“And on the 7th Day, after Songs of Praise was over, and He was sitting about not doing much, God did create the idea of The CAFC Takeover, and with it, The Takeover thread. And He said ( handily in English) - “ I have made something that will keep my special people busy for all eternity. Well, it will just FEEL like that to them.”
The players have been turned into bargaining chips or, in human terms, hostages.
And since 2014 our club has been turned from diamonds into ashes.
As I said long ago, RD's triumph was to save the club from its previous owners - his tragedy was to fail to save the club from himself. He's perpetrated the biggest betrayal in our history, against some pretty stiff competition it must be said. Why can no-one put a swift end to this nightmare?
Rich Crawley hasn't heard back from them. It's possibly going to be a national press release, so could be in the papers tomorrow, if it's embargoed. Hopefully today though.
Rich Crawley hasn't heard back from them. It's possibly going to be a national press release, so could be in the papers tomorrow, if it's embargoed. Hopefully today though.
I don't see Roland setting up the debt he owes to himself as not being backed by the assets of the club. And no bank would set up debt that way. So what other debt could it be?
Debt that has a clause for example that the money "does not have to be paid off until the club is promoted" would qualify as a debenture.
I would not at all be surprised if the director debt is set up as a debenture. In other words, directors do not have recourse to sell off assets of the club if the debt falls through. The debt is simply dependent on the club's creditworthiness or promise.
In general terms debenture holders have a CHARGE over the assets which means they rank higher than other creditors and thus have more chance of being paid in part or in full if everything goes tits up and assets have to be realised as cash.
In Charlton terms if the Club wanted to borrow elsewhere prospective lenders would not be happy to see charges already over the assets. Hence the various discussions about the 'power' held by the former directors.
Rich Crawley hasn't heard back from them. It's possibly going to be a national press release, so could be in the papers tomorrow, if it's embargoed. Hopefully today though.
Rich Crawley hasn't heard back from them. It's possibly going to be a national press release, so could be in the papers tomorrow, if it's embargoed. Hopefully today though.
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?
Probably nothing.
The financial year end is 30 June and last year the auditors probably picked up that the HSBC charge had not been discharged at Companies House.
‘What’s that Skippy, the guy that wore the red and white scarf is trapped down a well by the old mine shaft over by crocodile creek and can’t sign the takeover agreement just yet but that you’ve reviewed the basics of the agreement and think it’s still likely to go ahead ?’
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?
As posted above the financial year end appears to be 30 June.
It's probably been noticed as part and parcel of the preparations for that or alternatively, as I suggested above, picked up previously by the auditors.
Comments
Thought Cawley was joking...
If the statement is from Muir/Consortium rather than 'Charlton' on the OS, it seems all backwards. Not that I should be surprised.
“ I have made something that will keep my special people busy for all eternity. Well, it will just FEEL like that to them.”
EDIT: Just seen @Airman Brown 's explanation that it relates to HSBC.
The players have been turned into bargaining chips or, in human terms, hostages.
And since 2014 our club has been turned from diamonds into ashes.
As I said long ago, RD's triumph was to save the club from its previous owners - his tragedy was to fail to save the club from himself. He's perpetrated the biggest betrayal in our history, against some pretty stiff competition it must be said. Why can no-one put a swift end to this nightmare?
Roland, Muir and the British group.
(See what I did there?)
In Charlton terms if the Club wanted to borrow elsewhere prospective lenders would not be happy to see charges already over the assets. Hence the various discussions about the 'power' held by the former directors.
Bill Murray thought he had it bad
The financial year end is 30 June and last year the auditors probably picked up that the HSBC charge had not been discharged at Companies House.
Someone has probably noticed and 'tidied up.'
It's probably been noticed as part and parcel of the preparations for that or alternatively, as I suggested above, picked up previously by the auditors.
Anyone got Ban ki Moon's mobile number ?