Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
IF they have agreed the valuation but the Aussies are short of tin then one way to bridge that gap is for RD to leave some loan notes in the club. The problem with this is where these would rank with the ones already in existence from the old Directors. Its not just about security but also terms and priority of repayment.
Jimmy it’s not incorrect the difference is I have no bias in what I share all I want is RD gone your source does not want to release the info that has dogged them from the start ref funds
I assure you the pup lines being told from within are not the ones I speak
Be careful who you believe mate is all i say
I could say exactly the same as you nth, with all due respect. They’ve certainly told me no lies up to now. The fact that they don’t want to tell me all about their financing is hardly a surprise is it? Why the hell would they tell me?
They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.
How do you know they have told you no lies? If they tell you something and you in good faith post it on here. You have not been lying but they might have been. I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?
Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'
But Murphy has always been AFC. Gardikiotis may or may not have been - it’s also unclear to me that he ever had any money. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the language in that statement, which is a bit of a mess in general.
I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.
However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.
There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.
If all this talk of the Aussies buying the club but Roland keeping hold of the valley and sparrows lane are true I would rather nothing happens. If the Aussies and Roland can't come to an agreement that means that the Aussies buy the lot I would hope they just walk away. That would leave Roland losing potentially 10 million over the next year and force him to lower his asking price to a more realistic price. In the meantime it appears we may be stuck with him for next season.
What makes you think he will ask for a more realistic price ? The blokes a madman !
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?
Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'
But Murphy has always been AFC. Gardikiotis may or may not have been - it’s also unclear to me that he ever had any money. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the language in that statement, which is a bit of a mess in general.
I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.
However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.
There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.
interesting you mention youth players who have no book value. So if say Sarmiento (sp?) was sold to say Man City he could trouser that money as he has no value in the accounts and therefore no need to reduce the price. By doing so on two or three such players he could possibly raise some funds. If he wanted to buy out the ex directors in full could they refuse?
They might not have value on he books but surely if a group of first team players from the academy were sold the buyers would value the club differently?
What’s the latest “goss” from Sue Parkes website/blog?
I'm not so regular on SE7 Valiants anymore as I have far more important stuff to do (stuff that I get paid for) than to bait a bunch of ostriches/suck ups.
What I have seen is that they are getting takeover updates from teletext so I don't think they really know that much. Ms Perkes herself has been pretty silent for a while.
Jimmy it’s not incorrect the difference is I have no bias in what I share all I want is RD gone your source does not want to release the info that has dogged them from the start ref funds
I assure you the pup lines being told from within are not the ones I speak
Be careful who you believe mate is all i say
I could say exactly the same as you nth, with all due respect. They’ve certainly told me no lies up to now. The fact that they don’t want to tell me all about their financing is hardly a surprise is it? Why the hell would they tell me?
They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.
How do you know they have told you no lies? If they tell you something and you in good faith post it on here. You have not been lying but they might have been. I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.
They might not have value on he books but surely if a group of first team players from the academy were sold the buyers would value the club differently?
I'm sure players from the first team squad would have a value in the books but I very much doubt say Sarmiento has and maybe not even Djicksteel, who knows
They might not have value on he books but surely if a group of first team players from the academy were sold the buyers would value the club differently?
Yes, but If it is used to pay off third party debt that would otherwise remain a liability on the books the net effect could be positive.
Whats in the books is irrelevant in terms of the value that's placed on the business. Having less liabilities as a result of selling assets (on the books or otherwise) is a zero sum game, unless you realise more for the player than the other party thought, which could have been the case with Ezri I suppose.
Most likely scenario in removing the liabilities of the old directors is to either allow first charge on the assets of the business for any new loans (from Rolly or anyone else) or to allow the football business and the property business to be split, with only one of these sold.
