Personally, as much as I hate Duchatelet, the priority was ownership of The Valley, which thankfully is now in the hands of ESI. I would have no problems with the training ground remaining in Duchatelet's ownership as long as ESI agree a long term lease at a fair market rent. However, as others have already suggested, there may well be outstanding legal issues, and ESI have given Duchatelet six months to settle these.
Probably wanted to be in for the transfer window. championship status would be at greater risk if they weren’t. Ballsy towards Taylor and I like that attitude
ESI say there is a contractual agreement to buy the training ground and that if they had waited to do all the surveys, due diligence and so on for the TG then they wouldn't have completed their takeover by January.
ESI also say they have committed £15million to developing it once the training ground has been bought this summer.
£15M to develop the training ground, that’s a lot of money, why are people worrying.
I guess were so used to being let down, weve become suspicious on anything that sounds good, meaning if EFI havent spent £20 mil on players by end of the week, they dont have the money.
If you wanted a takeover to be done in time for this season the training ground had to be left out but legally bonded by contract for purchase subject to all checks
some people really do need to get back to enjoying football not trying to be a sleuth
ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time. Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company. Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start.
A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.
ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time. Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company. Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start.
A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.
ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time. Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company. Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start.
A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.
In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?
They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.
There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd. That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.
Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation. That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.
So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence. What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.
Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.
Personally, as much as I hate Duchatelet, the priority was ownership of The Valley, which thankfully is now in the hands of ESI. I would have no problems with the training ground remaining in Duchatelet's ownership as long as ESI agree a long term lease at a fair market rent. However, as others have already suggested, there may well be outstanding legal issues, and ESI have given Duchatelet six months to settle these.
I'm with you on this totally.
It is too easy to think the training ground issue is financial.
ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time. Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company. Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start.
A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.
In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?
They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.
There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd. That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.
Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation. That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.
So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence. What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.
Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.
Does make me think that these issues over Sparrows Lane were a factor in previous takeover's falling through. We may never know but it all points to there being outstanding issues that other potential buyers wouldn't put up with and neither would ESI, they just found a way around it for six months.
ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time. Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company. Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start.
A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.
In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?
They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.
There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd. That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.
Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation. That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.
So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence. What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.
Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.
Does make me think that these issues over Sparrows Lane were a factor in previous takeover's falling through. We may never know but it all points to there being outstanding issues that other potential buyers wouldn't put up with and neither would ESI, they just found a way around it for six months.
@Henry, EFI have obviously then pushed harder, and wanted to obtain the club more, than any of the other bidders, and I guess surprising that the likes of the Aussies, who were scraping for the money, didnt think about the SL as a separate future purchase. Will make Matt Southall’s Interview interesting, if asked why they wanted to buy this club so bad.
ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time. Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company. Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start.
A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.
In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?
They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.
There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd. That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.
Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation. That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.
So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence. What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.
Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.
Does make me think that these issues over Sparrows Lane were a factor in previous takeover's falling through. We may never know but it all points to there being outstanding issues that other potential buyers wouldn't put up with and neither would ESI, they just found a way around it for six months.
@Henry, EFI have obviously then pushed harder, and wanted to obtain the club more, than any of the other bidders, and I guess surprising that the likes of the Aussies, who were scraping for the money, didnt think about the SL as a separate future purchase. Will make Matt Southall’s Interview interesting, if asked why they wanted to buy this club so bad.
maybe @mal or RD was getting more desperate/flexible as time wore on and a sale looked less likely while the team slid down the table. RD would have had a dilemma on his hands now if he hadn't sold as to whether to spend on the squad or see the club relegated and so the sale price drop. All speculation but it fits.
But as you say, maybe ESI just wanted it more and were willing to pay more.
ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time. Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company. Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start.
A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.
In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?
They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.
There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd. That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.
Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation. That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.
So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence. What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.
Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.
Yes, as you know that is entirely possible. If it helps with any of FPP, Duchatelet tax on sale, investment ownership in UAE then this is the sort of thing a team would optimise before signing all the documents.
without being in that team we don’t know what they were trying to make better and the tensions in the sale process.
However it’s down now and they will play out over time. Doesn’t look either u usual or skewed against what we have left to me so far.
Comments
Haven't got that much money then.
Never straightforward with our club
As there's no actual quotes given, I'm going hold onto to the hope that londonnewsonline have this one wrong.
I would have no problems with the training ground remaining in Duchatelet's ownership as long as ESI agree a long term lease at a fair market rent. However, as others have already suggested, there may well be outstanding legal issues, and ESI have given Duchatelet six months to settle these.
Not at all happy about a separation of ownership of the training ground and the club.
However there is a "commitment" to buy it so it could be resolved quickly.
It still raises a few serious questions.
championship status would be at greater risk if they weren’t.
Ballsy towards Taylor and I like that attitude
some people really do need to get back to enjoying football not trying to be a sleuth
In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?
They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.
Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation. That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.
So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence. What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.
Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.
It is too easy to think the training ground issue is financial.
Does make me think that these issues over Sparrows Lane were a factor in previous takeover's falling through. We may never know but it all points to there being outstanding issues that other potential buyers wouldn't put up with and neither would ESI, they just found a way around it for six months.
But as you say, maybe ESI just wanted it more and were willing to pay more.
without being in that team we don’t know what they were trying to make better and the tensions in the sale process.