I think Charlton fans are being lied to by Murray and Duchatelet. We are being played like a fiddle and I am sick of it. The two bids were supposed to be agreed months ago. Now we hear that no bids have been agreed. What the fuck is happening?
Murray has no medium or long-term interest in making statements that turn out not to be true. He would have been better off personally saying nothing at all. Duchatelet is just mad. Even if they were capable of crafting a conspiracy between them, it's hard to see Duchatelet would have expensive lawyers and accountants running around on the clock for months in order to deceive supporters.
But he was (quite rightly) backed into a corner by the threat of the CARD protest - wasn't it meant to be calling for him to talk to the crowd? So I guess he had to say something. He just said enough to stop further protests.
Exactly, worked like a charm, apparently protests had been planned for Charlton and Belgium, now nothing until next season
RM has played a blinder for his boss and keeps his seat at the top table, which is, imo, all he has ever wanted.
Im really worried the old turd RD will still be in charge next season.
Murray has made public statements which have turned out to be false. They are in VOTV. What is the difference between that and lying?
He has to know they are untrue when he makes them for him to be lying. Even the belief they are untrue is largely or entirely based on things people post here under pseudonyms (as I am, but I'm not concealing my identity). I am not criticising anyone, but people need to calm down a bit. Things have moved backwards as well as forwards in this saga. Things that were true or appeared to be true become untrue or turn out not to have been.
I think Charlton fans are being lied to by Murray and Duchatelet. We are being played like a fiddle and I am sick of it. The two bids were supposed to be agreed months ago. Now we hear that no bids have been agreed. What the fuck is happening?
Murray has no medium or long-term interest in making statements that turn out not to be true. He would have been better off personally saying nothing at all. Duchatelet is just mad. Even if they were capable of crafting a conspiracy between them, it's hard to see Duchatelet would have expensive lawyers and accountants running around on the clock for months in order to deceive supporters.
But he was (quite rightly) backed into a corner by the threat of the CARD protest - wasn't it meant to be calling for him to talk to the crowd? So I guess he had to say something. He just said enough to stop further protests.
So are protests at The Valley effective or not effective? I can't keep up. Murray likely wants to void exposing the extent to which he is now regarded as an enemy, probably because he is keen to sell himself as the man the fans trust to new owners. However, you can't explain all of his statements since January 20th on the basis of an aborted protest that day. Indeed, fewer and fewer people believe him anyway.
Yeah no way has Murray delivered a series of false statements just to stop protests.
I also believe Murray will want to be around under the new ownership. so pissing off fans just before that happens wouldn't be the smartest move.
He has lost a lot of respect for sticking up for KM/RD, and IMO, should have distanced himself from them rather than continue to be the mouthpiece because it's only creating problems for him.
Protests at the valley have been effective, but less so recently. A combination of a lack of numbers for a big protest, a lack of people to really protest against and a lack of ideas have produced a bit of a vacuum.
Protests at the Valley have always been more about the media cover having an effect on RD rather than a direct effect.
All the doom merchants saying he won’t sell til someone pays him £xxx needs to remember the club is losing (ergo RD) £1m a Month He will sell soon. He’s a lot of things but where money is concerned he ain’t daft
But he is not "losing" is he. I thought he was "loaning" the club the money it needs each month and then charging interest on top?
But he can't keep bumping up the asking price to cover those losses... or he could but then no-one will buy.
They don't look like they are breaking the doors down now to buy so who knows what RD is asking for.
He has lowered it to 40 mill apparently. Still two left in slightly different bids. Neither been accepted as far as I know
That’s at least £15m over the top. I’d hope that it would at least include the £7m owed to former directors, NO additional, incremental payments to RD and a complete clean slate on his “friendly debt”. Anything other than that and someone is way out of kilter (no Scottish link there), with the business of buying football clubs.
If think the incremental payments in this scenario probably work something like:
£20 million now £5 million on promotion to champ* £10 million on promotion to premier league* Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale **e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
Murray has made public statements which have turned out to be false. They are in VOTV. What is the difference between that and lying?
