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

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

121222426272265

Comments

  • Options
    @Redchaser I agree with all you say.

    All we can do is see how it all pans out, who knows another consortium might show their hand if this one fails to complete a deal.

    One thing is for sure until RD has gone in total, the club & the rift between fans are not going to heal.
  • Options
    On the same point, if Charlton/Baton doesn't own the freehold then the terms of the ACV have surely been contravened?
  • Options
    No whoosh just a question. Could RD still redevelop the Jimmy Seed end into flats hotel leisure as the club would only be renting the ground?
  • Options
    Just look at Leyton Orient Barry Hearn still owns their ground and rents it back (not sure at what rate).
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    rikofold said:

    Who owns the freehold of the Valley? Charlton or Staprix? It might be a moot point, but I would imagine the title is in the club's name, or possibly Baton. Therefore a transfer of ownership would have to occur for RD to retain his interest in the Valley, surely? This would trigger the ACV, which might offer a glimmer of hope.

    I think it is Baton as being shown as a fixed asset in their audited accounts.
  • Options
    Aye the freehold would need to be held by the same company to stay with ACV, however I wonder if the spirit of the law could be invoked were a separation to be in the offing. I think legal advice is needed
  • Options
    Am yes we can do something about it, protest may have got us to where we are. Would any prospective owner want to get off on the wrong foot so badly when attendance could be so vital to margins
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    edited April 2017

    No whoosh just a question. Could RD still redevelop the Jimmy Seed end into flats hotel leisure as the club would only be renting the ground?

    Ultimately he probably could subject to planning permission, paying off the former directors loans, access issues etc, etc but this should not be an immediate concern. RD would also have to omit the south end of the ground from the lease by creating a separate freehold title for it.

    However no new owner in their right mind, going down the lease route with ambitions to reach the PL would agree to a three sided, reduced capacity, stadium with redevelopment going on and all the issues with safety, relocating away fans etc.
  • Options
    Dansk_Red said:

    Just look at Leyton Orient Barry Hearn still owns their ground and rents it back (not sure at what rate).

    Leyton Orient of the National League as of next season.
  • Options

    I still reakon that £20 million for the club without the Valley, is a hell of a lot of money.

    Absolutely. If you want to spend 20m on a club and turn it into a franchise Aussie breeding ground there must be a whole rake of them available at that price with attached assets of more than a training ground and a name.
    My guess would be everything is still up for discussion and both sides quite naturally want the best deal. But Roland Turing's price is probably way off being realistic for a league 3 club in a tailspin.
  • Options
    Beardface said:

    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
    image
  • Options
    Indeed and what does Charlton have that other potentially cheaper clubs don't? FANS...
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    I'm assuming that Charlton have leaked this to bring in other higher bidders. I can see no good reason for the Aussies to have done so.

    Let's say RD is looking for £30M to walk away completely, but has only been offered £20M.

    So he says for that price, I'll keep The Valley and lease it to you.

    Hopefully, he'd rather get out altogether, let's remember his age.

    I still think Elliot's consortium offered him £30m, but of course we were in The Championship then.
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.
  • Options
    edited April 2017

    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.

    Ah yes of course, the latest Baton 2010 Ltd accounts recently filed shows the consolidated position.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    edited April 2017

    Right now Roland if he wants to keep the Valley and lease to new owners, he has to remove all charges, and that means closing down overdraft with HSBC and paying off ex Directors loans,depending on Murray's position that could be only £4mn.
    So say he gets £20mn for the Football Club, even if he makes that £4mn payment, he owns Stadium at a small profit based on his £14mn purchase price.
    Assuming he has broken even this season with the player sales, then he is left with around £35 to £40mn? of debt, which he will hope to recover through Lease of and ultimately sale of stadium/land swap and development of old and new site.
    Why anyone would pay him £20mn for the football club and training ground alone remains to be seen , as the only asset the buyer will then own is Training Ground and a squad worth very little and the brand.
    His decision should he have a willing buyer is only does he buy back those charges over the stadium and training ground and lock in assets ,as right now he holds unsecured loans and in administration is likely to lose the majority of his money, as the charges will be settled first and in Division 1 next year he will need to put up another £13mn or sell anybody in the squad with a value, to reduce his costs.
    The decision time for Roland is right now as he is burning cash and a buyer will want a deal done before the end of May to get things in place for next season, he probably has only 12 weeks until end of June and start of pre season or he will be locked in for another year of losses.
    Will he cut and run?

    Question - if he paid £14m in 2014, which has been contested, how did he start with £18.6m of (interest-bearIng) debt run up by the previous regime on the books of Baton? Does this mean he bought that £18.6m debt for £14m?

    Given the debt was run up by CAFC Ltd between 2011-2014 and the debt is still on the books of CAFC Limited, why does the interest on the £18.6m only appear in Baton's accounts and not in CAFC Ltd?
  • Options
    Is this Murray debt perhaps?
  • Options
    edited April 2017

    Is this Murray debt perhaps?

    I don't think so. I believe there was a sum of £3m put in by Murray that had to be written off when Staprix acquired Baton. That is why the 2016 accounts show CAFC Limited had debt on acquisition in 2014 of £21.6m to Baton, but Baton's debt to Staprix in 2014 was £18.6m.

    The gap has since been narrowed because of the extra interest payments on the £18.6m that are only shown in Baton.
  • Options

    I'm assuming that Charlton have leaked this to bring in other higher bidders. I can see no good reason for the Aussies to have done so.

    Let's say RD is looking for £30M to walk away completely, but has only been offered £20M.

    So he says for that price, I'll keep The Valley and lease it to you.

    Hopefully, he'd rather get out altogether, let's remember his age.

    I still think Elliot's consortium offered him £30m, but of course we were in The Championship then.

    High profile posters on this site and other sites seem to have been receiving accurate info about the the publication of the Daily Mail story for several days before it was published on Thursday evening. Only they can tell us if this information was coming from their usual club sources, the Daily Mail or the so called 'consortium'. It would be helpful, and I don't see why they can't, if they could confirm who was feeding them the story.
  • Options

    I'm assuming that Charlton have leaked this to bring in other higher bidders. I can see no good reason for the Aussies to have done so.

    Let's say RD is looking for £30M to walk away completely, but has only been offered £20M.

    So he says for that price, I'll keep The Valley and lease it to you.

    Hopefully, he'd rather get out altogether, let's remember his age.

    I still think Elliot's consortium offered him £30m, but of course we were in The Championship then.

    High profile posters on this site and other sites seem to have been receiving accurate info about the the publication of the Daily Mail story for several days before it was published on Thursday evening. Only they can tell us if this information was coming from their usual club sources, the Daily Mail or the so called 'consortium'. It would be helpful, and I don't see why they can't, if they could confirm who was feeding them the story.
    The only reason we knew is because the Mail was asking questions; the story didn't come from usual club sources or from CARD, etc.
    Ok. That is interesting. And confirms my suspicion that the consultant behind the so called 'consortium' sold/planted the story with the Daily Mail purely for self promotion purposes.

  • Options

    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.

    If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
  • Options
    edited April 2017
    rikofold said:

    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.

    If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
    If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!