If there is a racist view on these pages, it is that Aussies have a winning mentality.
As for not trusting Australians, I think you will find that as a generalisation Brits don’t trust anyone coming from abroad.
Londoners, (you can insert any location here), would add the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Northerners, Yokels, Gypsies, or anyone richer or poorer than themselves. I would add that there is a bloke down my road I have a few doubts about.
The rest of your post is a valid view, but rest assured there are many supporters who are looking forward to owners that have both ambition and a plan to achieve it. Whoever and from wherever.
Being a south-east Londoner means I don't trust anyone from north of the river; west of Brixton; south of Bromley (and even then); or east of the M25. (I jest of course)
I think the racist thing is a huge stretch. Charlton fans being immensely cynical though is definitely true, and while we'll be scrutinising why foreigners (for want of a less ungainly term) want something to do with our beautiful club, it's not out of a racist suspicion.
I remember my shock at seeing the Thames barrier. I had assumed quite naturally that it would have been built along the South bank.
I also think there is a case for rebuilding Hadrian’s Wall. At Watford. And putting broken glass on top.
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
Its is based on a few things, one being the fact that it has taken them over a year to get to a position where they can actually agree terms. Secondly they have approached many people for funding and thats a fact The issue of not approaching Ex Directors about Loans I have always found strange,if they have a multitude of funds then there is no need, but if I was the buyer I would want to at least discuss those loans and what can be done if anything , as if it all goes wrong they get paid before me as the owner.
Thanks for the answer.
I think the taking over a year could be lots of reasons other than just not having funds although I agree it could well be a significant factor.
I have highlighted the part that you say is a fact? Based on what evidence. I know you can't give names and dates but why is it fact?
The last part you seem to be arguing with yourself. If they have a multitude of funds then as you say there is no need so would point to them having more money, not less.
As others have said, I don't think it matters how much they have with regards to the directors loans.
It's an optional expense, why pay it? Of course the ex-directors would love to be given the money now but why should any new buyer(s) pay them if they don't have to. These loans are repayable at a time when the financial reward of reaching the Prem make them a drop in the ocean
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
Its is based on a few things, one being the fact that it has taken them over a year to get to a position where they can actually agree terms. Secondly they have approached many people for funding and thats a fact The issue of not approaching Ex Directors about Loans I have always found strange,if they have a multitude of funds then there is no need, but if I was the buyer I would want to at least discuss those loans and what can be done if anything , as if it all goes wrong they get paid before me as the owner.
Thanks for the answer.
I think the taking over a year could be lots of reasons other than just not having funds although I agree it could well be a significant factor.
I have highlighted the part that you say is a fact? Based on what evidence. I know you can't give names and dates but why is it fact?
The last part you seem to be arguing with yourself. If they have a multitude of funds then as you say there is no need so would point to them having more money, not less.
As others have said, I don't think it matters how much they have with regards to the directors loans.
It's an optional expense, why pay it? Of course the ex-directors would love to be given the money now but why should any new buyer(s) pay them if they don't have to. These loans are repayable at a time when the financial reward of reaching the Prem make them a drop in the ocean
And if we reached the Premier League, their stated exit plan was to sell up in any case.
I keep seeing the concern that it's taken the Aussies over a year to get to this point. Are we all forgetting this is RD, and for a while, Katrien they're dealing with?
The only thing I want to know is @Ozziedave if the deal is dependent on a locally sourced brand of Sandpaper or not. Apologies if this joke was mentioned before but if you're not on this thread all day, then there are about 20 pages to read and that is just, well it just aint happening.
I keep seeing the concern that it's taken the Aussies over a year to get to this point. Are we all forgetting this is RD, and for a while, Katrien they've they're dealing with?
Apparently it has nothing to do with Roland being slow or awkward, but the fact that as usual he wandered in knowing bugger all about anything, decided he knew best and did not follow any recognised procedure for buying us.
This has resulted in lawyers having to go back into the mist of time to establish what the hell has gone on.
Additional delays have been caused by the fact that Rolly’s team is made up of primary school kids being given a chance to show what they can do; but having to learn how to read and write first.
