The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 , as a general business principle any buyer with half a brain will get that. However the players are the club's principle assets even if they are not classified as "fixed assets" in the accounts. You can't agree a price if the owner is constantly flogging the assets before the deal is signed.
You would suppose that after six bloody months the buyer and seller would have been able to agree on a sensible formula whereby the sale price is adjusted downwards if in the meantime the seller sells human resource which is identified as a key asset, and has a value attached to it. Similar negotiations take place in other businesses prior to sale conclusion. But not here apparently. The Australians are business people and experienced in the world of sport. I cannot believe they are not aware of the importance of agreeing this. But they are not dealing with a normal vendor. They are dealing with Roland Duchatelet. I'm not in the know but @nth london addick 's simple explantation that the Aussies haven't got the money/proof of funds doesn't ring true to me. I haven't got the money either, if I am not 100% certain of exactly what I am buying.
It could be argued that the buying and selling of players is part of a football club's business. In that sense I am equating the players with stock that Marks & Spencer might have on its books and if they were in the process of being sold the potential buyers would not expect M&S to stop selling that stock during the selling process. Obviously they would expect the proceeds from those sales to remain in the business.
RD has turned assets/stock into cash in the bank which can be used to continue paying wages and bills. That is not asset stripping.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Agree with the first part of your post. League one football clubs by definition must sell players and keep costs down in order to survive.
Where I don’t understand your point is with regard to administration. All the debt CAFC have accrued is debt to the owner. What possible benefit is there in him letting the club go bust and into admin ?
If Charlton stop paying wages and other bills then the employees and others will become debtors.
I did not state or imply that there is benefit in him letting the club go bust and into admin. He is simply trying to make the club a self financing concern until it is sold. It seems, and I don't know, as if he has suddenly decided to drastically reduce the amount of money he is putting into the club from his own pocket.
RD might be many things but he’s not stupid. Should he stop paying those bills then you are correct those then become debtors and in natural conclusion can call for a winding up order. HMRC are now not averse to this course. To what purpose does this help Duchatelet ? If he want to claw back some of the money he has squandered in his four year ownership then the only way he can maximise this is to sell.
There should be a budget to run the club,this would also be part of DD. It should show the expected running costs in various scenarios.Of course the big assumption is that this business has been run correctly/ego free and with an atom of experience in the SMT ! Flipping burgers don't count. It seems that RDs budget depended on the club being sold at the end of the season.For whatever reason that's not happened and has NO definitive sign off date. RD has now home to an emergency budget / cost saving. The prospective buyers are seeing the "asset "value going down re players sold and want the asking price lowered .Stalemate !!
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Agree with the first part of your post. League one football clubs by definition must sell players and keep costs down in order to survive.
Where I don’t understand your point is with regard to administration. All the debt CAFC have accrued is debt to the owner. What possible benefit is there in him letting the club go bust and into admin ?
If Charlton stop paying wages and other bills then the employees and others will become debtors.
I did not state or imply that there is benefit in him letting the club go bust and into admin. He is simply trying to make the club a self financing concern until it is sold. It seems, and I don't know, as if he has suddenly decided to drastically reduce the amount of money he is putting into the club from his own pocket.
RD might be many things but he’s not stupid. Should he stop paying those bills then you are correct those then become debtors and in natural conclusion can call for a winding up order. HMRC are now not averse to this course. To what purpose does this help Duchatelet ? If he want to claw back some of the money he has squandered in his four year ownership then the only way he can maximise this is to sell.
I have not stated anywhere that I think letting the club go into admin helps RD.
He is desperately trying to make it a going concern with vastly reduced monthly injections of cash from his own pocket.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 , as a general business principle any buyer with half a brain will get that. However the players are the club's principle assets even if they are not classified as "fixed assets" in the accounts. You can't agree a price if the owner is constantly flogging the assets before the deal is signed.
