One serious question I am unable to figure out... where within this purchase price is the payback of loans to the former directors? Isn't that something like £9M? Who is paying that? Muir? Roland? Is this why he is perhaps keeping the ground? Any thoughts on this?
Fairly sure it isn’t being repaid. Rolled over. It’s £7 million
I believe the Directors could have stopped any takeover if they were not paid. If they did indeed roll it over, that tells me they like what they see in Muir.
If Murray gets any of the hypothetical shares perhaps he could also make a gesture to all the fans and small investors
If Murray got shares he could start by handing them out to those of us who had ours previously wiped out so quickly. I only had a small amount but remember reading on here some lost almost small fortunes.
It wasn't a small fortune, but a decent sum for me, especially as shareholders go no perks whatsoever, no discounts or beneficial treatment for away game tickets, so when it was just wiped out it was pretty galling
One serious question I am unable to figure out... where within this purchase price is the payback of loans to the former directors? Isn't that something like £9M? Who is paying that? Muir? Roland? Is this why he is perhaps keeping the ground? Any thoughts on this?
Fairly sure it isn’t being repaid. Rolled over. It’s £7 million
I believe the Directors could have stopped any takeover if they were not paid. If they did indeed roll it over, that tells me they like what they see in Muir.
Would that not imply that they liked what they saw in Ro-Land too?
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
Grimsby away years ago and a police horse, something like that.
I was told Brighton away, 7-0 loss early 80’s, major tear up in the park outside the goldstone after the game, OB fell off his horse as it reared up during the melee, almost happened at Horwich station after Bolton FA cup QF game as well
Brighton away, 70’s
Agreed. It was around 74 ish and at the Bus station.
Grimsby away years ago and a police horse, something like that.
I was told Brighton away, 7-0 loss early 80’s, major tear up in the park outside the goldstone after the game, OB fell off his horse as it reared up during the melee, almost happened at Horwich station after Bolton FA cup QF game as well
Brighton away, 70’s
Agreed. It was around 74 ish and at the Bus station.
Seems to me that if the Aussies want to raise as rumoured £50 million through a share process it’s way above getting a few thousand supporters stumping up a few thousand pounds.
This sounds if true to be a much bigger corporate or very rich investor operation and I very much doubt supporters will be given the opportunity to get involved.
I'll feel extremely disappointed if Duchatelet doesn't lose millions after his dire ownership of the club. It would be entirely appropriate and fitting if he did.
Sounds like we are getting near the end... BUT in true Dutchelet style, if the stench of the man remains in any form, ground lease back etc, as quoted, I cannot see this ending nicely for us.
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
Generally true, but I suspect there is one loan provider who would accept shares - and a seat on the board. That’s not insignificant. You will also know that a number of ex-directors are at loggerheads with him, as well as I do. I repeat - it may be RD who wants a part-lease, as security on a contingent payment, not the Aussies. There are very sensible business reasons for the latter to structure a deal in that way.
Just realised that I knew Gerard Murphy back in the day, as he was a dad at my sons’ school. Knew him quite well, but haven’t seen him since about 2013. Quite a character! Will see if I can get in contact.
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
Generally true, but I suspect there is one loan provider who would accept shares - and a seat on the board. That’s not insignificant. You will also know that a number of ex-directors are at loggerheads with him, as well as I do. I repeat - it may be RD who wants a part-lease, as security on a contingent payment, not the Aussies. There are very sensible business reasons for the latter to structure a deal in that way.
But Roland can not get a part-lease or any lease without Ex Directors permission and he will never get 7 to agree. If he could he would have done it already and so far he has not approached anyone, except of course Murray.
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
Generally true, but I suspect there is one loan provider who would accept shares - and a seat on the board. That’s not insignificant. You will also know that a number of ex-directors are at loggerheads with him, as well as I do. I repeat - it may be RD who wants a part-lease, as security on a contingent payment, not the Aussies. There are very sensible business reasons for the latter to structure a deal in that way.
But Roland can not get a part-lease or any lease without Ex Directors permission and he will never get 7 to agree. If he could he would have done it already and so far he has not approached anyone, except of course Murray.
