Fair to say the site may go into meltdown if Bowyer, Jackson and Gallen were sacked on Thursday but they won't be. Unrealistic to expect new contracts to have been agreed so quickly. Pleasantly surprised if that were to happen but an announcement that negotiations are to commence is probably all that's needed this month.
Time to say goodbye to Tripadvisor and my one follower on there, I’ve got to be pleased with level 3. I was going to write a book on adventures in Belgium titled “Staying at Stayen” but my publisher cancelled at the last minute. 😉
Does this mean I have to cancel my hotel booking in St Truiden?
No way. We should keep making them for the next few years. Also the crap Tripadvisor reviews, while giving positive reviews to Wim at Op De Beek, who was host to the Unity protest shindig and whose hotel was operational base and accommodation for the B20, ROT and other protesters from early in 2016 onwards. He is now in direct competition with the hotel at Stayen, so every little bit of support will help.
Now that's the way to get your wages trebled Macaulay, get rid of your present agent, and you will have more for yourself. There are ex-pros with brains at the PFA who can do that service so much cheaper and if Taylor goes, you will be offered a mega increase as soon as you walk into Matt Southall's office. From 3k to 9k without even blinking, score another 8 plus a few assists and you will be in a great position in the summer.
Resolutions
The sum of £21,494,704.00 be capitalised 27/12/2019
Restiction on auth share cap revoked and deleted 27/12/2019
This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.
Think it is just authorisation of what happened on 27 December when cash of £21.49m deposited in CAFC and was applied to provide 21,494,704 bonus shares to the existing shareholder's 4.98m of shares. Just housekeeping.
I've got no numbers in front of me, but as a complete guess is that £21m the difference between what ESI are buying the club for and the balance on the Stayprix loan account?
Wonder if this relates to the former directors money that was owed??
The cash injected to acquire the shares does not mean the cash has not then been used to reduce the Staprix loan. The cash can be used for whatever purpose RD permits.
The Director loans attach to the company that owes the money. If ESI do not acquire the Charlton companies, only their assets, ESI has no liability for any loans.
Could explain the acrimony over the Director loans if RD insisting the purchaser of assets also acquires liabilities for the Director loans - makes no sense and likely to be resisted purely on principle.
In truth the Director loans might never be repayable if they are relying on the shell companies that RD retains having sold all their assets to ESI. Would speculate that the terms only apply to the promotion of the team whilst owned by CAFC, not a new owner. So if repaid would be relying on a goodwill gesture from someone. That goodwill gesture may have already been committed given the issue seems to have receded from the landscape.
When all’s said and done it’s a private matter between CAFC and former directors and would not really be any of our business, had RD not muddied the water and harmed prospects of a deal over the issue.
The Directors loans have a charge over the assets, so your scenario is not possible. How do you know that there was a cash injection and not just capitalisation of loans?
The Directors loans have a charge over the assets, so your scenario is not possible. How do you know that there was a cash injection and not just capitalisation of loans?
Then the goodwill would have been someone providing cash to discharge the debt outside the terms of the loan agreements before the asset transfer. So problem sorted and agree my scenario would not arise.
The Companies House filing confirms shares can only be issued for cash. Company law on capitalisation only allows shares to be allotted from company shareholder capital reserves - normally accumulated profits. But clearly CAFC has no retained profits so reserves could only be created by an injection of cash. That cash could then be used to repay Staprix. But nothing to stop the debt being left on the balance sheet and the cash being used for any other purpose.
Dippenhall a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A straight swap of £1 debt for £1 equity would be shown as a share issue for cash. No need for accumulated profits. Why have you now started on about goodwill?
Woke up this morning feeling fine. I've got Charlton Life on my mind. Henry's got us posting the way we should, oh yeah. Something tells me I'm into something good.
Woke up this morning feeling fine. I've got Charlton Life on my mind. Henry's got us posting the way we should, oh yeah. Something tells me he still won't get a promote.
Dippenhall a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A straight swap of £1 debt for £1 equity would be shown as a share issue for cash. No need for accumulated profits. Why have you now started on about goodwill?
The transaction was capitalisation which means converting shareholder funds to equity not the issue of more shares backed by the same existing capital I.e dilution.
The whole point of capitalisation is to award shares without diluting the value for existing shareholders. You are exchanging money, potentially distributable to shareholders in dividends, for more shares to the same shareholders. That is only possible if the shares are supported by cash, normally undistributed accumulated profits, not by issuing 21m shares backed by the same paid up share capital.
There’s a difference between a debt being written off and a debt being repaid. If debt is written off you would not bother issuing 21m worthless shares in return, particularly where the creditor was 100% owner of the company, you would just show a reduced liability on the balance sheet and an improved net asset value.
If the debt is being repaid then £21m of cash needs to come from some somewhere and if the club isn’t making £21m profits can’t imagine where the cash is coming from apart from perhaps cash paid for its assets.
The goodwill was actual goodwill in repaying the Director loans where the terms for repayment have not and could not be met in future, nothing to do with accounting goodwill on the balance sheet.
A bit late now but was hoping to see a few 'its happening' gifs 😉
One last time then
Cheers mate, 🍾🍺🍷🍹🎉🍻🥳
Camera,glasses and Roland.
Just to clarify LC's comment, That clip was taken from footage using spy glasses in the Stayen restaurant in August 2017 during a 20 minute discussion with Duchatelet where it was hoped he would say something libellous. I love this GIF but it would sound much better with Roland's impression of a strangled turkey to accompany it.
Comments
There are ex-pros with brains at the PFA who can do that service so much cheaper and if Taylor goes, you will be offered a mega increase as soon as you walk into Matt Southall's office.
From 3k to 9k without even blinking, score another 8 plus a few assists and you will be in a great position in the summer.
(No idea what the bit above it means though. Sorry).
When all’s said and done it’s a private matter between CAFC and former directors and would not really be any of our business, had RD not muddied the water and harmed prospects of a deal over the issue.
.
How do you know that there was a cash injection and not just capitalisation of loans?
The Companies House filing confirms shares can only be issued for cash. Company law on capitalisation only allows shares to be allotted from company shareholder capital reserves - normally accumulated profits. But clearly CAFC has no retained profits so reserves could only be created by an injection of cash. That cash could then be used to repay Staprix. But nothing to stop the debt being left on the balance sheet and the cash being used for any other purpose.
Until accounts published we are speculating.
Onto 8m
A straight swap of £1 debt for £1 equity would be shown as a share issue for cash.
No need for accumulated profits.
Why have you now started on about goodwill?
I've got Charlton Life on my mind.
Henry's got us posting the way we should, oh yeah.
Something tells me I'm into something good.
The whole point of capitalisation is to award shares without diluting the value for existing shareholders. You are exchanging money, potentially distributable to shareholders in dividends, for more shares to the same shareholders. That is only possible if the shares are supported by cash, normally undistributed accumulated profits, not by issuing 21m shares backed by the same paid up share capital.
There’s a difference between a debt being written off and a debt being repaid. If debt is written off you would not bother issuing 21m worthless shares in return, particularly where the creditor was 100% owner of the company, you would just show a reduced liability on the balance sheet and an improved net asset value.