Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1211621172119212121222265

Comments

  • edited December 2019
    There is another clue to the strange things. Has Bowyer not said that he doesn't know what his budget will be? If that is correct, it feels strange if he is to be planning the January purchases as legwork for them would be being done now. You need to know what lake you are fishing in if you are doing the fishing.

    If I was Sherlock Holmes I would point to the owners having their own people to decide the targets. Now if they are bringing in top players, that wont be too bad although I can see why Bowyer may not be happy. He and Gallen have done pretty well doing these things themselves.

    Still, all we can do is make stabs in the dark. I'd love some clarity soon.
  • seth plum said:
    seth plum said:
    The word 'should' is interesting....and why the further delay?
    Personally I want it to go through, I want us to be rich, I want all the success that may follow, but I am simply passing on what I have heard. Not going to say who from, and i hope it is speculation born of worry and fear.
    If any of you know anything else then share, especially if it rubbishes what I have written, I would be delighted.
    You haven’t actually written anything.
    What do you want, the conversation written out word for word as I remember it? A script?
    I have said I feel less confident than I did after having the conversation, not that the takeover is off.
    I mentioned some elements like the time it has taken being a bit of a worry, that the EFL are not being villainous, that personal checks are over, that Duchatelet has not been especially thorough himself, that Bowyer was evasive about Taylor's contract in an interview.
    I will add that the key fundamental in all this, from the three parties, the EFL, Duchatelet,and  the buyers/wider investors is, guess what, the money.
    If all that makes me an attention seeking wrong un who spouts continuous bullshit then that is the problem for those who see it that way, I passed on my experience and linked it to my degree of confidence. I am content with that, whatever others think.
    Now you’ve clarified, before you didn’t. 
  • thanks Seth - makes sense, I guess that at this confusing juncture in the future of our club we are all in the dark and when someone, like yourself, tries to throw a chink of light into the darkness of confusion we all want a bank of floodlight turned on!.
  • I am a nobody and not at all ITK so just my opinion but given the apparent source of the money/ownership I'd be surprised if there was that much speculative stuff here, why would a super rich individual want or need to get involved in any such deal, although for the same reasons I can understand why the funding might not be that transparent.
  • Answer: Don't know. Do you?
  • One I'm sure the EFL will ask.
  • Sponsored links:


  • @Airman Brown  what are the risks around that eventuality?

  • Lee Bowyer has managed for Roland Duchatelet and played under Peter Ridsdale. A miser and a Spendthrift !

    So to be outside the Parameters of the above and their polar opposite ways of running a football club makes you wonder what is the strange or different ways of a young go ahead chairman with a degree in business management ?
  • Addickted said:
    Sven-Göran Eriksson two rows in front of Will.I.Am
    Those two women sitting next Matt Southall, proper Charlton #TartanBlanket
  • edited December 2019
    razil said:
    @Airman Brown  what are the risks around that eventuality?

    I’m no expert and don’t claim to be, but clearly many businesses will borrow against their assets to fund investment. In Man United’s case it was used to fund the purchase, as I understand it. The problem in Charlton’s case is that the business is unlikely to be profitable outside of the Premier League, so there are no spare revenues to service the debt, except potentially player sales, and ultimately unless promoted the club would have to attract further investment or go bust.

    Should add that it is very unlikely you could borrow enough from a conventional bank against the assets to fund the publicised purchase price or a promotion challenge, but I reckon that by selling Taylor in January and borrowing against the ground (which requires repaying ex-directors first) you could buy yourself a year or two if you could avoid relegation to L1. 
  • seth plum said:
    seth plum said:
    The word 'should' is interesting....and why the further delay?
    Personally I want it to go through, I want us to be rich, I want all the success that may follow, but I am simply passing on what I have heard. Not going to say who from, and i hope it is speculation born of worry and fear.
    If any of you know anything else then share, especially if it rubbishes what I have written, I would be delighted.
    You haven’t actually written anything.
    What do you want, the conversation written out word for word as I remember it? A script?
    I have said I feel less confident than I did after having the conversation, not that the takeover is off.
    I mentioned some elements like the time it has taken being a bit of a worry, that the EFL are not being villainous, that personal checks are over, that Duchatelet has not been especially thorough himself, that Bowyer was evasive about Taylor's contract in an interview.
    I will add that the key fundamental in all this, from the three parties, the EFL, Duchatelet,and  the buyers/wider investors is, guess what, the money.
    If all that makes me an attention seeking wrong un who spouts continuous bullshit then that is the problem for those who see it that way, I passed on my experience and linked it to my degree of confidence. I am content with that, whatever others think.
    Don’t think anyone thinks that Seth. Maybe you could have explained things a bit better - as could have Bowyer in his pre-match sky chat.  People will always take comments how they want to - and usually it’s negative. That is understandable given the last 6 years and having to endure the likes of old dirty teeth, his bint sidekick and that Weasel Murray.  We are also in limbo, not really had any real clarity  since we heard about the takeover picking up pace. That said, Southall did say they would be making no further comment. Even if he did speak now, what is he going to say? All we know if that the interviews have taken place and Southall has spoken to Bowyer and Co. 