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
Its is based on a few things, one being the fact that it has taken them over a year to get to a position where they can actually agree terms. Secondly they have approached many people for funding and thats a fact The issue of not approaching Ex Directors about Loans I have always found strange,if they have a multitude of funds then there is no need, but if I was the buyer I would want to at least discuss those loans and what can be done if anything , as if it all goes wrong they get paid before me as the owner.
Thanks for the answer.
I think the taking over a year could be lots of reasons other than just not having funds although I agree it could well be a significant factor.
I have highlighted the part that you say is a fact? Based on what evidence. I know you can't give names and dates but why is it fact?
The last part you seem to be arguing with yourself. If they have a multitude of funds then as you say there is no need so would point to them having more money, not less.
As others have said, I don't think it matters how much they have with regards to the directors loans.
It's an optional expense, why pay it? Of course the ex-directors would love to be given the money now but why should any new buyer(s) pay them if they don't have to. These loans are repayable at a time when the financial reward of reaching the Prem make them a drop in the ocean
And if we reached the Premier League, their stated exit plan was to sell up in any case.
yeah exactly, I would be slightly perplexed that they are paying this debt off unnecessarily
I keep seeing the concern that it's taken the Aussies over a year to get to this point. Are we all forgetting this is RD, and for a while, Katrien they've they're dealing with?
This whole thing started when Muir rang up the commercial department looking to buy a billboard for The Good Guys.
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
Its is based on a few things, one being the fact that it has taken them over a year to get to a position where they can actually agree terms. Secondly they have approached many people for funding and thats a fact The issue of not approaching Ex Directors about Loans I have always found strange,if they have a multitude of funds then there is no need, but if I was the buyer I would want to at least discuss those loans and what can be done if anything , as if it all goes wrong they get paid before me as the owner.
Thanks for the answer.
I think the taking over a year could be lots of reasons other than just not having funds although I agree it could well be a significant factor.
I have highlighted the part that you say is a fact? Based on what evidence. I know you can't give names and dates but why is it fact?
The last part you seem to be arguing with yourself. If they have a multitude of funds then as you say there is no need so would point to them having more money, not less.
Re Ex Director loans, why pay these back when you don't have to? You may be in a position now to negotiate the value of these down for early settlement, say 50p in the pound. but that will cost you £3.5m. Wouldn't you rather spend the £3.5m on getting to the promised land, when the loans then fall due, but you have £100m+ of income to pay the difference?
I keep seeing the concern that it's taken the Aussies over a year to get to this point. Are we all forgetting this is RD, and for a while, Katrien they're dealing with?
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
good post.
Of course they have the money. They’re f*cking millionaires!
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
good post.
Of course they have the money. They’re f*cking millionaires!
If there is a racist view on these pages, it is that Aussies have a winning mentality.
As for not trusting Australians, I think you will find that as a generalisation Brits don’t trust anyone coming from abroad.
Londoners, (you can insert any location here), would add the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Northerners, Yokels, Gypsies, or anyone richer or poorer than themselves. I would add that there is a bloke down my road I have a few doubts about.
The rest of your post is a valid view, but rest assured there are many supporters who are looking forward to owners that have both ambition and a plan to achieve it. Whoever and from wherever.
Being a south-east Londoner means I don't trust anyone from north of the river; west of Brixton; south of Bromley (and even then); or east of the M25. (I jest of course)
I think the racist thing is a huge stretch. Charlton fans being immensely cynical though is definitely true, and while we'll be scrutinising why foreigners (for want of a less ungainly term) want something to do with our beautiful club, it's not out of a racist suspicion.
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
good post.
Of course they have the money. They’re f*cking millionaires!
Never said they didn't, nor do I share David Smith's views.
However, having a few millionaires as part of a consortium wouldn't be enough. Firstly because we are talking about upwards of 50 million and secondly because you would need said millionaires to spend it. All well and good having 600 million in the bank but doesn't mean they want to throw it at a Football club
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
Its is based on a few things, one being the fact that it has taken them over a year to get to a position where they can actually agree terms. Secondly they have approached many people for funding and thats a fact The issue of not approaching Ex Directors about Loans I have always found strange,if they have a multitude of funds then there is no need, but if I was the buyer I would want to at least discuss those loans and what can be done if anything , as if it all goes wrong they get paid before me as the owner.
