@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficult to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (agree to a lease and sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
Am I right in thinking that the ex directors blocking the purchase of debt is a GOOD thing rather than a bad?
Your article gave the impression that it was a negative, however I can see that as being the only thing stopping RD from keeping the ground etc but selling the club
Wasnt there the rumour that another consortium had matched the Aussie bid but the structure of payment was different. Or did I just make that up. Im so confused now.
After 14 notifications it seems I need to respond.
I will argue the posts from sundry parties since my last contribution prove my point. There are so many stories out there nobody apart from those at the negotiating tables can be certain of their information beyond the fact the takeover has not been completed with EFL approval.
I have made no suggestion NLA has an agenda. If I had it would have put me in the same category as the "miscreants" the other night.
My argument is the tone of the message, the persistence of its repetition, the nature of the information/ disinformation, the positioning of the argument indicate to me (as I clearly stated) someone somewhere has an agenda.
I have not even attached any negative connotation to such agenda. Due to the nature of the argument I could but unlike the scenarios faced within 40yrs of the corporate world I am not close enough to the parties to determine the ambition of such an agenda.
Unless you are a party directly involved with the negotiations, bound by NDAs, someone linked to those negotiations is sharing what they believe to be true. I have been to far too many meetings with where people actually at the same meeting walked away with entirely different perceptions all before they added their own influence to the information. It is precisely why people take minutes.
Thus by definition such information is 2nd or 3rd hand and for every layer open to further "interpretation" all of which ignores the point, until the deal is done or not done, people play games.
IF the deal means separation of the ownership of club and ground I will reserve judgement as to what that means for the future of the club until the details are known. I have stressed it is not ideal but it has to be viewed in the context of where we are today and how we get out of this friggin mess. In such event the devil will be in the detail.
In terms of negotiations I lost count of the lendings I declined as a bank manager because the customer was not investing sufficient equity into the deal. It is amazing what people will do when push comes to shove. I would estimate at least 60% came back with a more appropriate application or greater equity investment.
With this level of investment there are no guarantees. In 1993 I spent 6 months on a team working with a US bank to launch a joint venture. We even announced the deal at a conference in NY. The US bank paid for the industry conference and the celebratory dinner. The CEO of the Financial Corporation who owned the US bank killed the deal at the dinner table.
In 1995 I spent 2 weeks in NY thrashing out the same deal with another US Bank. We shook hands on the deal on a Friday. Monday morning we received a letter to buy us out!!!
In 1997/8 I spent 18 months working on a different joint venture with a technology company in Texas. They walked away once. We walked away once. We shook hands on the deal twice and then the bank was subject to a takeover bid and the funding was pulled.
Fortunately I was somewhat more successful with other negotiations or I would have been out of a job. . For us there is ultimately only one man who knows where he will allow ithe numbers to fall and even he will not know whether he can indeed walk away with what he wants.
Thus I can but repeat the nature of the debate which transpired served nobody.
If the Australians decide to walk away we are left with what exactly?
I have no problem with anyone sharing what they are hearing but at any given point unless you are sitting at the negotiating table 24/7 there is no call to attack or aggressively dismiss anyone.
Such an approach shuts people down and reduces the flow of information. Who exactly does that serve?
Wasnt there the rumour that another consortium had matched the Aussie bid but the structure of payment was different. Or did I just make that up. Im so confused now.
YOU’RE confused.......so are the rest of us Shooters!
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
To prevent any confusion, Charlton have tweeted to confirm that some earlier information is less accurate than might otherwise have been the case. Moreover, to clarify the date of the Welling match, if anyone had heard that it has changed, it hasn't. Unless - and this is very important - the change that you heard is that it is now confirmed to be on the 14th July. So, in summary, if you had heard that it was the 14th July, and you hadn't heard that it had changed, stay as you are. If you heard it had changed to the 7th July, then you need either to ignore that, or to understand that it has changed twice: once to the 7th and once back again to the 14th. And if you had already heard that the game had been rescheduled twice, just pretend you hadn't heard anything.
Any conspiracies that were proven wrong by the first (non existent) date change can now be resurrected. Any conspiracies that rely on there being a date change to the 7th can be ignored, at least until the next date change. And any conspiracies that rely on a link between a football club not being able to tell its fans when its next game is with any level of confidence, and a Belgian septuagenarian unable to arrange a piss up in a brewery, remain wholly founded.
I'll update again as soon as I hear of the next date change.
After 14 notifications it seems I need to respond.