He has to know they are untrue when he makes them for him to be lying. Even the belief they are untrue is largely or entirely based on things people post here under pseudonyms (as I am, but I'm not concealing my identity). I am not criticising anyone, but people need to calm down a bit. Things have moved backwards as well as forwards in this saga. Things that were true or appeared to be true become untrue or turn out not to have been.
I think Charlton fans are being lied to by Murray and Duchatelet. We are being played like a fiddle and I am sick of it. The two bids were supposed to be agreed months ago. Now we hear that no bids have been agreed. What the fuck is happening?
Murray has no medium or long-term interest in making statements that turn out not to be true. He would have been better off personally saying nothing at all. Duchatelet is just mad. Even if they were capable of crafting a conspiracy between them, it's hard to see Duchatelet would have expensive lawyers and accountants running around on the clock for months in order to deceive supporters.
But he was (quite rightly) backed into a corner by the threat of the CARD protest - wasn't it meant to be calling for him to talk to the crowd? So I guess he had to say something. He just said enough to stop further protests.
So are protests at The Valley effective or not effective? I can't keep up. Murray likely wants to void exposing the extent to which he is now regarded as an enemy, probably because he is keen to sell himself as the man the fans trust to new owners. However, you can't explain all of his statements since January 20th on the basis of an aborted protest that day. Indeed, fewer and fewer people believe him anyway.
OK I'll put it another way. Murray has made statements which he hoped might be true. Slightly different from knowing they weren't true.
All the doom merchants saying he won’t sell til someone pays him £xxx needs to remember the club is losing (ergo RD) £1m a Month He will sell soon. He’s a lot of things but where money is concerned he ain’t daft
But he is not "losing" is he. I thought he was "loaning" the club the money it needs each month and then charging interest on top?
But he can't keep bumping up the asking price to cover those losses... or he could but then no-one will buy.
They don't look like they are breaking the doors down now to buy so who knows what RD is asking for.
He has lowered it to 40 mill apparently. Still two left in slightly different bids. Neither been accepted as far as I know
That’s at least £15m over the top. I’d hope that it would at least include the £7m owed to former directors, NO additional, incremental payments to RD and a complete clean slate on his “friendly debt”. Anything other than that and someone is way out of kilter (no Scottish link there), with the business of buying football clubs.
If think the incremental payments in this scenario probably work something like:
£20 million now £5 million on promotion to champ* £10 million on promotion to premier league* Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale **e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
Probably true and certainly in line with rumour, but it's not clear why you'd pay RD anything for a promotion to the Championship after a season which you'd funded, particularly since the extra revenue at that level is likely to be swallowed up by extra costs. I can see the argument if we are promoted this season.
All the doom merchants saying he won’t sell til someone pays him £xxx needs to remember the club is losing (ergo RD) £1m a Month He will sell soon. He’s a lot of things but where money is concerned he ain’t daft
But he is not "losing" is he. I thought he was "loaning" the club the money it needs each month and then charging interest on top?
But he can't keep bumping up the asking price to cover those losses... or he could but then no-one will buy.
They don't look like they are breaking the doors down now to buy so who knows what RD is asking for.
He has lowered it to 40 mill apparently. Still two left in slightly different bids. Neither been accepted as far as I know
That’s at least £15m over the top. I’d hope that it would at least include the £7m owed to former directors, NO additional, incremental payments to RD and a complete clean slate on his “friendly debt”. Anything other than that and someone is way out of kilter (no Scottish link there), with the business of buying football clubs.
If think the incremental payments in this scenario probably work something like:
£20 million now £5 million on promotion to champ* £10 million on promotion to premier league* Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale **e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
I would think he would be aiming for a proportion of the profit made from the sale of any RD-era purchase, as well as a proportion of the sale of any youth player that has made his debut during RD's tenure as owner.
