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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did I miss the bit where you were appointed spokesperson for the whole forum?
My suggestion would be to let RD retain small vegetarian focaccia concession outside the east stand so he can retain an interest in the club on match days and this stake be purchased from him by the new owners when we win the Premier League at a pre-agreed price allowing for a sensible rate of inflation etc.
This is standard in the corporate world and is known as the "fourteen fries clause".
He would just need an honest, competant and trustworthy chief executive to run it for him which might be the deal-breaker..
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.
-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.
If Duchatelet becomes an evil landlord, there is no way he will be given permission to build anything on the land and with the restrictions imposed, it is a pretty worthless asset, unless it is something a mega rich football club wants. Only one football club can ever want it, and there is a path, because of the perverse course English football has taken, where it can become mega rich through success on the pitch.
Duchatelet wants more money than the club is worth, because he wants some or all of his money back. But if he carries on owning the club, he will only lose more and more. One way of buying the club is to agree to pay more than the club is worth now, but only when the club is worth much more! This seems logical business sense to me. The terms of the lease needs to be seen before people can judge whether it is a good deal or not, but the fact that Duchatelet is heamhorraging money with no prospect of healing the wound, suggests this is way an astute buyer can achieve a deal.
We have thrown the 5 years in, but the West Ham deal lasts almost 100 years. Duchatelet's strength is that the money is not essential to him, but his weakness is, that given the whole situation with the club, his prospects of getting a return through ownership look remote. We know all of this and the protests that garner much negative publicity is irritating to him - he has even taken to making brazen lies on a Belgian TV show to try to make himself look better - it is in his own words only a tiny percentage of his business interests, but a far, far bigger percentage of his hassle.
We have already, through the great work of the B20, forged links with St Truiden fans. They will be relegated at some point, and he knows we will encourage and help them protest agianst him. Conditions will be right at some point (maybe next season!) to cause much trouble at his front door! Then there are his other clubs. The organisation Charlton fans are able to put together to protest is a possible, I would say, even a likely contagion. CARD have helped Coventry fans and can help others too. I'm sure Duchatelet will suspect that dialogue has been occuring between Charlton fans and those of his other clubs! There is so much logic for him to sell, it is unreal!
If he is offered a deal where he can potentially recoup a sizebale chunk of the money he invested, he can claim not to be a failure! His ego can be the only reason he hasn't got rid of us yet. That is surely the clever way to get the old fool to sell.
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.
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.
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.
After reading this I am wondering if Rio Ferdinand wanders around London in his spare time looking for supporters of distressed football clubs just so he can say he has heard takeover rumours.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 .
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
This is standard in the corporate world and is known as the "fourteen fries clause".
He would just need an honest, competant and trustworthy chief executive to run it for him which might be the deal-breaker..
I think it is reasonable to assume they are not stupid and should be encouraged at this stage.
-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.
Duchatelet wants more money than the club is worth, because he wants some or all of his money back. But if he carries on owning the club, he will only lose more and more. One way of buying the club is to agree to pay more than the club is worth now, but only when the club is worth much more! This seems logical business sense to me. The terms of the lease needs to be seen before people can judge whether it is a good deal or not, but the fact that Duchatelet is heamhorraging money with no prospect of healing the wound, suggests this is way an astute buyer can achieve a deal.
We have thrown the 5 years in, but the West Ham deal lasts almost 100 years. Duchatelet's strength is that the money is not essential to him, but his weakness is, that given the whole situation with the club, his prospects of getting a return through ownership look remote. We know all of this and the protests that garner much negative publicity is irritating to him - he has even taken to making brazen lies on a Belgian TV show to try to make himself look better - it is in his own words only a tiny percentage of his business interests, but a far, far bigger percentage of his hassle.
We have already, through the great work of the B20, forged links with St Truiden fans. They will be relegated at some point, and he knows we will encourage and help them protest agianst him. Conditions will be right at some point (maybe next season!) to cause much trouble at his front door! Then there are his other clubs. The organisation Charlton fans are able to put together to protest is a possible, I would say, even a likely contagion. CARD have helped Coventry fans and can help others too. I'm sure Duchatelet will suspect that dialogue has been occuring between Charlton fans and those of his other clubs! There is so much logic for him to sell, it is unreal!
If he is offered a deal where he can potentially recoup a sizebale chunk of the money he invested, he can claim not to be a failure! His ego can be the only reason he hasn't got rid of us yet. That is surely the clever way to get the old fool to sell.
But I sincerely doubt it.
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.
After reading this I am wondering if Rio Ferdinand wanders around London in his spare time looking for supporters of distressed football clubs just so he can say he has heard takeover rumours.
When looking for his next 'gig' he now has even more hits than before when prospective employers google him.
I've also heard the former leader say he would prefer the ground to elsewhere in the Borough.
I don't think with we can assume anything, particularly as a lot of our fans don't live in RBG anymore
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.
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.
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.