Jimmy it’s not incorrect the difference is I have no bias in what I share all I want is RD gone your source does not want to release the info that has dogged them from the start ref funds
I assure you the pup lines being told from within are not the ones I speak
Be careful who you believe mate is all i say
I could say exactly the same as you nth, with all due respect. They’ve certainly told me no lies up to now. The fact that they don’t want to tell me all about their financing is hardly a surprise is it? Why the hell would they tell me?
They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.
How do you know they have told you no lies? If they tell you something and you in good faith post it on here. You have not been lying but they might have been. I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.
Show me one post where I've passed on a lie?
I keep coming back to the thought of why would anyone coming in want to lie, or not have the clout to back up their intention. They MUST know what they are up against with the fan base. What would be the advantage? It's not in their interest.
Seller on the other hand maybe.....
Call me naive, call me too optimistic. We have no real concrete evidence either way, so we are only going on what little we get (if indeed we are getting anything) and filling in the rest.
Whats in the books is irrelevant in terms of the value that's placed on the business. Having less liabilities as a result of selling assets (on the books or otherwise) is a zero sum game, unless you realise more for the player than the other party thought, which could have been the case with Ezri I suppose.
Most likely scenario in removing the liabilities of the old directors is to either allow first charge on the assets of the business for any new loans (from Rolly or anyone else) or to allow the football business and the property business to be split, with only one of these sold.
I guess it's possible that Roly could offload the club to the Aussies with a loan in place for the amount they don't have, rather than separating the club from the property. By settling the director's charges, then a new charge can be put in place to ensure Duchatelet get's paid before anybody else in the future. I would be far happier with this situation than with the property being split from the club.
At this point I want Duchatelet gone, but not at the expense of losing the ground and/or training ground to him. I was at Selhurst Park regularly and will never forget what a shit time it was for us back then. If any deal means losing these things, I'd rather there be no deal for now.
Whats in the books is irrelevant in terms of the value that's placed on the business. Having less liabilities as a result of selling assets (on the books or otherwise) is a zero sum game, unless you realise more for the player than the other party thought, which could have been the case with Ezri I suppose.
Most likely scenario in removing the liabilities of the old directors is to either allow first charge on the assets of the business for any new loans (from Rolly or anyone else) or to allow the football business and the property business to be split, with only one of these sold.
Or if you can buy out the loans at a discount, by pressuring the lenders, one way or another.
But I agree the point is likely to be to get rid of the charge - we just can’t be sure why that is suddenly such a priority, if it is.
Whats in the books is irrelevant in terms of the value that's placed on the business. Having less liabilities as a result of selling assets (on the books or otherwise) is a zero sum game, unless you realise more for the player than the other party thought, which could have been the case with Ezri I suppose.
Most likely scenario in removing the liabilities of the old directors is to either allow first charge on the assets of the business for any new loans (from Rolly or anyone else) or to allow the football business and the property business to be split, with only one of these sold.
I guess it's possible that Roly could offload the club to the Aussies with a loan in place for the amount they don't have, rather than separating the club from the property. By settling the director's charges, then a new charge can be put in place to ensure Duchatelet get's paid before anybody else in the future. I would be far happier with this situation than with the property being split from the club.
At this point I want Duchatelet gone, but not at the expense of losing the ground and/or training ground to him. I was at Selhurst Park regularly and will never forget what a shit time it was for us back then. If any deal means losing these things, I'd rather there be no deal for now.
Agree its a lot more palatable, Charlton would be more in control, but with similar issues to those we are going through at the moment. However terms of the loan notes could be an issue. I don't see Roly giving them to us interest free but then again he probably wouldn't let us use the valley or the training ground rent free
We will see the clock is ticking the deadline looming for this to be concluded
If the Aussies find investors then it won’t happen
If the club is sold and the ground and training ground is not sold with it then we will see
But the Aussies ascot 1327 today do not have the money available to buy us FACT
It's not a FACT if it's just something you've been told, and you haven't seen proof yourself.
