If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
Bloody hell, woke up and saw 41 new posts and I thought, wrongly, something must have happened!! Only to read that we are arguing about how much RD will sell the club for. It doesn't matter, it will be undisclosed, and RD will sell the club for somewhere between what he wants for it and how much any consortium is prepared to offer. The price will be negotiated and we will never know until the accounts for 17/18 or even 18/19 are published and even then we may not know the whole story. Can we just be happy he is looking to get out and see what transpires, arguing among ourselves is futile because we just don't know.....its the same as trying to answer "how long is a piece of string"......rant over.
The string is of course much longer than it appears as any string previously cut off actually adds to the actual length of the string and then if it is string that is made of component parts of string twisted together then that must be added (although that may be considered by some to be rope).
So we could be looking at a length of string of at least three times its original length and I would bet that any string of Roland's would have been previously used as a belt (see Duct Tape) and therefore has sentimental value and double value length making it about 77' 8" long. And I believe that passes the Charlton string length test.
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
Not sure. I don't understand why he would expect his entire investment back? Some deals turn bad, some good. With his input this one went catastrophically bad and like all good businessmen(hic) he should take it on the chin.
The current debts on the club are seen as assets as they are notionally making 3% interest, even though this is being added to the debt. This is how you arrive at an "enterprise value" of c. £77m. FYI it seems Napa is valuing the holding company to whom the debt is owed (and is therefore an asset) and Henry/most others are valuing the underlying club.
The true value of the club is much less once you come to sell as there's no prospect of turning that debt into capital repayment, hence it becomes a bad debt and a liability / loss again. This is where RD ends up having to wipe some of the debt in order to achieve a sale as the notional £77m is a grossly inflated actual value due to his poor management. If RD sells whilst we're not in the premiership he will likely make an actual loss as he will have to wipe some of that debt and transfer the rest to the new owner. He may try to sell off part of the club and retain some (ground, training ground etc.) for a long term income stream to compensate for his immediate losses on sale but this should also drastically reduce the purchase price.
Whether the loss is accounted for in the holding company or in the club accounts is semantics, RD will have to accept a loss, keep funding the debt, or wait and sell to a complete idiot and recover his full enterprise value. My money is on suffering a loss as he wants out and most people aren't willing to throw £20m + away on a purchase. RD will accept the loss on sale as he faces those losses being substantially higher if he waits another 12-24 months gambling on promotions that his track record proves he can't deliver.
Hence the importance from day one of the exit strategy and the sleight of hand the phrase 'quasi equity' represents. The real question has always been how much of RD's investment is he prepared to write off.
The negotiating stance will focus on relative value from 2014, surely . Few can argue the club's value has increased. Capitalisation of playing assets decreased, commercial revenues decreased, operating losses increased. If it was worth taking on £18m of debt for in 2014, it's hardly worth taking on £77m now.
The compromise will lie in the extent to which the buyers believe their business plan will enhance its value and whether that meets with the degree of RD's acceptance that his investment won't be recovered in full.
That will probably be around the £30m mark.
(by the way, I reckon he'll be steaming at Meire's departure. Never been able to escape the thought that Charlton was bought for her to play with).
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
Yes and is not gathering interest so he sees no need to clear it.
A positive that could potentially come out of this is, that RD agrees to let the ground and training ground go as part of the deal, but insist on keeping his seats, meaning a return to terraces at La Vallee
"Less go fuckin mental, less go fuckin mental, la la la laaa!"
Starting to think that NapaAddick is actually Roland, and he created this whole takeover story just so he could try and make people's head's explode on the forum
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
@i_b_b_o_r_g Airman will have the figures but a bank mortgage was still in force in respect of the North Stand? when RD bought the club which he (Staprix?) subsequently paid off thereby clearing that charge. The former directors also had charges (debentures) to the value of £7m securing their loans repayable upon a contingency ie promotion to the Prem. These Debentures then became 1st charges which RD could have cleared at any time but he chose not to unless he has only just realised their significance in the overall scheme of things!
The solution is simple, pay the loans up and this is where we are at as Asburton explained the other day but who is prepared to pay? buyer or seller? and negotiations will then be necessary with the ex directors which will probably involve different arrangements as they are in different camps IIRC as Airman once explained.
So just to be clear under Napa's valuation, if Charlton had been a financial success and had £10m in the bank, paying annual dividends as well as being profitable. It would be worth less than under the "enterprise value" calculation.
Fuck me I can see now why Rolly is considered a genius.
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
It’s been put to me in the last few days that this is incorrect, although it’s always been my understanding. I’ve been told the debts can be rolled over to new owners without the permission of the ex-directors - however, the new owners would have to be willing to accept the additional liability, of course.
Given the charges are attached to the assets this would still not allow RD to separate the ownership of The Valley and the club without their consent AFAIK.