All the doom merchants saying he won’t sell til someone pays him £xxx needs to remember the club is losing (ergo RD) £1m a Month He will sell soon. He’s a lot of things but where money is concerned he ain’t daft
But he is not "losing" is he. I thought he was "loaning" the club the money it needs each month and then charging interest on top?
But he can't keep bumping up the asking price to cover those losses... or he could but then no-one will buy.
They don't look like they are breaking the doors down now to buy so who knows what RD is asking for.
He has lowered it to 40 mill apparently. Still two left in slightly different bids. Neither been accepted as far as I know
That’s at least £15m over the top. I’d hope that it would at least include the £7m owed to former directors, NO additional, incremental payments to RD and a complete clean slate on his “friendly debt”. Anything other than that and someone is way out of kilter (no Scottish link there), with the business of buying football clubs.
If think the incremental payments in this scenario probably work something like:
£20 million now £5 million on promotion to champ* £10 million on promotion to premier league* Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale **e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
Probably true and certainly in line with rumour, but it's not clear why you'd pay RD anything for a promotion to the Championship after a season which you'd funded, particularly since the extra revenue at that level is likely to be swallowed up by extra costs. I can see the argument if we are promoted this season.
Couldn't agree more, there is no reason why you'd pay Roland anything for future promotions that aren't because of anything Roland has done (I think we'd all agree it would be despite of what he's done), but I don't think that will stop him from trying to demand it somehow.
I imagine that's why this is dragging out, it'll be not only arguments over what monies Roland has any right to claim, but home much and in what timescales.
All the doom merchants saying he won’t sell til someone pays him £xxx needs to remember the club is losing (ergo RD) £1m a Month He will sell soon. He’s a lot of things but where money is concerned he ain’t daft
But he is not "losing" is he. I thought he was "loaning" the club the money it needs each month and then charging interest on top?
But he can't keep bumping up the asking price to cover those losses... or he could but then no-one will buy.
They don't look like they are breaking the doors down now to buy so who knows what RD is asking for.
He has lowered it to 40 mill apparently. Still two left in slightly different bids. Neither been accepted as far as I know
That’s at least £15m over the top. I’d hope that it would at least include the £7m owed to former directors, NO additional, incremental payments to RD and a complete clean slate on his “friendly debt”. Anything other than that and someone is way out of kilter (no Scottish link there), with the business of buying football clubs.
If think the incremental payments in this scenario probably work something like:
£20 million now £5 million on promotion to champ* £10 million on promotion to premier league* Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale **e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
Probably true and certainly in line with rumour, but it's not clear why you'd pay RD anything for a promotion to the Championship after a season which you'd funded, particularly since the extra revenue at that level is likely to be swallowed up by extra costs. I can see the argument if we are promoted this season.
which is why we ll know nothing more until the play offs finish or we dont make the play offs whichever is the sooner
Football clubs must be the only type of business where the future success is factored into the value in that way - imagine if somebody had bought toys r us and then had to pay x amount extra a couple of years later if the new company made a profit - it'd be "err no - you ran the company into the ground... if we then make it successful by investing, putting the right people in place and the correct strategy to make the business work and it does, it don't entitle you to a share in the profit- jog on"
All the doom merchants saying he won’t sell til someone pays him £xxx needs to remember the club is losing (ergo RD) £1m a Month He will sell soon. He’s a lot of things but where money is concerned he ain’t daft
But he is not "losing" is he. I thought he was "loaning" the club the money it needs each month and then charging interest on top?
But he can't keep bumping up the asking price to cover those losses... or he could but then no-one will buy.
They don't look like they are breaking the doors down now to buy so who knows what RD is asking for.
He has lowered it to 40 mill apparently. Still two left in slightly different bids. Neither been accepted as far as I know
That’s at least £15m over the top. I’d hope that it would at least include the £7m owed to former directors, NO additional, incremental payments to RD and a complete clean slate on his “friendly debt”. Anything other than that and someone is way out of kilter (no Scottish link there), with the business of buying football clubs.