What is this deadline? The Aussies are saying your post is 100% incorrect, it's not a third party saying it, so are you being used by someone? An ex director?
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?
Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'
I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.
However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.
There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.
This is correct and what I posted after the konsa sale and has been the case since Tuesday RD reducing the debt not the sale price hence making a reduction more in line with the Aussie shortage of funds
On weds this changed a bit more all the way up to yesterday eve when the negotiations returned to where they were around 8 - 12 weeks ago pre the investors that were found that led to the earlier leaks that things could be concluded quickly
Who subsequently failed a section of the EFL tests and meant they had joint interests and couldn’t invest
And the this resulted in issue of purchasing without the ground and training ground as part of the deal (unsure how long term that view is ) hence the Aussies do want to buy lock stock and barrel but may not be able to outright at the same time as the rest of the purchase
Releasing RD from the monthly running costs and keeping him content till he gets his full amount or the assets purchased separately later on
We will see the clock is ticking the deadline looming for this to be concluded
If the Aussies find investors then it won’t happen
If the club is sold and the ground and training ground is not sold with it then we will see
But the Aussies ascot 1327 today do not have the money available to buy us FACT
It's not a FACT if it's just something you've been told, and you haven't seen proof yourself.
What is this deadline? The Aussies are saying your post is 100% incorrect, it's not a third party saying it, so are you being used by someone? An ex director?
We will see the clock is ticking the deadline looming for this to be concluded
If the Aussies find investors then it won’t happen
If the club is sold and the ground and training ground is not sold with it then we will see
But the Aussies ascot 1327 today do not have the money available to buy us FACT
It's not a FACT if it's just something you've been told, and you haven't seen proof yourself.
What is this deadline? The Aussies are saying your post is 100% incorrect, it's not a third party saying it, so are you being used by someone? An ex director?
Nope the Aussies are not telling you the truth
And it is a fact
Absolute rubbish, just because you say FACT after every statement doesn’t mean it’s true, and that’s for both sides of the argument. No one knows exactly and to the detail what the hell is going on and that is a FACT.
Comments
It’s next on the list, once the training ground is finished.
I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.
I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.
However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.
There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.
If the Aussies find investors then it won’t happen
If the club is sold and the ground and training ground is not sold with it then we will see
But the Aussies ascot 1327 today do not have the money available to buy us FACT
What I have seen is that they are getting takeover updates from teletext so I don't think they really know that much. Ms Perkes herself has been pretty silent for a while.
Most likely scenario in removing the liabilities of the old directors is to either allow first charge on the assets of the business for any new loans (from Rolly or anyone else) or to allow the football business and the property business to be split, with only one of these sold.
Seller on the other hand maybe.....
Call me naive, call me too optimistic. We have no real concrete evidence either way, so we are only going on what little we get (if indeed we are getting anything) and filling in the rest.
At this point I want Duchatelet gone, but not at the expense of losing the ground and/or training ground to him. I was at Selhurst Park regularly and will never forget what a shit time it was for us back then. If any deal means losing these things, I'd rather there be no deal for now.
But I agree the point is likely to be to get rid of the charge - we just can’t be sure why that is suddenly such a priority, if it is.
What is this deadline?
The Aussies are saying your post is 100% incorrect, it's not a third party saying it, so are you being used by someone? An ex director?
On weds this changed a bit more all the way up to yesterday eve when the negotiations returned to where they were around 8 - 12 weeks ago pre the investors that were found that led to the earlier leaks that things could be concluded quickly
Who subsequently failed a section of the EFL tests and meant they had joint interests and couldn’t invest
And the this resulted in issue of purchasing without the ground and training ground as part of the deal (unsure how long term that view is ) hence the Aussies do want to buy lock stock and barrel but may not be able to outright at the same time as the rest of the purchase
Releasing RD from the monthly running costs and keeping him content till he gets his full amount or the assets purchased separately later on
And it is a fact