The debt is the cost incurred for the privilege of owning our great club for a period of time.
I am sure KM has explained to him that it is like being a customer in a restaurant. You don't expect to sit down, have a great meal, have a bottle of wine and come out with your money still in your pocket.
(Although I know a couple of chaps who think this is normal, and of course scummy millwall who would be running out!).
You don't buy a football club to earn money, you buy it for the joy of it. It's your bill Rolly. Pay it.
Then get on your knees and thank the Lord for giving you the fantastic experience and an opportunity that so many would love, but so very few will ever have.
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
It’s been put to me in the last few days that this is incorrect, although it’s always been my understanding. I’ve been told the debts can be rolled over to new owners without the permission of the ex-directors - however, the new owners would have to be willing to accept the additional liability, of course.
Given the charges are attached to the assets this would still not allow RD to separate the ownership of The Valley and the club without their consent AFAIK.
It’s not my understanding that these loans are repayable on sale of the club. If so, wouldn’t they have been repayable on the previous sale by the spivs to Roland?
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
It’s been put to me in the last few days that this is incorrect, although it’s always been my understanding. I’ve been told the debts can be rolled over to new owners without the permission of the ex-directors - however, the new owners would have to be willing to accept the additional liability, of course.
Given the charges are attached to the assets this would still not allow RD to separate the ownership of The Valley and the club without their consent AFAIK.
It’s not my understanding that these loans are repayable on sale of the club. If so, wouldn’t they have been repayable on the previous sale by the spivs to Roland?
Yes, but they could have been rolled over by consent. The bank loans certainly required that consent. I guess with the former we’d only know for sure with sight of the legal agreement, but given that my source is in a position to know I believe he is right.
Roland, I don't know if you're reading this, but if you are PLEASE SELL THE BLOODY CLUB ASAP. I can take one more debt/value discussion and one more round of shit puns before my mind breaks forever.
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
It’s been put to me in the last few days that this is incorrect, although it’s always been my understanding. I’ve been told the debts can be rolled over to new owners without the permission of the ex-directors - however, the new owners would have to be willing to accept the additional liability, of course.
Given the charges are attached to the assets this would still not allow RD to separate the ownership of The Valley and the club without their consent AFAIK.
It’s not my understanding that these loans are repayable on sale of the club. If so, wouldn’t they have been repayable on the previous sale by the spivs to Roland?
Yes, but they could have been rolled over by consent. The bank loans certainly required that consent.
The devil is in the detail chaps you need a copy of the debentures that were executed by the ex directors. However Letters of priority could get round this and are usually given by the debenture holders and are the norm in respect if factoring arrangements for example.
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
It’s been put to me in the last few days that this is incorrect, although it’s always been my understanding. I’ve been told the debts can be rolled over to new owners without the permission of the ex-directors - however, the new owners would have to be willing to accept the additional liability, of course.
Given the charges are attached to the assets this would still not allow RD to separate the ownership of The Valley and the club without their consent AFAIK.
It’s not my understanding that these loans are repayable on sale of the club. If so, wouldn’t they have been repayable on the previous sale by the spivs to Roland?
Yes, but they could have been rolled over by consent. The bank loans certainly required that consent.
The devil is in the detail chaps you need a copy of the debentures that were executed by the ex directors. However Letters of priority could get round this and are usually given by the debenture holders and are the norm in respect if factoring arrangements for example.
I hate it when words from my work life infiltrate my Charlton Life
Can we try a new way of dragging this thread up to 300 pages? The puns were a drag eventually, but this business with the valuation is pointless. Like Redmidland, I thought there was some news today, but no. Nothing but smoke, mirrors, and two people arguing about how to do sums.
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
He didn't clear all debts. He transferred them (in full) to Staprix.
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
It’s been put to me in the last few days that this is incorrect, although it’s always been my understanding. I’ve been told the debts can be rolled over to new owners without the permission of the ex-directors - however, the new owners would have to be willing to accept the additional liability, of course.
Given the charges are attached to the assets this would still not allow RD to separate the ownership of The Valley and the club without their consent AFAIK.
It’s not my understanding that these loans are repayable on sale of the club. If so, wouldn’t they have been repayable on the previous sale by the spivs to Roland?
Yes, but they could have been rolled over by consent. The bank loans certainly required that consent.
The devil is in the detail chaps you need a copy of the debentures that were executed by the ex directors. However Letters of priority could get round this and are usually given by the debenture holders and are the norm in respect if factoring arrangements for example.
I hate it when words from my work life infiltrate my Charlton Life
Sorry @cafcwill I'll be more considerate in future
I really hope she jumped before she was pushed, maybe the alleged DD that has been completed has brought to the surface a monumental f*** up on her part and she clashed with RD over it, or knew he was going to get a heads up. If so, want her to get some comeback from her sugar daddy.