If think the incremental payments in this scenario probably work something like:
£20 million now £5 million on promotion to champ* £10 million on promotion to premier league* Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale **e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
I might stretch to allowing him some form of sell on for Gomez, JBG (shame they apparently neglected to think highly enough of Pope to include one). Those are deals done during his tenure.
However, anything post-RD is going to be achieved with the backing of new owners and will be in spite of him and his regime, not because of him. You might stretch yourself a little further and maybe allow a small increment for promotion to the Championship within 2 years, but nothing more.
Football clubs must be the only type of business where the future success is factored into the value in that way - imagine if somebody had bought toys r us and then had to pay x amount extra a couple of years later if the new company made a profit - it'd be "err no - you ran the company into the ground... if we then make it successful by investing, putting the right people in place and the correct strategy to make the business work and it does, it don't entitle you to a share in the profit- jog on"
No they are not, I own a refrigeration company who got maintenance contracts some lasting for 5 years, if I sold then the value / expected profit of these future maintenance would certainly be incorporated into the sales price. So yes future success is priced in many businesses sales, it’s can also be known as good will.
Seems to me that as far as the club are concerned a deal is very close and could go through in a matter of days. Why else would they mention the sale in the same statement as season tickets on the 12th. Would have been just as easy not to mention the sale at all. The only possible reason that I can see other than that is to inform both interested parties that the deal is close and thereby apply pressure. I would think that both parties must be fast approaching the point where they consider walking away.
Football clubs must be the only type of business where the future success is factored into the value in that way - imagine if somebody had bought toys r us and then had to pay x amount extra a couple of years later if the new company made a profit - it'd be "err no - you ran the company into the ground... if we then make it successful by investing, putting the right people in place and the correct strategy to make the business work and it does, it don't entitle you to a share in the profit- jog on"
No they are not, I own a refrigeration company who got maintenance contracts some lasting for 5 years, if I sold then the value / expected profit of these future maintenance would certainly be incorporated into the sales price. So yes future success is priced in many businesses sales, it’s can also be known as good will.
But that is definite future value (book value) relating to existing contracts and can be included in net asset value calculations.
Goodwill is a mythical concept that is really about the extra profitability that comes with the business compared to an industry norm - usually linked to earnings above and beyond that reasonably expected in the sector.
The possibility of promotion in football and increased earnings is very difficult to quantify as goodwill. I could start a chemical company making surface coatings for example. I couldn't build in a goodwill element to the Company value on the basis that in 5 years I could be bigger than Dulux!! I could however if my margin was 20% whereas similar companies operated at 10%. Likewise if I was two sheds I couldn't reasonably expect to build in goodwill on the basis of the potential to get to the Premier League.
Football clubs must be the only type of business where the future success is factored into the value in that way - imagine if somebody had bought toys r us and then had to pay x amount extra a couple of years later if the new company made a profit - it'd be "err no - you ran the company into the ground... if we then make it successful by investing, putting the right people in place and the correct strategy to make the business work and it does, it don't entitle you to a share in the profit- jog on"
No they are not, I own a refrigeration company who got maintenance contracts some lasting for 5 years, if I sold then the value / expected profit of these future maintenance would certainly be incorporated into the sales price. So yes future success is priced in many businesses sales, it’s can also be known as good will.
Just to clarify myself a bit; say you own the 5th best (profit wise) refrigeration company in the UK and you go to sell it - and you say to them, if you become the 2nd best company in UK in the next 2 years you have to pay me another X amount on top. They'd tell you to jog on wouldn't they?
Seems to me that as far as the club are concerned a deal is very close and could go through in a matter of days. Why else would they mention the sale in the same statement as season tickets on the 12th. Would have been just as easy not to mention the sale at all. The only possible reason that I can see other than that is to inform both interested parties that the deal is close and thereby apply pressure. I would think that both parties must be fast approaching the point where they consider walking away.
To hit the print deadlines for the programme for the game on Saturday, nothing else
Yes but how do you translate that to if we get into the premiership in a couple of years they'd owe Roland more money?
That's like saying if the new owners make a lucrative deal/contract a year after buying then the previous owners earn an extra payment?
