Up till now the fixed charges that ex-directors have on the real estate has prevented Duchâtelet from selling the club and keeping the Valley, - at least that is my understanding.
If Duchâtelet is trying to settle all these charges and ex-directors are willing to comply, then we are truly f##ked
Companies house shows those charges are the ones numbered 3 to 9 and they are still in place. 1 & 2 were HSBC and Lombard North and they've been satisfied. The directors ones are 3 Derek Chappell, 4 David White 5 David Hughes 6 Sir Maurice Hatter 7 Richard Murray 8 56 Developments LLP (Robert and Helen Whitehand) 9 David Sumners
Companies House also shows that the HSBC charge has just been satisfied against the listing by giving the date. It’s just paperwork and nothing to do with repaying the ex-directors’ loans.
So what could that mean in relation to any takeover?
It’s just housekeeping because the overdraft facility is no longer there, I assume.
Strange time for house keeping if it hadn't been used for about 4 years, if it's nothing to do with anything, why do it now?
Oh and who would file it? The ceo, the fd, the tea lady?
I'd say that unless one of the aussies has got up onto the meeting room table and laid down a large brown cable on Duchatalet's rep's notepad, things are still being negotiated and getting ever closer. Fingers crossed.
I thought you were ITK or are you finally admitting all your wind up dickery has been just that?
I know a certain amount as I get updates every now and then - mainly when I ask - if anything concrete or significant happens I will let u know - my info is never a wind up - I sometimes wind idiots up when they start
We get an official statement months back which claimed 'price had been agreed', so what's been the main sticking point...
Do you know..?
I'm told the aussies r now trying to pay less - this was before the konsa sale
But Murray told us in February price wasn't a program.
I'd say that unless one of the aussies has got up onto the meeting room table and laid down a large brown cable on Duchatalet's rep's notepad, things are still being negotiated and getting ever closer. Fingers crossed.
I thought you were ITK or are you finally admitting all your wind up dickery has been just that?
I know a certain amount as I get updates every now and then - mainly when I ask - if anything concrete or significant happens I will let u know - my info is never a wind up - I sometimes wind idiots up when they start
We get an official statement months back which claimed 'price had been agreed', so what's been the main sticking point...
Do you know..?
I'm told the aussies r now trying to pay less - this was before the konsa sale
But Murray told us in February price wasn't a program.
And I have only recently stated about that and the British thing and the lack of confidence in their ability to fund now rather than 10 days ago because I've seen it posted elsewhere - was told in confidence but as info is out of bag elsewhere then I
I'd say that unless one of the aussies has got up onto the meeting room table and laid down a large brown cable on Duchatalet's rep's notepad, things are still being negotiated and getting ever closer. Fingers crossed.
I thought you were ITK or are you finally admitting all your wind up dickery has been just that?
I know a certain amount as I get updates every now and then - mainly when I ask - if anything concrete or significant happens I will let u know - my info is never a wind up - I sometimes wind idiots up when they start
We get an official statement months back which claimed 'price had been agreed', so what's been the main sticking point...
Do you know..?
I'm told the aussies r now trying to pay less - this was before the konsa sale
But Murray told us in February price wasn't a program.
F??k sake - if u agreed a price with somebody and then right at the last they wanted to pay a lot less, would that b a problem to u?
Clearly they don't want to pay his price but it's a shame they didn't say that months back or they have gambled he will buckle at the last - I hope he does buckle and clear off but his actions are clearly trying to say the opposite and my hunch that I put forward this morning about the 'mystery' brits being ready to buy if they can offload their club could b his fallback position - who knows, I don't but it's hypothetically possible as is the scenario that he will run us ever more on a shoestring but where will that end? I still think a revolution will be reached and it's coming to a head soon
Clearly they don't want to pay his price but it's a shame they didn't say that months back or they have gambled he will buckle at the last - I hope he does buckle and clear off but his actions are clearly trying to say the opposite and my hunch that I put forward this morning about the 'mystery' brits being ready to buy if they can offload their club could b his fallback position - who knows, I don't but it's hypothetically possible as is the scenario that he will run us ever more on a shoestring but where will that end? I still think a revolution will be reached and it's coming to a head soon
The senile old git is losing £1m per month or £250k per week. No amount of staff cuts is going to reduce his debt, it can only grow. Sell up you tosser!
