense and normal business practice yet the present incumbent and the owners before didn't insist on this. I know Duchatelet didn't do DD but what about Jimenez and co ?
James, I know you can;t say too much. Has there been significant change towards the sale of the club since Wembley? Are there a lot of things going on the background that they are negotiating towards the completion? Are we getting towards the end game now? You mention more will be revelaed in the next few days regarding the loans. Is this something different from what Airman Brown had David White have said? (sitting here with popcorn in one hand and a drink of coke in the other).
@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!
I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t
So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
LDT has made contact with all the ex-directors. It has to be done via the seller's side or the broker if LDT is desribed as such.
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.
And....how can LdT say at previous fans forums that a price (or prices with the other 2 supposed bidders) have been agreed if the former directors loans is an outstanding issue?
@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!
I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t
So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
LDT has made contact with all the ex-directors. It has to be done via the seller's side or the broker if LDT is desribed as such.
So when some of the directors come out and say they have had no contact with RD they mean that literally. LDT represents RD so to say they haven’t heard from him is not strictly true.
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.
Is that correct? Bob Whitehand has this morning said on Twitter that he’s never met or spoken to Duchatelet.
Are you certain he has.
He may not have spoken to or met RD, but LvT has been in touch with all the ex Directors now.
Rudders, read above & note that Brunello is a trusted source.
@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!
I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t
So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
LDT has made contact with all the ex-directors. It has to be done via the seller's side or the broker if LDT is desribed as such.
So when some of the directors come out and say they have had no contact with RD they mean that literally. LDT represents RD so to say they haven’t heard from him is not strictly true.
So it is the Aussies who are trying to screw the ex directors?
They haven’t offered them a so-called ‘haircut’. Let’s leave it for them to sort out folks. Things are ongoing, and probably changing hour by hour, so hard to comment further. @Bedsaddick
CAFCWill I haven't looked at the title, it costs £3 at land registry and you need the SY number of the land. But as separate legal entities the 7 directors will have 7 charges, one each. In theory they could buy off ones that will take a haircut and leave the ones who want full repayment, but that doesn't give clear title. However not sure why they'd need clean title as they can borrow using the Valley as an asset anyway, just as you can have a second mortgage with a different lender. The difficulty might be that in a bankruptcy scenario, the seven need paying off first, and a future lender might not like that, but that would be stupid as you would want your loans servicing by some other means than winding the company up..
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 !
I nearly LoL this but I meant a direct quote from an official of the Australian consortium. Not just working it out on the law of deduction. Three main players in this loans saga, Duchatelet, Consortium and the Ex directors. Yes we know Roland tells porky pies but I would like to see all of the directors come out and state their views so there is no ambiguity. I understand NDA has limited the feed back from any potential new owner during the protracted negotiations.
David Hughes David Sumners David White Sir Maurice Hatter Richard Murray 56 Developments LLP (Bob Whitehand) Harmsworth Pension Funds Trustees (No.2) Limited
So it is the Aussies who are trying to screw the ex directors?
They haven’t offered them a so-called ‘haircut’. Let’s leave it for them to sort out folks. Things are ongoing, and probably changing hour by hour, so hard to comment further. @Bedsaddick
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.
Is that correct? Bob Whitehand has this morning said on Twitter that he’s never met or spoken to Duchatelet.
Are you certain he has.
He may not have spoken to or met RD, but LvT has been in touch with all the ex Directors now.
Rudders, read above & note that Brunello is a trusted source.
Don’t ever recall me or anyone saying that LvT has spoken to the ex directors?
David Hughes David Sumners David White Sir Maurice Hatter Richard Murray 56 Developments LLP (Bob Whitehand) Harmsworth Pension Funds Trustees (No.2) Limited
So it is the Aussies who are trying to screw the ex directors?
They haven’t offered them a so-called ‘haircut’. Let’s leave it for them to sort out folks. Things are ongoing, and probably changing hour by hour, so hard to comment further. @Bedsaddick
So it is the Aussies who are trying to screw the ex directors?
They haven’t offered them a so-called ‘haircut’. Let’s leave it for them to sort out folks. Things are ongoing, and probably changing hour by hour, so hard to comment further. @Bedsaddick
oh i have missed the Its Happening Gifs
In your dreams, I've fallen for Mr James Seeds itk before!
Comments
the chances of that actually happening are relatively slim
they are now waiting on the best 'cash out' offer.....and realistically alot depends on how good that offer is.
like anyone of us who's made an on-line bet and keeps an eye on the cash out price.
So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
Common sense and normal business practice yet the present incumbent and the owners before didn't insist on this. I know Duchatelet didn't do DD but what about Jimenez and co ?
Let’s leave it for them to sort out folks. Things are ongoing, and probably changing hour by hour, so hard to comment further. @Bedsaddick
Yes we know Roland tells porky pies but I would like to see all of the directors come out and state their views so there is no ambiguity.
I understand NDA has limited the feed back from any potential new owner during the protracted negotiations.
Nope. 4 pages of people arguing about directors loans.
When are the fixtures out?
David Hughes
David Sumners
David White
Sir Maurice Hatter
Richard Murray
56 Developments LLP (Bob Whitehand)
Harmsworth Pension Funds Trustees (No.2) Limited