As I said these are existing maintenance contracts, therefore they have ongoing profit already included in them (many hundred of thousands of pounds per year) thus meaning I would want a portion of that profit as I believe anyone would. I was trying to simple point out that future profits in most companies are used by the seller as a tool to up the purchasing costs of any company, wether it works or not is down to the negotiators, after all the value of anything is only what someone will pay for it.
Anyway I’m going off subject, so can I finish with just sell the club you old twat.
All the doom merchants saying he won’t sell til someone pays him £xxx needs to remember the club is losing (ergo RD) £1m a Month He will sell soon. He’s a lot of things but where money is concerned he ain’t daft
But he is not "losing" is he. I thought he was "loaning" the club the money it needs each month and then charging interest on top?
But he can't keep bumping up the asking price to cover those losses... or he could but then no-one will buy.
They don't look like they are breaking the doors down now to buy so who knows what RD is asking for.
He has lowered it to 40 mill apparently. Still two left in slightly different bids. Neither been accepted as far as I know
That’s at least £15m over the top. I’d hope that it would at least include the £7m owed to former directors, NO additional, incremental payments to RD and a complete clean slate on his “friendly debt”. Anything other than that and someone is way out of kilter (no Scottish link there), with the business of buying football clubs.
If think the incremental payments in this scenario probably work something like:
£20 million now £5 million on promotion to champ* £10 million on promotion to premier league* Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale **e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
Probably true and certainly in line with rumour, but it's not clear why you'd pay RD anything for a promotion to the Championship after a season which you'd funded, particularly since the extra revenue at that level is likely to be swallowed up by extra costs. I can see the argument if we are promoted this season.
agreed, but that was a big problem with the Scottish consortium. They were happy to stump up around 2mil if we were promoted this season, but he wanted 5 mil if we were promoted by 2020 (or so I am told), which shows the stupidity of the bloke.
Murray has made public statements which have turned out to be false. They are in VOTV. What is the difference between that and lying?
He has to know they are untrue when he makes them for him to be lying. Even the belief they are untrue is largely or entirely based on things people post here under pseudonyms (as I am, but I'm not concealing my identity). I am not criticising anyone, but people need to calm down a bit. Things have moved backwards as well as forwards in this saga. Things that were true or appeared to be true become untrue or turn out not to have been.
I think Charlton fans are being lied to by Murray and Duchatelet. We are being played like a fiddle and I am sick of it. The two bids were supposed to be agreed months ago. Now we hear that no bids have been agreed. What the fuck is happening?
Murray has no medium or long-term interest in making statements that turn out not to be true. He would have been better off personally saying nothing at all. Duchatelet is just mad. Even if they were capable of crafting a conspiracy between them, it's hard to see Duchatelet would have expensive lawyers and accountants running around on the clock for months in order to deceive supporters.
But he was (quite rightly) backed into a corner by the threat of the CARD protest - wasn't it meant to be calling for him to talk to the crowd? So I guess he had to say something. He just said enough to stop further protests.
So are protests at The Valley effective or not effective? I can't keep up. Murray likely wants to void exposing the extent to which he is now regarded as an enemy, probably because he is keen to sell himself as the man the fans trust to new owners. However, you can't explain all of his statements since January 20th on the basis of an aborted protest that day. Indeed, fewer and fewer people believe him anyway.
I'm not really sure what you mean - but if you are asking me, then yes, I do think they are effective. This announced protest resulted in Murray speaking to the Trust. He had to do something or the protest focus would switch to him rather than RD. Apart from Tone, he is the last man standing.
Football clubs must be the only type of business where the future success is factored into the value in that way - imagine if somebody had bought toys r us and then had to pay x amount extra a couple of years later if the new company made a profit - it'd be "err no - you ran the company into the ground... if we then make it successful by investing, putting the right people in place and the correct strategy to make the business work and it does, it don't entitle you to a share in the profit- jog on"
No they are not, I own a refrigeration company who got maintenance contracts some lasting for 5 years, if I sold then the value / expected profit of these future maintenance would certainly be incorporated into the sales price. So yes future success is priced in many businesses sales, it’s can also be known as good will.