I will argue the posts from sundry parties since my last contribution prove my point. There are so many stories out there nobody apart from those at the negotiating tables can be certain of their information beyond the fact the takeover has not been completed with EFL approval.
I have made no suggestion NLA has an agenda. If I had it would have put me in the same category as the "miscreants" the other night.
My argument is the tone of the message, the persistence of its repetition, the nature of the information/ disinformation, the positioning of the argument indicate to me (as I clearly stated) someone somewhere has an agenda.
I have not even attached any negative connotation to such agenda. Due to the nature of the argument I could but unlike the scenarios faced within 40yrs of the corporate world I am not close enough to the parties to determine the ambition of such an agenda.
Unless you are a party directly involved with the negotiations, bound by NDAs, someone linked to those negotiations is sharing what they believe to be true. I have been to far too many meetings with where people actually at the same meeting walked away with entirely different perceptions all before they added their own influence to the information. It is precisely why people take minutes.
Thus by definition such information is 2nd or 3rd hand and for every layer open to further "interpretation" all of which ignores the point, until the deal is done or not done, people play games.
IF the deal means separation of the ownership of club and ground I will reserve judgement as to what that means for the future of the club until the details are known. I have stressed it is not ideal but it has to be viewed in the context of where we are today and how we get out of this friggin mess. In such event the devil will be in the detail.
In terms of negotiations I lost count of the lendings I declined as a bank manager because the customer was not investing sufficient equity into the deal. It is amazing what people will do when push comes to shove. I would estimate at least 60% came back with a more appropriate application or greater equity investment.
With this level of investment there are no guarantees. In 1993 I spent 6 months on a team working with a US bank to launch a joint venture. We even announced the deal at a conference in NY. The US bank paid for the industry conference and the celebratory dinner. The CEO of the Financial Corporation who owned the US bank killed the deal at the dinner table.
In 1995 I spent 2 weeks in NY thrashing out the same deal with another US Bank. We shook hands on the deal on a Friday. Monday morning we received a letter to buy us out!!!
In 1997/8 I spent 18 months working on a different joint venture with a technology company in Texas. They walked away once. We walked away once. We shook hands on the deal twice and then the bank was subject to a takeover bid and the funding was pulled.
Fortunately I was somewhat more successful with other negotiations or I would have been out of a job. . For us there is ultimately only one man who knows where he will allow ithe numbers to fall and even he will not know whether he can indeed walk away with what he wants.
Thus I can but repeat the nature of the debate which transpired served nobody.
If the Australians decide to walk away we are left with what exactly?
I have no problem with anyone sharing what they are hearing but at any given point unless you are sitting at the negotiating table 24/7 there is no call to attack or aggressively dismiss anyone.
Such an approach shuts people down and reduces the flow of information. Who exactly does that serve?
To prevent any confusion, Charlton have tweeted to confirm that some earlier information is less accurate than might otherwise have been the case. Moreover, to clarify the date of the Welling match, if anyone had heard that it has changed, it hasn't. Unless - and this is very important - the change that you heard is that it is now confirmed to be on the 14th July. So, in summary, if you had heard that it was the 14th July, and you hadn't heard that it had changed, stay as you are. If you heard it had changed to the 7th July, then you need either to ignore that, or to understand that it has changed twice: once to the 7th and once back again to the 14th. And if you had already heard that the game had been rescheduled twice, just pretend you hadn't heard anything.
Any conspiracies that were proven wrong by the first (non existent) date change can now be resurrected. Any conspiracies that rely on their being a date change to the 7th can be ignored, at least until the next date change. And any conspiracies that rely on a link between a football club not being able to tell its fans when its next game is with any level of confidence and a Belgian septuagenarian unable to arrange a piss up in a brewery remain wholly founded.
I'll update again as soon as I hear of the next date change.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
Yes that would work but has Airman seen the specific terms of the Debentures then?
Needs to man up!!! Where would this thread be if I'd decided I couldn't take the abuse??? More to the point - what would the likes of bum fluff do with their time if I'd had a hissy fit and gone all private months ago. NLA and a few others have told a few home truths and suddenly there's an acceptance that the British lot may not just be a figment of RD's imagination!!!! I still fancy it will be done before the start of the season.
Personally I still doubt the existence of the British consortium until we see names and/or faces much in the way if The Aussies have the money to stump it up.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
After 14 notifications it seems I need to respond.
I will argue the posts from sundry parties since my last contribution prove my point. There are so many stories out there nobody apart from those at the negotiating tables can be certain of their information beyond the fact the takeover has not been completed with EFL approval.