Thanks for the answer.
I think the taking over a year could be lots of reasons other than just not having funds although I agree it could well be a significant factor.
I have highlighted the part that you say is a fact? Based on what evidence. I know you can't give names and dates but why is it fact?
The last part you seem to be arguing with yourself. If they have a multitude of funds then as you say there is no need so would point to them having more money, not less.
Re Ex Director loans, why pay these back when you don't have to? You may be in a position now to negotiate the value of these down for early settlement, say 50p in the pound. but that will cost you £3.5m. Wouldn't you rather spend the £3.5m on getting to the promised land, when the loans then fall due, but you have £100m+ of income to pay the difference?
That is a good point.
On the other hand the bonds may restrict what an owner can do ie grant leases or use the ground as collateral for a loan.
Any new owners of the club would weigh up the two and make a business decision (unless you are Roland and don't realise their significance because you don't do proper DD, never had a clear business strategy and jumped into buy a distressed company on the cheap).
Having Charlton supporting ex-directors as a buffer against the Valley being sold etc could well be a good thing in any case, some more than others.
'Only one panel that sits on 'fit and proper' test. So if got more than one to process it slows things down - at least that is what I was told....'
Seems a little at odds with a line from the Abramovich story yesterday, which stated that the Fit & Proper test is done annually...I take it that this one is even more of a rubber stamp job than the one to welcome in brand new owners!
That would be different gravy. Abramovich = Chelsea = Premier League. Aussies = Charlton = English Football League. Different bodies different tests.
I assume (but don't know) that there is no grandfathering arrangement and that owners of clubs promoted/relegated to/from the Premier League would have to pass the tests for their new leagues. If so, the relevant panels could be busy at this time of year?
I have a question that someone maybe able to answer based on evidence and ITK instinct which may carry a lot of variables of projection and all sorts.
It may not receive a straight answer. There are also matters of interest rates.
So, overall...
Assuming Roland is probably going to sell the club in the next few weeks and that it will in fact be the quoted "lock stock and barrel" situation that we hoped for...(even though as scary as it sounds...Roland wanted the opposite)
Can anyone answer this question.
From the moment Roland purchased the club, and the belief that he maybe selling Charlton for 40million.
Is it likely that after adding everything up and taking future interest payments into account.
*Business finance is really not my specialist subject by the way, so forgive me if there is something incredibly obvious that I have not considered*
Will Roland eventually profit out of his 4 year + ownership of Charlton?
An answer maybe....who cares once he has sold us, we are free of him!
Personally I would just find it really annoying if the answer was actually...yes.
I have a question... has anyone ever actually failed a fit and proper persons test?
Yes. At least one serving director - Denis Coleman at Rotherham was disqualified.
In terms of new applicants, I assume that just like everyone else the EFL has a duty to maintain confidentiality over an individual's personal data and that as such, unless the individual put a test failure into the public domain, or the information leaked, a failure to meet the test's criteria would remain confidential.
Not sure we need anyone throwing hand grenades on this site and WUMs, there’s another site I can recommend though if that’s your thing @ozziedave
I had an Aussie fiancé once and lived in Sydney for a while, I still count a lot of Aussies as friends. I enjoy the banter and agree with other comments that we have a lot in common, in particular that we can give it out and take it back without the need for a hissy fit.
In my view suggesting others are ‘racist’ in the way you have just makes you look a bit silly to those of us who have experienced oz culture first hand.
The more I think about this takeover, the more I think the ‘National’ element should be toned down as much as possible to not alienate the local fans, who are after all likely to be predominantly England fans.
I’d echo comments about cynicism too, we have been victims of speculators and a mad social scientist in the last 7-8 years so completely understandable.
I have a question that someone maybe able to answer based on evidence and ITK instinct which may carry a lot of variables of projection and all sorts.
It may not receive a straight answer. There are also matters of interest rates.
So, overall...
Assuming Roland is probably going to sell the club in the next few weeks and that it will in fact be the quoted "lock stock and barrel" situation that we hoped for...(even though as scary as it sounds...Roland wanted the opposite)
Can anyone answer this question.