One way to reduce the clubs price is to reduce the debt owed by the club but maintain the same asking price
I don’t expect any news this week or next week and I don’t believe that anyone has walked away
And I still believe the Aussies don’t have the required funds or the intention to try to find them
I am obviously not ITK and NLA is, but this long has, and continues to, make the most sense to me.
This consortium/Muir approaches Roland some 14 months ago. Roland dicks them around with the price for a while, including possibly hoping to start a bidding war, fine. We then get to the due diligence phase we're told in the fall, and that perhaps takes longer because of Jimenez et al before Roland. But that was at least 4-5 months ago, if not longer. This is a football club, we're not talking about the intricacies of IP filings across multiple countries here, it can only be so complicated.
We've been told for a while that a price is agreed. Maybe Roland plays some silly buggers with the price, but he's the one financing the club at this point. And everything we've seen and heard coming from him indicates that he wants out, so the law of diminishing returns must have kicked in at some point. So of all the variables, what's left? The EFL? I mean maybe, but you feel like if that's all that was left and it was considered a formality, the deal would most likely be announced. So to me, there's something that's off with the Australian bid. Again, I only get here through process of elimination, but I just don't see what else it could be.
So maybe it is being held up by the EFL because they're worried about financing. Maybe it's being held up in a payment stage because of financing. Or maybe the Australian bidder is trying to change something to do with payments in a game of brinksmanship. But it's hard for me to escape the feeling that something is rotten in Denmark. Or, Down Under.
Up till now the fixed charges that ex-directors have on the real estate has prevented Duchâtelet from selling the club and keeping the Valley, - at least that is my understanding.
If Duchâtelet is trying to settle all these charges and ex-directors are willing to comply, then we are truly f##ked
Companies house shows those charges are the ones numbered 3 to 9 and they are still in place. 1 & 2 were HSBC and Lombard North and they've been satisfied. The directors ones are 3 Derek Chappell, 4 David White 5 David Hughes 6 Sir Maurice Hatter 7 Richard Murray 8 56 Developments LLP (Robert and Helen Whitehand) 9 David Sumners
Companies House also shows that the HSBC charge has just been satisfied against the listing by giving the date. It’s just paperwork and nothing to do with repaying the ex-directors’ loans.
So what could that mean in relation to any takeover?
It’s just housekeeping because the overdraft facility is no longer there, I assume.
Possibly but any purchaser would also want it removed.
It's much more likely that the existing facility expired and the bank wanted a hefty "arrangement fee" to do a new one and if it's not being used why pay for it?
I heard some time ago that the aussies felt they were paying over the odds. Maybe they thought RD would lower his price at the last minute and still go through with the sale. A gamble that may well backfire for us supporters
The senile old git is losing £1m per month or £250k per week. No amount of staff cuts is going to reduce his debt, it can only grow. Sell up you tosser!
But this way he can fuck more people over. Triffic
The debenture would have been given as security to HSBC in return for HSBC providing the overdraft faciltity. It is essentially a charge over all of the assets of Baton. I assume there would have been a deed of priority or carve between the ex-Director loans.
If HSBC no longer provide an overdraft limit it would naturally follow that they no longer need the security. The security may have actually have been released some time ago by HSBC but to mark it as satisfied at Companies House would be a form filling exercise for Baton or it’s lawyers to do and it is not rare this is overlooked.
It likely came up during due diligence that this was still showing and hence this could be simple house keeping that Baton’s lawyers have chosen to do now they are aware or could be one of the many conditions the purchasers have asked is attended to before completing the purchase which would also be quite normal.
In short, it does not prove anything but less/no security to a bank is a good thing any which way.
One way to reduce the clubs price is to reduce the debt owed by the club but maintain the same asking price
I don’t expect any news this week or next week and I don’t believe that anyone has walked away
And I still believe the Aussies don’t have the required funds or the intention to try to find them
I am obviously not ITK and NLA is, but this long has, and continues to, make the most sense to me.
This consortium/Muir approaches Roland some 14 months ago. Roland dicks them around with the price for a while, including possibly hoping to start a bidding war, fine. We then get to the due diligence phase we're told in the fall, and that perhaps takes longer because of Jimenez et al before Roland. But that was at least 4-5 months ago, if not longer. This is a football club, we're not talking about the intricacies of IP filings across multiple countries here, it can only be so complicated.