I have made no suggestion NLA has an agenda. If I had it would have put me in the same category as the "miscreants" the other night.
My argument is the tone of the message, the persistence of its repetition, the nature of the information/ disinformation, the positioning of the argument indicate to me (as I clearly stated) someone somewhere has an agenda.
I have not even attached any negative connotation to such agenda. Due to the nature of the argument I could but unlike the scenarios faced within 40yrs of the corporate world I am not close enough to the parties to determine the ambition of such an agenda.
Unless you are a party directly involved with the negotiations, bound by NDAs, someone linked to those negotiations is sharing what they believe to be true. I have been to far too many meetings with where people actually at the same meeting walked away with entirely different perceptions all before they added their own influence to the information. It is precisely why people take minutes.
Thus by definition such information is 2nd or 3rd hand and for every layer open to further "interpretation" all of which ignores the point, until the deal is done or not done, people play games.
IF the deal means separation of the ownership of club and ground I will reserve judgement as to what that means for the future of the club until the details are known. I have stressed it is not ideal but it has to be viewed in the context of where we are today and how we get out of this friggin mess. In such event the devil will be in the detail.
In terms of negotiations I lost count of the lendings I declined as a bank manager because the customer was not investing sufficient equity into the deal. It is amazing what people will do when push comes to shove. I would estimate at least 60% came back with a more appropriate application or greater equity investment.
With this level of investment there are no guarantees. In 1993 I spent 6 months on a team working with a US bank to launch a joint venture. We even announced the deal at a conference in NY. The US bank paid for the industry conference and the celebratory dinner. The CEO of the Financial Corporation who owned the US bank killed the deal at the dinner table.
In 1995 I spent 2 weeks in NY thrashing out the same deal with another US Bank. We shook hands on the deal on a Friday. Monday morning we received a letter to buy us out!!!
In 1997/8 I spent 18 months working on a different joint venture with a technology company in Texas. They walked away once. We walked away once. We shook hands on the deal twice and then the bank was subject to a takeover bid and the funding was pulled.
Fortunately I was somewhat more successful with other negotiations or I would have been out of a job. . For us there is ultimately only one man who knows where he will allow ithe numbers to fall and even he will not know whether he can indeed walk away with what he wants.
Thus I can but repeat the nature of the debate which transpired served nobody.
If the Australians decide to walk away we are left with what exactly?
I have no problem with anyone sharing what they are hearing but at any given point unless you are sitting at the negotiating table 24/7 there is no call to attack or aggressively dismiss anyone.
Such an approach shuts people down and reduces the flow of information. Who exactly does that serve?
Is Henry paying you, so he can get to a 1,000 pages by midnight?
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
After 14 notifications it seems I need to respond.
I will argue the posts from sundry parties since my last contribution prove my point. There are so many stories out there nobody apart from those at the negotiating tables can be certain of their information beyond the fact the takeover has not been completed with EFL approval.
I have made no suggestion NLA has an agenda. If I had it would have put me in the same category as the "miscreants" the other night.
My argument is the tone of the message, the persistence of its repetition, the nature of the information/ disinformation, the positioning of the argument indicate to me (as I clearly stated) someone somewhere has an agenda.
I have not even attached any negative connotation to such agenda. Due to the nature of the argument I could but unlike the scenarios faced within 40yrs of the corporate world I am not close enough to the parties to determine the ambition of such an agenda.
Unless you are a party directly involved with the negotiations, bound by NDAs, someone linked to those negotiations is sharing what they believe to be true. I have been to far too many meetings with where people actually at the same meeting walked away with entirely different perceptions all before they added their own influence to the information. It is precisely why people take minutes.
Thus by definition such information is 2nd or 3rd hand and for every layer open to further "interpretation" all of which ignores the point, until the deal is done or not done, people play games.
IF the deal means separation of the ownership of club and ground I will reserve judgement as to what that means for the future of the club until the details are known. I have stressed it is not ideal but it has to be viewed in the context of where we are today and how we get out of this friggin mess. In such event the devil will be in the detail.
In terms of negotiations I lost count of the lendings I declined as a bank manager because the customer was not investing sufficient equity into the deal. It is amazing what people will do when push comes to shove. I would estimate at least 60% came back with a more appropriate application or greater equity investment.
With this level of investment there are no guarantees. In 1993 I spent 6 months on a team working with a US bank to launch a joint venture. We even announced the deal at a conference in NY. The US bank paid for the industry conference and the celebratory dinner. The CEO of the Financial Corporation who owned the US bank killed the deal at the dinner table.