From the moment Roland purchased the club, and the belief that he maybe selling Charlton for 40million.
Is it likely that after adding everything up and taking future interest payments into account.
*Business finance is really not my specialist subject by the way, so forgive me if there is something incredibly obvious that I have not considered*
Will Roland eventually profit out of his 4 year + ownership of Charlton?
An answer maybe....who cares once he has sold us, we are free of him!
Personally I would just find it really annoying if the answer was actually...yes.
Even if it's as narrow as something like 25p
Considering it is Roland we are talking about, even if it was a profit only 1p, in his tiny little mind, he would see this as a successful experiment.
Leaving aside the obvious points about the quality of the outcome, it doesn’t seem the fit and proper persons test took any time at all when it was applied to Duchatelet - and that was over Christmas.
Maybe this time its taking ages because it is a Fund/Syndicate buying the club and disclosure on multiple investors takes longer, multiple Bank references,lawyers etc... That's assuming they have finally raised the total amount.
You've much repeated this line about them not having the money or not being able to raise the money or needing to go to the city for money as an issue.
Quite often you have framed these concerns as questions "why if they have the money haven't they.....?"
But I've never been clear as to why you think they don't have the money or what your sources are?
It's perfectly legitimate to ask "Do they have the money?" but you have stated/implied that you are fairly sure that they don't have the money but on what basis?
Its is based on a few things, one being the fact that it has taken them over a year to get to a position where they can actually agree terms. Secondly they have approached many people for funding and thats a fact The issue of not approaching Ex Directors about Loans I have always found strange,if they have a multitude of funds then there is no need, but if I was the buyer I would want to at least discuss those loans and what can be done if anything , as if it all goes wrong they get paid before me as the owner.
Thanks for the answer.
I think the taking over a year could be lots of reasons other than just not having funds although I agree it could well be a significant factor.
I have highlighted the part that you say is a fact? Based on what evidence. I know you can't give names and dates but why is it fact?
The last part you seem to be arguing with yourself. If they have a multitude of funds then as you say there is no need so would point to them having more money, not less.
Re Ex Director loans, why pay these back when you don't have to? You may be in a position now to negotiate the value of these down for early settlement, say 50p in the pound. but that will cost you £3.5m. Wouldn't you rather spend the £3.5m on getting to the promised land, when the loans then fall due, but you have £100m+ of income to pay the difference?
Can I borrow a million off you interest free?
Thanks.
I promise to pay you back at some point, we’ll, at least half.
I have a question that someone maybe able to answer based on evidence and ITK instinct which may carry a lot of variables of projection and all sorts.
It may not receive a straight answer. There are also matters of interest rates.
So, overall...
Assuming Roland is probably going to sell the club in the next few weeks and that it will in fact be the quoted "lock stock and barrel" situation that we hoped for...(even though as scary as it sounds...Roland wanted the opposite)
Can anyone answer this question.
From the moment Roland purchased the club, and the belief that he maybe selling Charlton for 40million.
Is it likely that after adding everything up and taking future interest payments into account.
*Business finance is really not my specialist subject by the way, so forgive me if there is something incredibly obvious that I have not considered*
Will Roland eventually profit out of his 4 year + ownership of Charlton?
An answer maybe....who cares once he has sold us, we are free of him!
Personally I would just find it really annoying if the answer was actually...yes.
Even if it's as narrow as something like 25p
If he's spent over £70m (according to the accounts) and gets back £40m (according to rumours) I reckon that means he's lost £30m
So no, he's not made any money and has lost a lot of money for no gain, pleasure or ego boost. He's failed.
I have a question... has anyone ever actually failed a fit and proper persons test?
Yes. At least one serving director - Denis Coleman at Rotherham was disqualified.
In terms of new applicants, I assume that just like everyone else the EFL has a duty to maintain confidentiality over an individual's personal data and that as such, unless the individual put a test failure into the public domain, or the information leaked, a failure to meet the test's criteria would remain confidential.
as a matter of interest why do you think that is a reasonable state of affairs?
If the test were there mainly to protect the interests of key stakeholders, namely us "customers", should not the failure to pass such a test be announced so that we can all see it works? I don't see why that should result in release of significant "personal data". After all a great deal of info about Cellino was released at the time.