We've been told for a while that a price is agreed. Maybe Roland plays some silly buggers with the price, but he's the one financing the club at this point. And everything we've seen and heard coming from him indicates that he wants out, so the law of diminishing returns must have kicked in at some point. So of all the variables, what's left? The EFL? I mean maybe, but you feel like if that's all that was left and it was considered a formality, the deal would most likely be announced. So to me, there's something that's off with the Australian bid. Again, I only get here through process of elimination, but I just don't see what else it could be.
So maybe it is being held up by the EFL because they're worried about financing. Maybe it's being held up in a payment stage because of financing. Or maybe the Australian bidder is trying to change something to do with payments in a game of brinksmanship. But it's hard for me to escape the feeling that something is rotten in Denmark. Or, Down Under.
All plausible but why have so many others, including what @Redhenry believes was a mega rich Saudi bid walked away?
Did they all not have the money or were they all rotten? The common factor is all these collapsed deals is Duchatelet.
And if there really is a British group then why is Duchatelet flogging players and making cuts. Just sell to them.
No one is claiming the Aussies are beyond criticism but if they have offered only what they feel the club is worth what's wrong with that?
Up till now the fixed charges that ex-directors have on the real estate has prevented Duchâtelet from selling the club and keeping the Valley, - at least that is my understanding.
If Duchâtelet is trying to settle all these charges and ex-directors are willing to comply, then we are truly f##ked
Companies house shows those charges are the ones numbered 3 to 9 and they are still in place. 1 & 2 were HSBC and Lombard North and they've been satisfied. The directors ones are 3 Derek Chappell, 4 David White 5 David Hughes 6 Sir Maurice Hatter 7 Richard Murray 8 56 Developments LLP (Robert and Helen Whitehand) 9 David Sumners
Companies House also shows that the HSBC charge has just been satisfied against the listing by giving the date. It’s just paperwork and nothing to do with repaying the ex-directors’ loans.
So what could that mean in relation to any takeover?
It’s just housekeeping because the overdraft facility is no longer there, I assume.
Strange time for house keeping if it hadn't been used for about 4 years, if it's nothing to do with anything, why do it now?
Oh and who would file it? The ceo, the fd, the tea lady?
The club’s lawyers would file it and I agree it would fall out of the process, but it doesn’t mean anything per se. If you look at other charges that have been removed, they are rarely done promptly. There was a batch last year - they didn’t reflect recent events.
Specifcally, the north stand loan was paid off in 15/16 - the charge was released in April 2017.
Trouble is, we just don’t know. All we know is the spin / version that one side wants to leak out.
It could be the Aussies just can’t get the finance after having lost a couple of backers. It could equally be that after the recent sale of assets Roland still wants the same asking price for the club (but now with less assets), which the Aussies might think is taking the mick.
This is all happening exactly as it was told to me last week, I just couldn’t tell you then, but I can now, so please read the previous 57 posts. Thanks.
Can no one arrange separate face to face camera interviews with both parties to explain where we are with things and evidence if there are conflicting sides to the story.
I know this wouldn't happen in the business world but football is different and fans are key stakeholders without which there is no club.
Probably living in dream world but surely this could happen. If there are stringent NDAs in place then they shouldn't be feeding tit bits to anyone so can't see that being an issue as it is obviously happening.
Or even submitting 10 questions to both parties via the trust or someone to see whether answers align.
All this speculation is futile and is playing fans off each other and feels like the fans are being used as pawns.
Trouble is, we just don’t know. All we know is the spin / version that one side wants to leak out.
It could be the Aussies just can’t get the finance after having lost a couple of backers. It could equally be that after the recent sale of assets Roland still wants the same asking price for the club (but now with less assets), which the Aussies might think is taking the mick.
None of us know. It’s painful.
The stories about RD holding a fire sale aren’t coming from the Aussies at all.
Trouble is, we just don’t know. All we know is the spin / version that one side wants to leak out.
It could be the Aussies just can’t get the finance after having lost a couple of backers. It could equally be that after the recent sale of assets Roland still wants the same asking price for the club (but now with less assets), which the Aussies might think is taking the mick.
None of us know. It’s painful.