In 1995 I spent 2 weeks in NY thrashing out the same deal with another US Bank. We shook hands on the deal on a Friday. Monday morning we received a letter to buy us out!!!
In 1997/8 I spent 18 months working on a different joint venture with a technology company in Texas. They walked away once. We walked away once. We shook hands on the deal twice and then the bank was subject to a takeover bid and the funding was pulled.
Fortunately I was somewhat more successful with other negotiations or I would have been out of a job. . For us there is ultimately only one man who knows where he will allow ithe numbers to fall and even he will not know whether he can indeed walk away with what he wants.
Thus I can but repeat the nature of the debate which transpired served nobody.
If the Australians decide to walk away we are left with what exactly?
I have no problem with anyone sharing what they are hearing but at any given point unless you are sitting at the negotiating table 24/7 there is no call to attack or aggressively dismiss anyone.
Such an approach shuts people down and reduces the flow of information. Who exactly does that serve?
Is Henry paying you, so he can get to a 1,000 pages by midnight?
Comments
This seems like bad news to me.
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficult to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (agree to a lease and sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
Am I right in thinking that the ex directors blocking the purchase of debt is a GOOD thing rather than a bad?
Your article gave the impression that it was a negative, however I can see that as being the only thing stopping RD from keeping the ground etc but selling the club
I will argue the posts from sundry parties since my last contribution prove my point. There are so many stories out there nobody apart from those at the negotiating tables can be certain of their information beyond the fact the takeover has not been completed with EFL approval.
I have made no suggestion NLA has an agenda. If I had it would have put me in the same category as the "miscreants" the other night.
My argument is the tone of the message, the persistence of its repetition, the nature of the information/ disinformation, the positioning of the argument indicate to me (as I clearly stated) someone somewhere has an agenda.
I have not even attached any negative connotation to such agenda. Due to the nature of the argument I could but unlike the scenarios faced within 40yrs of the corporate world I am not close enough to the parties to determine the ambition of such an agenda.
Unless you are a party directly involved with the negotiations, bound by NDAs, someone linked to those negotiations is sharing what they believe to be true. I have been to far too many meetings with where people actually at the same meeting walked away with entirely different perceptions all before they added their own influence to the information. It is precisely why people take minutes.
Thus by definition such information is 2nd or 3rd hand and for every layer open to further "interpretation" all of which ignores the point, until the deal is done or not done, people play games.
IF the deal means separation of the ownership of club and ground I will reserve judgement as to what that means for the future of the club until the details are known. I have stressed it is not ideal but it has to be viewed in the context of where we are today and how we get out of this friggin mess. In such event the devil will be in the detail.
In terms of negotiations I lost count of the lendings I declined as a bank manager because the customer was not investing sufficient equity into the deal. It is amazing what people will do when push comes to shove. I would estimate at least 60% came back with a more appropriate application or greater equity investment.
With this level of investment there are no guarantees. In 1993 I spent 6 months on a team working with a US bank to launch a joint venture. We even announced the deal at a conference in NY. The US bank paid for the industry conference and the celebratory dinner. The CEO of the Financial Corporation who owned the US bank killed the deal at the dinner table.
In 1995 I spent 2 weeks in NY thrashing out the same deal with another US Bank. We shook hands on the deal on a Friday. Monday morning we received a letter to buy us out!!!
In 1997/8 I spent 18 months working on a different joint venture with a technology company in Texas. They walked away once. We walked away once. We shook hands on the deal twice and then the bank was subject to a takeover bid and the funding was pulled.
Fortunately I was somewhat more successful with other negotiations or I would have been out of a job.
.
For us there is ultimately only one man who knows where he will allow ithe numbers to fall and even he will not know whether he can indeed walk away with what he wants.
Thus I can but repeat the nature of the debate which transpired served nobody.
If the Australians decide to walk away we are left with what exactly?
I have no problem with anyone sharing what they are hearing but at any given point unless you are sitting at the negotiating table 24/7 there is no call to attack or aggressively dismiss anyone.
Such an approach shuts people down and reduces the flow of information. Who exactly does that serve?
Any conspiracies that were proven wrong by the first (non existent) date change can now be resurrected. Any conspiracies that rely on there being a date change to the 7th can be ignored, at least until the next date change. And any conspiracies that rely on a link between a football club not being able to tell its fans when its next game is with any level of confidence, and a Belgian septuagenarian unable to arrange a piss up in a brewery, remain wholly founded.
I'll update again as soon as I hear of the next date change.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.