But that is definite future value (book value) relating to existing contracts and can be included in net asset value calculations.
Goodwill is a mythical concept that is really about the extra profitability that comes with the business compared to an industry norm - usually linked to earnings above and beyond that reasonably expected in the sector.
The possibility of promotion in football and increased earnings is very difficult to quantify as goodwill. I could start a chemical company making surface coatings for example. I couldn't build in a goodwill element to the Company value on the basis that in 5 years I could be bigger than Dulux!! I could however if my margin was 20% whereas similar companies operated at 10%. Likewise if I was two sheds I couldn't reasonably expect to build in goodwill on the basis of the potential to get to the Premier League.
This is being overcomplicated. Goodwill in its simplest form is a balance sheet item on the books of a company that buys another business and pays more than the value of its assets. It does not matter how that value was arrived at, the excess over the value of tangible assets acquired is "goodwill". To the seller it is nothing more than enterprise value.
If goodwill didn't exist the acquiring company's books would show it had exchanged say £1m of cash assets for £500k of tangible assets so depleting shareholder equity. The goodwill is future revenue you paid for within the purchase price that is recorded as an asset on the balance sheet of the acquiring company as "goodwill". It gets reduced each year on the assumption that the profits from the acquired business, you paid for in advance, is collected as anticipated. If the revenue doesn't materialise then your balance sheet is written down each year anyway,as if it was received, simply showing you paid away shareholder funds and got zero return.
You can value goodwill on any basis you want, and it can be as speculative as you want, but your balance sheet will eventually reflect the reality of what you have bought, as goodwill unwinds, not future fantasy land at the point of acquisition.
If the buyer is a private individual rather than a corporate, goodwill doesn't enter the discussion, it's just seen as taking a punt/paying through the nose/being taken for a ride etc.
Football clubs must be the only type of business where the future success is factored into the value in that way - imagine if somebody had bought toys r us and then had to pay x amount extra a couple of years later if the new company made a profit - it'd be "err no - you ran the company into the ground... if we then make it successful by investing, putting the right people in place and the correct strategy to make the business work and it does, it don't entitle you to a share in the profit- jog on"
No they are not, I own a refrigeration company who got maintenance contracts some lasting for 5 years, if I sold then the value / expected profit of these future maintenance would certainly be incorporated into the sales price. So yes future success is priced in many businesses sales, it’s can also be known as good will.
But that is definite future value (book value) relating to existing contracts and can be included in net asset value calculations.
Goodwill is a mythical concept that is really about the extra profitability that comes with the business compared to an industry norm - usually linked to earnings above and beyond that reasonably expected in the sector.
The possibility of promotion in football and increased earnings is very difficult to quantify as goodwill. I could start a chemical company making surface coatings for example. I couldn't build in a goodwill element to the Company value on the basis that in 5 years I could be bigger than Dulux!! I could however if my margin was 20% whereas similar companies operated at 10%. Likewise if I was two sheds I couldn't reasonably expect to build in goodwill on the basis of the potential to get to the Premier League.
This is being overcomplicated. Goodwill in its simplest form is a balance sheet item on the books of a company that buys another business and pays more than the value of its assets. It does not matter how that value was arrived at, the excess over the value of tangible assets acquired is "goodwill". To the seller it is nothing more than enterprise value.
If goodwill didn't exist the acquiring company's books would show it had exchanged say £1m of cash assets for £500k of tangible assets so depleting shareholder equity. The goodwill is future revenue you paid for within the purchase price that is recorded as an asset on the balance sheet of the acquiring company as "goodwill". It gets reduced each year on the assumption that the profits from the acquired business, you paid for in advance, is collected as anticipated. If the revenue doesn't materialise then your balance sheet is written down each year anyway,as if it was received, simply showing you paid away shareholder funds and got zero return.