You would suppose that after six bloody months the buyer and seller would have been able to agree on a sensible formula whereby the sale price is adjusted downwards if in the meantime the seller sells human resource which is identified as a key asset, and has a value attached to it. Similar negotiations take place in other businesses prior to sale conclusion. But not here apparently. The Australians are business people and experienced in the world of sport. I cannot believe they are not aware of the importance of agreeing this. But they are not dealing with a normal vendor. They are dealing with Roland Duchatelet. I'm not in the know but @nth london addick 's simple explantation that the Aussies haven't got the money/proof of funds doesn't ring true to me. I haven't got the money either, if I am not 100% certain of exactly what I am buying.
It could be argued that the buying and selling of players is part of a football club's business. In that sense I am equating the players with stock that Marks & Spencer might have on its books and if they were in the process of being sold the potential buyers would not expect M&S to stop selling that stock during the selling process. Obviously they would expect the proceeds from those sales to remain in the business.
RD has turned assets/stock into cash in the bank which can be used to continue paying wages and bills. That is not asset stripping.
Don't you think their lunchtime meal deal is a bit expensive though?
I hope if this statement is released via Richard Cawley we can take it as a sign that Murray won't be hanging around after? You'd think if he was involved with the bid he'd also be involved with the statement.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 , as a general business principle any buyer with half a brain will get that. However the players are the club's principle assets even if they are not classified as "fixed assets" in the accounts. You can't agree a price if the owner is constantly flogging the assets before the deal is signed.
You would suppose that after six bloody months the buyer and seller would have been able to agree on a sensible formula whereby the sale price is adjusted downwards if in the meantime the seller sells human resource which is identified as a key asset, and has a value attached to it. Similar negotiations take place in other businesses prior to sale conclusion. But not here apparently. The Australians are business people and experienced in the world of sport. I cannot believe they are not aware of the importance of agreeing this. But they are not dealing with a normal vendor. They are dealing with Roland Duchatelet. I'm not in the know but @nth london addick 's simple explantation that the Aussies haven't got the money/proof of funds doesn't ring true to me. I haven't got the money either, if I am not 100% certain of exactly what I am buying.
It could be argued that the buying and selling of players is part of a football club's business. In that sense I am equating the players with stock that Marks & Spencer might have on its books and if they were in the process of being sold the potential buyers would not expect M&S to stop selling that stock during the selling process. Obviously they would expect the proceeds from those sales to remain in the business.
RD has turned assets/stock into cash in the bank which can be used to continue paying wages and bills. That is not asset stripping.
I don't agree with that analogy. Stock at M&S is not an asset by any stretch. The exact same items can be replenished on a daily basis, and are. Running down the stock would be a temporary and infinitesmal change to the company valuation and easily identified and valued
A football club is essentially a people business. It's far more like an advertising agency than a huge multi thousand employee retail business. When I worked at BMP it was publicly quoted on the FTSE, and some clowns from a French agency though they could buy us in a hostile takeover. But the top people did not want to be bought by the French. The FT pointed out that you cannot buy such a business as you might buy say Cadbury because the key assets can leave in the elevator one evening and just walk away.
The point is that yes, player trading is part of the business, but if you are going to value such a business, you have to have a clear value of the key assets, the players, agreed in advance, and a formula for adjusting the price in the event of any changes, which could be a career terminating injury to a top player of course. In business it is not actually that difficult to agree on, if both parties are mature and seek rational benchmarks for agreeing the value of players at the time. You can see though why in this case , its a big IF...
@PragueAddick I could not disagree more strongly. Average league 1 players are NOT the main, or significant, assets. In fact I would suggest that their contracts are actually a liability.
Lionel Messi is an asset, Jason Pearce and Nabby Sarr aren't. If I was buying the club I would only put a nominal value on the current players, or 99% of league 1 players.
If you were seriously rich the only assets you want are the ground, training ground and the golden share.
The advertising agency comparison works with a SMT, football management, academy staff, talent scouts etc who can add massive value. Although that is obviously not the case here.
