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

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

120212325262265

Comments

  • Options
    Missed It said:

    RedChaser said:

    Missed It said:

    Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

    Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

    It's nit just RM, he's owed £2m. There are five other former directors each owed £1m each with a charge (debenture).


    Do these directors effectively have veto power on any deal then?
    Depends on the deal but if they are not paid off, I suspect they can block any deal.
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    Missed It said:

    RedChaser said:

    Missed It said:

    Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

    Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

    It's nit just RM, he's owed £2m. There are five other former directors each owed £1m each with a charge (debenture).


    Do these directors effectively have veto power on any deal then?
    I'm a bit rusty on this but I wouldn't have thought so, repayment of their loans originally was on condition of CAFC reaching the PL so if an offer was made to repay the loans in full now, in equity, how could they refuse reimbursement?

    Where there might be a problem is in the granting of any lease which the terms of the former directors charges are likely to prevent, without their consent.
  • Options
    I know it's couple of pages back now, but @Chizz you are an absolute pompous twat and a complete tosser in the way you respond to people. Nobody values your opinion.

    Anyway, I really think that this ozzy mob may not be the best route out but if they're the only one I guess we will have to take it.

    If it means roland out I'm going to be on board it's just the valley im worried about.
  • Options

    This is a football forum and I don't think there is any problem with airing doomsday scenarios when they are thoughtful, and that's how I read and liked @vff comment. Sure, I cannot see why sensible businessmen would pay a large amount for the club without the Valley and then sign up to a daft lease; but English football is littered with businessmen who took leave of their senses as soon as they bought a club.

    Here is what worries me. For better or for worse, the English game is financially largely built on club ownership of stadia. There are two departures from that at the top level ; West Ham and Man City. The thing is that leaving aside the joke of the West Ham deal, rental costs are a tiny percentage of today's FAPL club revenue. Now, I cannot think of a club outside the FAPL which is not a stadium owner, and which is successful. There are plenty in Continental Europe, but that is because it is the norm in many countries, so there is equality of financial structure within the leagues.

    You might suppose that Australian "businessmen" are wise to that difference, and can negotiate their way around it. But then many people hailed Roland Duchatelet as a 'successful businessman". Which he is. In micro-electronics.

    Millwall.
  • Options
    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.
  • Options

    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.

    Its not really in a valley, is it. It at the bottom of a steep hill, but there is nothing on the other side. The land is flat all the way to the Thames.
  • Options
    Murray is owed millions, but only gets them back when the club returns to the Premiership! Why? Because he ultimately failed and rather than write off the debt, he realised that the only way he could get the money back would be if Charlton were succesful. Why not do a similar deal in respect of the Valley with significant payment deferred until success is achieved? It is easy to make conditions in the agreement and negotiate a long cheap lease. Paying £1,000 a month would effectively be the equivalent of Duchatelet being up to the tune of around £1m a month when you take losses into account. And the Valley would be security for a return that will potentially mitigate his losses! I think we have to look at the detail when it is there, but from what I can gather, the Aussies are looking to raise the money to fund a plan - buying the club, which is bleeding money, more cheaply would make that easier.

    I think it is reasonable to assume they are not stupid and should be encouraged at this stage.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    edited April 2017


    -blockquote- As I posted earlier, if your business model is based around investing to get to the rewards of the PL in 5 years and then selling up, why bother with owning The Valley ?

    Because it gives security of tenure moving forwards so that the subscribers to the IPO have a degree of certainty that the business, now positioned in the most lucrative league in the world, has longevity to deliver the returns year after year -blockquote-

    It's also a significant asset to loan money against and it gives 'the club' an added bulk value that means we are a substantially valued club which needs more serious operators to consider buying us. Look at the state of Coventry City. It's because they have sold their assets that they are in such a mess and have so little control of their destiny. Sadly, they are a potential glimpse into the next season or too if we are not very careful. Having said that, beggars can't be choosers, so we have to hope and pray that we are acquired by savvy owners with a plan that secures realistic options for the Valley, if not outright purchase now.
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    Coventry don't own their ground do they? And look how well that is working. There might be some subtle nuances in business that make a 20m bid for a name while allowing the home of the club to remain in the hands of an idiot ex owner who may be hostile in the future.
    But I sincerely doubt it.
  • Options
    Brentford being taken over by a Chinese investor, owner of Nice.
  • Options
    Redrobo said:

    This is a football forum and I don't think there is any problem with airing doomsday scenarios when they are thoughtful, and that's how I read and liked @vff comment. Sure, I cannot see why sensible businessmen would pay a large amount for the club without the Valley and then sign up to a daft lease; but English football is littered with businessmen who took leave of their senses as soon as they bought a club.

    Here is what worries me. For better or for worse, the English game is financially largely built on club ownership of stadia. There are two departures from that at the top level ; West Ham and Man City. The thing is that leaving aside the joke of the West Ham deal, rental costs are a tiny percentage of today's FAPL club revenue. Now, I cannot think of a club outside the FAPL which is not a stadium owner, and which is successful. There are plenty in Continental Europe, but that is because it is the norm in many countries, so there is equality of financial structure within the leagues.

    You might suppose that Australian "businessmen" are wise to that difference, and can negotiate their way around it. But then many people hailed Roland Duchatelet as a 'successful businessman". Which he is. In micro-electronics.