You can value goodwill on any basis you want, and it can be as speculative as you want, but your balance sheet will eventually reflect the reality of what you have bought, as goodwill unwinds, not future fantasy land at the point of acquisition.
If the buyer is a private individual rather than a corporate, goodwill doesn't enter the discussion, it's just seen as taking a punt/paying through the nose/being taken for a ride etc.
i have heard from an ITK source that theres a stumbling block on the sell on value of unused vol au vent cases
This is right out there with even Doucher's worst excesses of BS drivel! !
"...unused vol au vent cases..." As If!!
The club's consumption of vol au vents, or to put it another way, one regular directors box guest's consumption of vol au vents is so vast, there is a national shortage of little crimped paper cups I've got a mate from Poland trucking em over by the palette load and I'm trousering an extra 2p per individual piece. Tidy I for one want this farago to dawdle on as long as possible with the same old face(s) chowing down at the directors' buffet every week, cos those margins don't come along very often.
Comments
RM has played a blinder for his boss and keeps his seat at the top table, which is, imo, all he has ever wanted.
Im really worried the old turd RD will still be in charge next season.
I also believe Murray will want to be around under the new ownership. so pissing off fans just before that happens wouldn't be the smartest move.
He has lost a lot of respect for sticking up for KM/RD, and IMO, should have distanced himself from them rather than continue to be the mouthpiece because it's only creating problems for him.
Protests at the Valley have always been more about the media cover having an effect on RD rather than a direct effect.
£20 million now
£5 million on promotion to champ*
£10 million on promotion to premier league*
Up-to £5 in sell-on and performance payments**
*within a certain timescale
**e.g. Gomez payments/sell-ons from Liverpool, etc.
I imagine that's why this is dragging out, it'll be not only arguments over what monies Roland has any right to claim, but home much and in what timescales.
However, anything post-RD is going to be achieved with the backing of new owners and will be in spite of him and his regime, not because of him. You might stretch yourself a little further and maybe allow a small increment for promotion to the Championship within 2 years, but nothing more.
That's like saying if the new owners make a lucrative deal/contract a year after buying then the previous owners earn an extra payment?
If true, what a fucking piss take to pay him for a new owners success to subsides his failure.
Goodwill is a mythical concept that is really about the extra profitability that comes with the business compared to an industry norm - usually linked to earnings above and beyond that reasonably expected in the sector.
The possibility of promotion in football and increased earnings is very difficult to quantify as goodwill. I could start a chemical company making surface coatings for example. I couldn't build in a goodwill element to the Company value on the basis that in 5 years I could be bigger than Dulux!! I could however if my margin was 20% whereas similar companies operated at 10%. Likewise if I was two sheds I couldn't reasonably expect to build in goodwill on the basis of the potential to get to the Premier League.
Anyway I’m going off subject, so can I finish with just sell the club you old twat.
If goodwill didn't exist the acquiring company's books would show it had exchanged say £1m of cash assets for £500k of tangible assets so depleting shareholder equity. The goodwill is future revenue you paid for within the purchase price that is recorded as an asset on the balance sheet of the acquiring company as "goodwill". It gets reduced each year on the assumption that the profits from the acquired business, you paid for in advance, is collected as anticipated. If the revenue doesn't materialise then your balance sheet is written down each year anyway,as if it was received, simply showing you paid away shareholder funds and got zero return.
You can value goodwill on any basis you want, and it can be as speculative as you want, but your balance sheet will eventually reflect the reality of what you have bought, as goodwill unwinds, not future fantasy land at the point of acquisition.
If the buyer is a private individual rather than a corporate, goodwill doesn't enter the discussion, it's just seen as taking a punt/paying through the nose/being taken for a ride etc.
"...unused vol au vent cases..." As If!!
The club's consumption of vol au vents, or to put it another way, one regular directors box guest's consumption of vol au vents is so vast, there is a national shortage of little crimped paper cups
I for one want this farago to dawdle on as long as possible with the same old face(s) chowing down at the directors' buffet every week, cos those margins don't come along very often.