She knew club was going to be sold so sorted herself out with a new club. Probably can't believe her luck.
2) RD agreed to take on their debt (effectively clearing it from them and transferring to himself) and paid a notional fee for the club.
Both are effectively the same just approaching from a different angle. They leave the same end product. The purchase price is part of the 55million not additional to it.
Okay, let's say your point 2, above, is correct.
Since the last reports stated the debt upon purchase in Jan, 2014 was £21.6M, and that amount is apparently still on the books, we can assume the total enterprise value of the club was at least that amount, even if he paid only one pound for the club, itself. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Second, since the current debt is now at minimum, £55.6M, if he sells for more than the £21.6M, even if he takes a haircut, then the club's enterprise value went UP despite relegation. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Finally, if he gets £55.6M or more for the club, then it means he has profited. Do you agree? Yes or no?
If I am wrong on any of these 3 points, please explain.
As ever, Charlton would make a great case study for anyone studying Corporate Law, accountancy, or criminal psychology.
2) RD agreed to take on their debt (effectively clearing it from them and transferring to himself) and paid a notional fee for the club.
Both are effectively the same just approaching from a different angle. They leave the same end product. The purchase price is part of the 55million not additional to it.
Okay, let's say your point 2, above, is correct.
Since the last reports stated the debt upon purchase in Jan, 2014 was £21.6M, and that amount is apparently still on the books, we can assume the total enterprise value of the club was at least that amount, even if he paid only one pound for the club, itself. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Second, since the current debt is now at minimum, £55.6M, if he sells for more than the £21.6M, even if he takes a haircut, then the club's enterprise value went UP despite relegation. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Finally, if he gets £55.6M or more for the club, then it means he has profited. Do you agree? Yes or no?
If I am wrong on any of these 3 points, please explain.
As ever, Charlton would make a great case study for anyone studying Corporate Law, accountancy, or criminal psychology.
Comments
If RD sold for £20m and that included the ground and training ground, but the new owners still had to pay him an agreed amount to cover his entire investmed, would that be a good deal from the club's perspective?
If RD "cleared all debts" when he bought the Club, why do 7 other people (incl. Murray) still have money owed to them?
So we could be looking at a length of string of at least three times its original length and I would bet that any string of Roland's would have been previously used as a belt (see Duct Tape) and therefore has sentimental value and double value length making it about 77' 8" long. And I believe that passes the Charlton string length test.
Some deals turn bad, some good.
With his input this one went catastrophically bad and like all good businessmen(hic) he should take it on the chin.
The negotiating stance will focus on relative value from 2014, surely . Few can argue the club's value has increased. Capitalisation of playing assets decreased, commercial revenues decreased, operating losses increased. If it was worth taking on £18m of debt for in 2014, it's hardly worth taking on £77m now.
The compromise will lie in the extent to which the buyers believe their business plan will enhance its value and whether that meets with the degree of RD's acceptance that his investment won't be recovered in full.
That will probably be around the £30m mark.
(by the way, I reckon he'll be steaming at Meire's departure. Never been able to escape the thought that Charlton was bought for her to play with).
The debt to the ex directors is only payable on return to the Prem or when the club is sold. It's a debt, but it's been a useful safeguard too.
"Less go fuckin mental, less go fuckin mental, la la la laaa!"
The solution is simple, pay the loans up and this is where we are at as Asburton explained the other day but who is prepared to pay? buyer or seller? and negotiations will then be necessary with the ex directors which will probably involve different arrangements as they are in different camps IIRC as Airman once explained.
Fuck me I can see now why Rolly is considered a genius.
Laughable.
Given the charges are attached to the assets this would still not allow RD to separate the ownership of The Valley and the club without their consent AFAIK.
@NapaAddick can you please give it a rest, you wont win and can the rest of you stop banging on too.
Does it bloody matter what the debt is,no!
Now can we get back to Poetry or Golf or any other frivolous thing, anything but the bloody Takeover.
I am sure KM has explained to him that it is like being a customer in a restaurant. You don't expect to sit down, have a great meal, have a bottle of wine and come out with your money still in your pocket.
(Although I know a couple of chaps who think this is normal, and of course scummy millwall who would be running out!).
You don't buy a football club to earn money, you buy it for the joy of it. It's your bill Rolly. Pay it.
Then get on your knees and thank the Lord for giving you the fantastic experience and an opportunity that so many would love, but so very few will ever have.
I can take one more debt/value discussion and one more round of shit puns before my mind breaks forever.
I had 76.
By my maths, I was about 47% more disappointed than you to read that nothing had happened.
As ever, Charlton would make a great case study for anyone studying Corporate Law, accountancy, or criminal psychology.