The stories about RD holding a fire sale aren’t coming from the Aussies at all.
So what are the Aussies saying about this @Airman Brown ?
Trouble is, we just don’t know. All we know is the spin / version that one side wants to leak out.
It could be the Aussies just can’t get the finance after having lost a couple of backers. It could equally be that after the recent sale of assets Roland still wants the same asking price for the club (but now with less assets), which the Aussies might think is taking the mick.
None of us know. It’s painful.
Spot on. The not knowing where things stand is thoroughly depressing. As usual, the fans - the ones that will still be there in 40 / 50 years are treated like shit. Well and truely in limbo.
This is all happening exactly as it was told to me last week, I just couldn’t tell you then, but I can now, so please read the previous 57 posts. Thanks.
Trouble is, we just don’t know. All we know is the spin / version that one side wants to leak out.
It could be the Aussies just can’t get the finance after having lost a couple of backers. It could equally be that after the recent sale of assets Roland still wants the same asking price for the club (but now with less assets), which the Aussies might think is taking the mick.
None of us know. It’s painful.
The stories about RD holding a fire sale aren’t coming from the Aussies at all.
So what are the Aussies saying about this @Airman Brown ?
Are they out?
Maybe. Several people have said they are out but not heard of them saying it directly to anyone yet.
Comments
Oh and who would file it? The ceo, the fd, the tea lady?
I don’t expect any news this week or next week and I don’t believe that anyone has walked away
And I still believe the Aussies don’t have the required funds or the intention to try to find them
This consortium/Muir approaches Roland some 14 months ago. Roland dicks them around with the price for a while, including possibly hoping to start a bidding war, fine. We then get to the due diligence phase we're told in the fall, and that perhaps takes longer because of Jimenez et al before Roland. But that was at least 4-5 months ago, if not longer. This is a football club, we're not talking about the intricacies of IP filings across multiple countries here, it can only be so complicated.
We've been told for a while that a price is agreed. Maybe Roland plays some silly buggers with the price, but he's the one financing the club at this point. And everything we've seen and heard coming from him indicates that he wants out, so the law of diminishing returns must have kicked in at some point. So of all the variables, what's left? The EFL? I mean maybe, but you feel like if that's all that was left and it was considered a formality, the deal would most likely be announced. So to me, there's something that's off with the Australian bid. Again, I only get here through process of elimination, but I just don't see what else it could be.
So maybe it is being held up by the EFL because they're worried about financing. Maybe it's being held up in a payment stage because of financing. Or maybe the Australian bidder is trying to change something to do with payments in a game of brinksmanship. But it's hard for me to escape the feeling that something is rotten in Denmark. Or, Down Under.
If HSBC no longer provide an overdraft limit it would naturally follow that they no longer need the security. The security may have actually have been released some time ago by HSBC but to mark it as satisfied at Companies House would be a form filling exercise for Baton or it’s lawyers to do and it is not rare this is overlooked.
It likely came up during due diligence that this was still showing and hence this could be simple house keeping that Baton’s lawyers have chosen to do now they are aware or could be one of the many conditions the purchasers have asked is attended to before completing the purchase which would also be quite normal.
In short, it does not prove anything but less/no security to a bank is a good thing any which way.
Did they all not have the money or were they all rotten? The common factor is all these collapsed deals is Duchatelet.
And if there really is a British group then why is Duchatelet flogging players and making cuts. Just sell to them.
No one is claiming the Aussies are beyond criticism but if they have offered only what they feel the club is worth what's wrong with that?
Specifcally, the north stand loan was paid off in 15/16 - the charge was released in April 2017.
It could be the Aussies just can’t get the finance after having lost a couple of backers. It could equally be that after the recent sale of assets Roland still wants the same asking price for the club (but now with less assets), which the Aussies might think is taking the mick.
None of us know. It’s painful.
I know this wouldn't happen in the business world but football is different and fans are key stakeholders without which there is no club.
Probably living in dream world but surely this could happen. If there are stringent NDAs in place then they shouldn't be feeding tit bits to anyone so can't see that being an issue as it is obviously happening.
Or even submitting 10 questions to both parties via the trust or someone to see whether answers align.
All this speculation is futile and is playing fans off each other and feels like the fans are being used as pawns.
Are they out?