    Millwall.
    And look at the problems they've had with that just this year.
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    The problem is, any asking price that values the club more highly than it was valued when Duchatelet bought the club is going to be difficult to sell to people. A buyer is buying the potential of the club, but it makes more sense to defer some of the payment, if you can, until the potential is fulfilled! That mitigates the risk to the buyer and gives the seller a) an opportunity to stop losing money (could be around £50 million in five years) and b) is provided the potential for some sort of return subject to success. As gaining a return if keeping the club was always going to require success, this is surely the clever way to buy the club from this idiot owner we have been lumbered with!

    To strike a deal, it has to work for the seller and the buyer. In many ways, I would feel more comfortable being bought by people clever enough not to pay Roland all the money he wants up front.
  • Options

    a complete tosser in the way you respond to people.

    Hey that's just like "your opinion" man. I "can't imagine" what would drive you to "say" such "horrible things".
  • Options

    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.

    How about development for a massive warehouse for electronics distribution.
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    After a few days of trying to make sense of everything that we know so far I can't help thinking that we, the fans, have been played by a Self Promoting Walter Mitty no mark second rate management consultant who knows nothing about football and even less about European employment laws.

    When looking for his next 'gig' he now has even more hits than before when prospective employers google him.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options

    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.

    How about development for a massive warehouse for electronics distribution.
    One word 'Access', used to be your flexible friend once upon a time and still is in this scenario.
  • Options

    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.

    How about development for a massive warehouse for electronics distribution.
    There is zero chance of Greenwich council giving planning permission for the non football re-development of the Valley against the wishes of the football club and its fans.
  • Options

    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.

    How about development for a massive warehouse for electronics distribution.
    There is zero chance of Greenwich council giving planning permission for the non football re-development of the Valley against the wishes of the football club and its fans.
    Not if we have already located to a smaller identikit stadium. The Council would love to see residential development at the Valley if their were no reasons to object by the club.
  • Options

    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.

    How about development for a massive warehouse for electronics distribution.
    There is zero chance of Greenwich council giving planning permission for the non football re-development of the Valley against the wishes of the football club and its fans.
    I take on board RedChaser's point about access and don't know if the council could find a solution to that.

    However, regarding planning permission & Greenwich council, times change and if CAFC was again somewhere else we couldn't be 100% sure.

    All the options on the Valley have been discussed to death, so I am not trying to reopen it. My comment was given as a throw away against the housing development.

    I am though as stated earlier in this thread firmly in the camp of keeping the freehold with the club, there are to many examples of serious failure of splitting the two.
  • Options
    .
  • Options
    edited April 2017

    Two problems with redevopment of the Valley for housing. 1. Its in a Valley. 2. The Valley Party.

    How about development for a massive warehouse for electronics distribution.
    There is zero chance of Greenwich council giving planning permission for the non football re-development of the Valley against the wishes of the football club and its fans.
    I take on board RedChaser's point about access and don't know if the council could find a solution to that.

    However, regarding planning permission & Greenwich council, times change and if CAFC was again somewhere else we couldn't be 100% sure.

    All the options on the Valley have been discussed to death, so I am not trying to reopen it. My comment was given as a throw away against the housing development.

    I am though as stated earlier in this thread firmly in the camp of keeping the freehold with the club, there are to many examples of serious failure of splitting the two.
    Me too having helped in the clear up of the ground before we moved back home and watched the sad demise of other clubs who have let go of their main fixed asset.

    However whilst we can express our grave concerns on a forum what else, realistically, can we do to prevent this from happening?

    We can cite Coventry as a situation to be avoided at all costs but don't forget this is exactly where Brighton were 20 years ago but they are finally on the verge of a return to the big time. Of course we don't want to spend the next twenty years (not sure if I will be here anyway) hanging around in the lower leagues but when you are up against it like we are losing £12m a year you have to explore other options to survive.

    I also want RD to cut all his ties with us but remember he doesn't do failure and will want to hold onto the main asset if he can't get all his money back just now.

    Maybe the Consortium's 5 year plan (assuming a lease arrangement is agreed) is pie in the sky and fails, then what? Administration, someone buys us for £1 we ground share and we start all over like Brighton or Wimbledon did from square one.

    There is nothing enjoyable to look forward under this regime, at least we have a glimmer of hope for something better with the new owners, who hopefully having tied up the deal belt and braces, will deliver irrespective of the Douchbag being in the background and one day finally pay him off.

    If anyone has a better alternative right now or has the power to bring @bobmunro 's dream to life, I'd be pleased to hear of it, maintaining the status quo of the way the football club operates is not an option for me I'm afraid.
  • Options
    Who would pay the cost of boiler to connect the under soil heating or rail seats if they were introduced across the league. The owner of the club or the owner of the ground?
  • Options
    JiMMy 85 said:

    a complete tosser in the way you respond to people.

    Hey that's just like "your opinion" man. I "can't imagine" what would drive you to "say" such "horrible things".
    image
  • Options
    edited April 2017

    Who would pay the cost of boiler to connect the under soil heating or rail seats if they were introduced across the league. The owner of the club or the owner of the ground?

    Assuming your not setting me up for a whoosh, it all depends if it is a fully repairing lease or not for the upkeep of the property, the devil is always in the detail :wink: .

    However It would be wise to have the land surveyed before entering into a commercial lease and agreement reached on responsibility for the installation of a boiler in the future.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!