The problem with this test as it stands is that it is not there to protect us, because the EFL does not give a toss about us. It is a trade association. From their POV it is our duty to turn up and pay the maximum amount for the privilege. Their concern is to make buying a club as easy as possible because that pushes up the value of their members.
I have a question that someone maybe able to answer based on evidence and ITK instinct which may carry a lot of variables of projection and all sorts.
It may not receive a straight answer. There are also matters of interest rates.
So, overall...
Assuming Roland is probably going to sell the club in the next few weeks and that it will in fact be the quoted "lock stock and barrel" situation that we hoped for...(even though as scary as it sounds...Roland wanted the opposite)
Can anyone answer this question.
From the moment Roland purchased the club, and the belief that he maybe selling Charlton for 40million.
Is it likely that after adding everything up and taking future interest payments into account.
*Business finance is really not my specialist subject by the way, so forgive me if there is something incredibly obvious that I have not considered*
Will Roland eventually profit out of his 4 year + ownership of Charlton?
An answer maybe....who cares once he has sold us, we are free of him!
Personally I would just find it really annoying if the answer was actually...yes.
Even if it's as narrow as something like 25p
Considering it is Roland we are talking about, even if it was a profit only 1p, in his tiny little mind, he would see this as a successful experiment.
I keep seeing the concern that it's taken the Aussies over a year to get to this point. Are we all forgetting this is RD, and for a while, Katrien they've they're dealing with?
Apparently it has nothing to do with Roland being slow or awkward, but the fact that as usual he wandered in knowing bugger all about anything, decided he knew best and did not follow any recognised procedure for buying us.
This has resulted in lawyers having to go back into the mist of time to establish what the hell has gone on.
Additional delays have been caused by the fact that Rolly’s team is made up of primary school kids being given a chance to show what they can do; but having to learn how to read and write first.
All very normal.
Indeed and what they found in 2012-13 may have been very interesting. They could always ask Richard Murray, then a shareholder and as a director legally responsible, to talk them through it, of course.
I keep seeing the concern that it's taken the Aussies over a year to get to this point. Are we all forgetting this is RD, and for a while, Katrien they've they're dealing with?
Apparently it has nothing to do with Roland being slow or awkward, but the fact that as usual he wandered in knowing bugger all about anything, decided he knew best and did not follow any recognised procedure for buying us.
This has resulted in lawyers having to go back into the mist of time to establish what the hell has gone on.
Additional delays have been caused by the fact that Rolly’s team is made up of primary school kids being given a chance to show what they can do; but having to learn how to read and write first.
All very normal.
Indeed and what they found in 2012-13 may have been very interesting. They could always ask Richard Murray, then a shareholder and as a director legally responsible, to talk them through it, of course.
I have a question that someone maybe able to answer based on evidence and ITK instinct which may carry a lot of variables of projection and all sorts.
It may not receive a straight answer. There are also matters of interest rates.
So, overall...
Assuming Roland is probably going to sell the club in the next few weeks and that it will in fact be the quoted "lock stock and barrel" situation that we hoped for...(even though as scary as it sounds...Roland wanted the opposite)
Can anyone answer this question.
From the moment Roland purchased the club, and the belief that he maybe selling Charlton for 40million.
Is it likely that after adding everything up and taking future interest payments into account.
*Business finance is really not my specialist subject by the way, so forgive me if there is something incredibly obvious that I have not considered*
Will Roland eventually profit out of his 4 year + ownership of Charlton?
An answer maybe....who cares once he has sold us, we are free of him!
Personally I would just find it really annoying if the answer was actually...yes.
Even if it's as narrow as something like 25p
If he's spent over £70m (according to the accounts) and gets back £40m (according to rumours) I reckon that means he's lost £30m
So no, he's not made any money and has lost a lot of money for no gain, pleasure or ego boost. He's failed.
I read somewhere that Sunderland is being sold for 40m with potential further payments if they go up next season.
I don't know if it's right to think that they are a bigger club than us but if RD gets 40m for selling our club then he should consider it as a very good deal. Of course we are a more attractive club than Sunderland when it comes to the location I guess. How much did he pay for buying us? 24m iirc?