    All you have done is pass info on that you have heard and how you have read it. 
    For what it is worth, and as I said, my first post was clumsily written as I stood on a jostling crowd on platform 1 of Charlton station waiting for the 10.06 to Lewisham. I am not slick with mobile telephone typing so my initial post was less clear than I would've liked. I have subsequently tried to clarify whilst maintaining a modicum of discretion.
    Yesterday evening a lot of posters were abusive towards me, which is fair enough that is their mindset, but I really don't see the big crime I am supposed to have committed.
    Perhaps the abusive posters will help me by explaining the reason for their abuse.
  • isn’t it the women that was going to buy Newcastle 
  • Question: to what extent do the potential owners intend to finance the club or the sale by borrowing against the fixed assets, i.e The Valley/Sparrows Lane?
    Regardless of the answer the EFL need to surely bring in rules that stop borrowing against the type of assets you mention

    After all it was partly down to their demise that Bury were able to sell of the Ground and Parking Space to fund other ventures which in their case werent for the Football club
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited December 2019
    razil said:
    @Airman Brown  what are the risks around that eventuality?

    I’m no expert and don’t claim to be, but clearly many businesses will borrow against their assets to fund investment. In Man United’s case it was used to fund the purchase, as I understand it. The problem in Charlton’s case is that the business is unlikely to be profitable outside of the Premier League, so there are no spare revenues to service the debt, except potentially player sales, and ultimately unless promoted would ultimately have to attract further investment or go bust.

    Should add that it is very unlikely you could borrow enough from a conventional bank against the assets to fund the publicised purchase price. 


    Depends what other personal guarantees might be in place from a  very wealthy individual 😉. Interest rates are low and borrowing against the property assets to complete the purchase would free up working capital.
  • I was guessing similar to your final paragraph.

    Also any purchase would have demonstrate ongoing funds to the EFL, and we are led to believe there will be investment so this doesn't seem significant to me, although it would ask questions about the funding levels.

    Is there some accounting reason it would be beneficial? Some way to avoid FFP, or hide ownership?

    It would of course remove some of the protection we've apparently enjoyed under secured FD loans of course.
  • razil said:
    @Airman Brown  what are the risks around that eventuality?

    I’m no expert and don’t claim to be, but clearly many businesses will borrow against their assets to fund investment. In Man United’s case it was used to fund the purchase, as I understand it. The problem in Charlton’s case is that the business is unlikely to be profitable outside of the Premier League, so there are no spare revenues to service the debt, except potentially player sales, and ultimately unless promoted the club would have to attract further investment or go bust.

    Should add that it is very unlikely you could borrow enough from a conventional bank against the assets to fund the publicised purchase price or a promotion challenge, but I reckon that by selling Taylor in January and borrowing against the ground (which requires repaying ex-directors first) you could buy yourself a year or two if you could avoid relegation to L1. 
    Assuming though that Southall and others involved are behaving as rational businessmen, that does not seem like much of a business plan. If they had achieved no more than that, (avoiding relegation) its hard to see how they could then expect to sell the club again at a significant profit to themselves.

    There has to be something else involved in any business plan which does not primarily focus on increasing resale value by making the football club a more competitive attractive proposition than it is now (i.e. in the FAPL, or within reach of it). If it were 2010, we'd hear Lee Amis saying "it's a property play, it's always a property play" but it seems (and you know way more than most of us on that) that no such property play is available at least on a short term horizon.
  • Football abhors a vacuum, this period between announcement and something happening is a real drag. 
  • Rothko said:
    Football abhors a vacuum, this period between announcement and something happening is a real drag. 
    LOOK AT ME.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!