So a statement today by our would be buyers? A bit confused though as when @JamesSeed broke this late last night night it was already today in Australia, whilst yesterday here in England and depending on how late this statement is announced it could already be tomorrow there whilst still today.
Got the phone call at 21:30. My contact is in England. He was working on statement with Paul Elliott. Don’t know what time it’ll be released, but I imagine it’ll be via Rich Cawley. All I know is they won’t be saying they’re pulling out.
They're not saying they are pulling out , they are not saying its a done deal, this sounds to me it could be about a clear as one of muzzas statements.
So assuming there is a statement what's the best we can hope for?
For me just some sort of clarity on exactly what's caused the delays and what is being done to fix it.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 , as a general business principle any buyer with half a brain will get that. However the players are the club's principle assets even if they are not classified as "fixed assets" in the accounts. You can't agree a price if the owner is constantly flogging the assets before the deal is signed.
You would suppose that after six bloody months the buyer and seller would have been able to agree on a sensible formula whereby the sale price is adjusted downwards if in the meantime the seller sells human resource which is identified as a key asset, and has a value attached to it. Similar negotiations take place in other businesses prior to sale conclusion. But not here apparently. The Australians are business people and experienced in the world of sport. I cannot believe they are not aware of the importance of agreeing this. But they are not dealing with a normal vendor. They are dealing with Roland Duchatelet. I'm not in the know but @nth london addick 's simple explantation that the Aussies haven't got the money/proof of funds doesn't ring true to me. I haven't got the money either, if I am not 100% certain of exactly what I am buying.
It could be argued that the buying and selling of players is part of a football club's business. In that sense I am equating the players with stock that Marks & Spencer might have on its books and if they were in the process of being sold the potential buyers would not expect M&S to stop selling that stock during the selling process. Obviously they would expect the proceeds from those sales to remain in the business.
RD has turned assets/stock into cash in the bank which can be used to continue paying wages and bills. That is not asset stripping.
I don't agree with that analogy. Stock at M&S is not an asset by any stretch. The exact same items can be replenished on a daily basis, and are. Running down the stock would be a temporary and infinitesmal change to the company valuation and easily identified and valued
A football club is essentially a people business. It's far more like an advertising agency than a huge multi thousand employee retail business. When I worked at BMP it was publicly quoted on the FTSE, and some clowns from a French agency though they could buy us in a hostile takeover. But the top people did not want to be bought by the French. The FT pointed out that you cannot buy such a business as you might buy say Cadbury because the key assets can leave in the elevator one evening and just walk away.
The point is that yes, player trading is part of the business, but if you are going to value such a business, you have to have a clear value of the key assets, the players, agreed in advance, and a formula for adjusting the price in the event of any changes, which could be a career terminating injury to a top player of course. In business it is not actually that difficult to agree on, if both parties are mature and seek rational benchmarks for agreeing the value of players at the time. You can see though why in this case , its a big IF...
I did not say that stock at M&S could be considered an asset. I suggested that players, especially at lower league clubs, might be equated to stock rather than fixed assets.
Unless advertising agencies regularly trade their employees then I don't think they can be compared to football clubs.
If, as you accept, player trading is part of the business, then surely those players cannot be considered as fixed assets.
If we have a player on the books who has significant value there would be insurance in place to protect against loss in the event of serious injury. There should be no need for algorithms during the course of a selling process.
Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but I'm not expecting any statement from anybody today...
I have faith in @JamesSeed , if he says we're getting a statement today then i fully believe we will get a statement.
James, i've publicly announced my faith in your good self, don't let me down!
Who said I don't have faith in James? Not me.
He can be lied to, just the same as anyone else...
So far zero lies, but other than te gact that hey're still beavering away at this takeover, no truths either, based on the fact that most of what they've said has been a statement of intent. They've been over optimistic though ('it should happen next week' etc), but that's it.