So given your last sentence, in your opinion does it mean that the rumour that the deal involves such a lease of property must be false, because to be true, by now ex directors would have been contacted, and you know for certain that they have not?
I’m guessing that the former director who might be willing to take shares to replace his loan is Richard Murray. It would also I’m guessing keep him at the top table even if not in one of the big chairs.
Would the above scenario mean that RM would loose his current ability to block leases etc under the current terms of the former director loans and leave only six with outstanding loans to the club at a total of £5 million ?
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
Question: If the the lease in place between the two currently separate entities remains unaffected by any change in ownership of one entity (playing side) theoretically it would not affect the other (and those whom have charges over the ground itself) would it?. Just wondering did RD not split it into the current structure as it stands now which he was able to do without recourse? So if both parties understand the details of the lease and its not affected because it remains a contract between the two separate legal entities could he move one on and retain the other (with charges)? Just a thought!
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
The point though is at least investors had something to show for there money at the time and when the shares were wiped out they had nothing left to show for it.
As for ROI Even during the Premier League years I don't recall any returns being paid out to investors.
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
I worked in Corparate Finance so was well aware of the vagaries of the AIM and other markets. I knew that my shares would go down as well as up. But I let my heart rule my head. I did not think that my Shares would be wiped out completely. It was Murray’s attitude that pissed me off.
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
The point though is at least investors had something to show for there money at the time and when the shares were wiped out they had nothing left to show for it.
As for ROI Even during the Premier League years I don't recall any returns being paid out to investors.
While it was a mistake, and badly handled, Its interesting to look up and remind oneself just how many football clubs went to the Stock Exchange at the time, and people, not just their fans, bought them. It was the euphoria of the time, and Charlton did not create that euphoria. Someone may recall better but as far as I recall the only shares which produced capital gains or dividends for many investors was Man U.
I bought some because it was a way of supporting Charlton's development. I sold, at a pretty big loss, after they delisted from AIM,because it felt that the original positivity behind their launch, had disappeared.
I absolutely agree that anyone who knows the history of this, will know that hardly any fans will buy into a similar deal again. Frankly I still have trouble taking this particular rumour seriously. On the other hand something which buys a share in something tangible, such as the pitch, or a share in The Valley, might well be viable. Especially if such a share was a counterpoint to Duchatelet's own ownership of such assets.
When the club needed money upon the return to The Valley, they had the VIP scheme where the investor had 10 years worth of football. Shareholders got nothing.
When the club needed money upon the return to The Valley, they had the VIP scheme where the investor has 10 years worth of football. Shareholders got nothing.
And VIP's got top priority for away tickets too. No such gesture for shareholders though.
I'll feel extremely disappointed if Duchatelet doesn't lose millions after his dire ownership of the club. It would be entirely appropriate and fitting if he did.
It's not likely though is it the way this is going :-(
Comments
They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything.
Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far.
Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done?
If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
This sounds if true to be a much bigger corporate or very rich investor operation and I very much doubt supporters will be given the opportunity to get involved.
IF Duchatelet still has his claws in The Valley and we scramble around in division 3 for another couple of seasons, the gates will get even smaller.
The supporters then may start to question the Australians and we go back to square one again with the fans being disappointed with the board.
Worrying times.
Quite a character!
Will see if I can get in contact.
If he could he would have done it already and so far he has not approached anyone, except of course Murray.
Would the above scenario mean that RM would loose his current ability to block leases etc under the current terms of the former director loans and leave only six with outstanding loans to the club at a total of £5 million ?
As for ROI Even during the Premier League years I don't recall any returns being paid out to investors.
I bought some because it was a way of supporting Charlton's development. I sold, at a pretty big loss, after they delisted from AIM,because it felt that the original positivity behind their launch, had disappeared.
I absolutely agree that anyone who knows the history of this, will know that hardly any fans will buy into a similar deal again. Frankly I still have trouble taking this particular rumour seriously. On the other hand something which buys a share in something tangible, such as the pitch, or a share in The Valley, might well be viable. Especially if such a share was a counterpoint to Duchatelet's own ownership of such assets.