By the way, if 70m is what he's spent, I don't think he's lost 30m? There's another important figure: the turnover or say revenue, I think?
Comments
I also think there is a case for rebuilding Hadrian’s Wall. At Watford. And putting broken glass on top.
It's an optional expense, why pay it? Of course the ex-directors would love to be given the money now but why should any new buyer(s) pay them if they don't have to. These loans are repayable at a time when the financial reward of reaching the Prem make them a drop in the ocean
Phew, relax.
This has resulted in lawyers having to go back into the mist of time to establish what the hell has gone on.
Additional delays have been caused by the fact that Rolly’s team is made up of primary school kids being given a chance to show what they can do; but having to learn how to read and write first.
All very normal.
However, having a few millionaires as part of a consortium wouldn't be enough. Firstly because we are talking about upwards of 50 million and secondly because you would need said millionaires to spend it. All well and good having 600 million in the bank but doesn't mean they want to throw it at a Football club
On the other hand the bonds may restrict what an owner can do ie grant leases or use the ground as collateral for a loan.
Any new owners of the club would weigh up the two and make a business decision (unless you are Roland and don't realise their significance because you don't do proper DD, never had a clear business strategy and jumped into buy a distressed company on the cheap).
Having Charlton supporting ex-directors as a buffer against the Valley being sold etc could well be a good thing in any case, some more than others.
I assume (but don't know) that there is no grandfathering arrangement and that owners of clubs promoted/relegated to/from the Premier League would have to pass the tests for their new leagues. If so, the relevant panels could be busy at this time of year?
It may not receive a straight answer. There are also matters of interest rates.
So, overall...
Assuming Roland is probably going to sell the club in the next few weeks and that it will in fact be the quoted "lock stock and barrel" situation that we hoped for...(even though as scary as it sounds...Roland wanted the opposite)
Can anyone answer this question.
From the moment Roland purchased the club, and the belief that he maybe selling Charlton for 40million.
Is it likely that after adding everything up and taking future interest payments into account.
*Business finance is really not my specialist subject by the way, so forgive me if there is something incredibly obvious that I have not considered*
Will Roland eventually profit out of his 4 year + ownership of Charlton?
An answer maybe....who cares once he has sold us, we are free of him!
Personally I would just find it really annoying if the answer was actually...yes.
Even if it's as narrow as something like 25p
In terms of new applicants, I assume that just like everyone else the EFL has a duty to maintain confidentiality over an individual's personal data and that as such, unless the individual put a test failure into the public domain, or the information leaked, a failure to meet the test's criteria would remain confidential.
I had an Aussie fiancé once and lived in Sydney for a while, I still count a lot of Aussies as friends. I enjoy the banter and agree with other comments that we have a lot in common, in particular that we can give it out and take it back without the need for a hissy fit.
In my view suggesting others are ‘racist’ in the way you have just makes you look a bit silly to those of us who have experienced oz culture first hand.
The more I think about this takeover, the more I think the ‘National’ element should be toned down as much as possible to not alienate the local fans, who are after all likely to be predominantly England fans.
I’d echo comments about cynicism too, we have been victims of speculators and a mad social scientist in the last 7-8 years so completely understandable.
Thanks.
I promise to pay you back at some point, we’ll, at least half.
So no, he's not made any money and has lost a lot of money for no gain, pleasure or ego boost. He's failed.
If the test were there mainly to protect the interests of key stakeholders, namely us "customers", should not the failure to pass such a test be announced so that we can all see it works? I don't see why that should result in release of significant "personal data". After all a great deal of info about Cellino was released at the time.
The problem with this test as it stands is that it is not there to protect us, because the EFL does not give a toss about us. It is a trade association. From their POV it is our duty to turn up and pay the maximum amount for the privilege. Their concern is to make buying a club as easy as possible because that pushes up the value of their members.
I don't know if it's right to think that they are a bigger club than us but if RD gets 40m for selling our club then he should consider it as a very good deal. Of course we are a more attractive club than Sunderland when it comes to the location I guess. How much did he pay for buying us? 24m iirc?
By the way, if 70m is what he's spent, I don't think he's lost 30m? There's another important figure: the turnover or say revenue, I think?