I'm going to get pelters if this statement isn't released today, despite merely being the messenger, although my skin is thickening, not just through ageing.
Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but I'm not expecting any statement from anybody today...
I have faith in @JamesSeed , if he says we're getting a statement today then i fully believe we will get a statement.
James, i've publicly announced my faith in your good self, don't let me down!
Who said I don't have faith in James? Not me.
He can be lied to, just the same as anyone else...
So far zero lies, but other than te gact that hey're still beavering away at this takeover, no truths either, based on the fact that most of what they've said has been a statement of intent. They've been over optimistic though ('it should happen next week' etc), but that's it.
I'm going to get pelters if this statement isn't released today, despite merely being the messenger.
Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but I'm not expecting any statement from anybody today...
I have faith in @JamesSeed , if he says we're getting a statement today then i fully believe we will get a statement.
James, i've publicly announced my faith in your good self, don't let me down!
Who said I don't have faith in James? Not me.
He can be lied to, just the same as anyone else...
So far zero lies, but other than te gact that hey're still beavering away at this takeover, no truths either, based on the fact that most of what they've said has been a statement of intent. They've been over optimistic though ('it should happen next week' etc), but that's it.
I'm going to get pelters if this statement isn't released today, despite merely being the messenger, although my skin is thickening, not just through ageing.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Why would RD stop paying those bills then ? That leads to possible admin and he losses more money. Therefore it is not “The alternative”.
Comments
RD has turned assets/stock into cash in the bank which can be used to continue paying wages and bills. That is not asset stripping.
*3 pages into the day already*
CAFC continues to decline
He is desperately trying to make it a going concern with vastly reduced monthly injections of cash from his own pocket.
James, i've publicly announced my faith in your good self, don't let me down!
A football club is essentially a people business. It's far more like an advertising agency than a huge multi thousand employee retail business. When I worked at BMP it was publicly quoted on the FTSE, and some clowns from a French agency though they could buy us in a hostile takeover. But the top people did not want to be bought by the French. The FT pointed out that you cannot buy such a business as you might buy say Cadbury because the key assets can leave in the elevator one evening and just walk away.
The point is that yes, player trading is part of the business, but if you are going to value such a business, you have to have a clear value of the key assets, the players, agreed in advance, and a formula for adjusting the price in the event of any changes, which could be a career terminating injury to a top player of course. In business it is not actually that difficult to agree on, if both parties are mature and seek rational benchmarks for agreeing the value of players at the time. You can see though why in this case , its a big IF...
He can be lied to, just the same as anyone else...
Lionel Messi is an asset, Jason Pearce and Nabby Sarr aren't. If I was buying the club I would only put a nominal value on the current players, or 99% of league 1 players.
If you were seriously rich the only assets you want are the ground, training ground and the golden share.
The advertising agency comparison works with a SMT, football management, academy staff, talent scouts etc who can add massive value. Although that is obviously not the case here.
Richard Cawley
@RichCawleySLP
Been told that statement from the Andrew Muir-led consortium will come via the club. #cafc
@RichCawleySLP
It's going to be along the line that talks are progressing but taking longer than anyone would like - buyers and seller. #cafc
So assuming there is a statement what's the best we can hope for?
For me just some sort of clarity on exactly what's caused the delays and what is being done to fix it.
Glad the talks are apparently progressing well but they do need to shake a leg and get some structure sorted!
Unless advertising agencies regularly trade their employees then I don't think they can be compared to football clubs.
If, as you accept, player trading is part of the business, then surely those players cannot be considered as fixed assets.
If we have a player on the books who has significant value there would be insurance in place to protect against loss in the event of serious injury. There should be no need for algorithms during the course of a selling process.
They've been over optimistic though ('it should happen next week' etc), but that's it.
I'm going to get pelters if this statement isn't released today, despite merely being the messenger, although my skin is thickening, not just through ageing.
I wonder what the Imaginary British group make of make of the club allowing this statement to happen.