I mentioned this in the shenanigans thread the other day and I don't think it got answered.
I'm not the most clued up on this subject so would like some clarity if possible. Before Southall's twitter exit the other day, in one of the tweets he mentioned that CAFC ltd owns the stadium but RD owns the freehold.
What does this actually mean? ESI own the valley? Because CAFC Ltd are owned by ESI... correct?
I mentioned this in the shenanigans thread the other day and I don't think it got answered.
I'm not the most clued up on this subject so would like some clarity if possible. Before Southall's twitter exit the other day, in one of the tweets he mentioned that CAFC ltd owns the stadium but RD owns the freehold.
What does this actually mean? ESI own the valley? Because CAFC Ltd are owned by ESI... correct?
it's bollocks ESI & CAFC Ltd own naff all Roly's group of companies own all the meaningful stuff, the real estate and buildings thereon. ESI & CAFC Ltd hold Charlton's access to compete in the football league and allegedly an obligation to start paying an indeterminate price to roly for the land & buildings over a period of time in the future that might be 2 to 5 years.
I mentioned this in the shenanigans thread the other day and I don't think it got answered.
I'm not the most clued up on this subject so would like some clarity if possible. Before Southall's twitter exit the other day, in one of the tweets he mentioned that CAFC ltd owns the stadium but RD owns the freehold.
What does this actually mean? ESI own the valley? Because CAFC Ltd are owned by ESI... correct?
it's bollocks ESI & CAFC Ltd own naff all Roly's group of companies own all the meaningful stuff, the real estate and buildings thereon. ESI & CAFC Ltd hold Charlton's access to compete in the football league and allegedly an obligation to start paying an indeterminate price to roly for the land & buildings over a period of time in the future that might be 2 to 5 years.
I find this disrespectful, it’s almost as if you’re casting doubt over the intellect and business acumen of Mouthall
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
Have I got this right? The Valley is now owned by the owner-before-last, who has an agreement to sell it to the last owner, but may send the bill to the current owner instead.
Whereas, the current owner bought only the club and not the ground, the previous owner no longer needs the ground as he doesn't own the club any more and he lives a very long way away, and the owner-before-last has reacted to all of this by putting the price up.
Have I got this right? The Valley is now owned by the owner-before-last, who has an agreement to sell it to the last owner, but may send the bill to the current owner instead.
Whereas, the current owner bought only the club and not the ground, the previous owner no longer needs the ground as he doesn't own the club any more and he lives a very long way away, and the owner-before-last has reacted to all of this by putting the price up.
Have I missed anything out?
What, again? I know there where rumours of him putting the price up after we got promoted, but now?
Have I got this right? The Valley is now owned by the owner-before-last, who has an agreement to sell it to the last owner, but may send the bill to the current owner instead.
Whereas, the current owner bought only the club and not the ground, the previous owner no longer needs the ground as he doesn't own the club any more and he lives a very long way away, and the owner-before-last has reacted to all of this by putting the price up.
Have I missed anything out?
What, again? I know there where rumours of him putting the price up after we got promoted, but now?
He’s relying on the agreement he has with ESI, so status has an effect but otherwise he can’t put the price up.
Have I got this right? The Valley is now owned by the owner-before-last, who has an agreement to sell it to the last owner, but may send the bill to the current owner instead.
Whereas, the current owner bought only the club and not the ground, the previous owner no longer needs the ground as he doesn't own the club any more and he lives a very long way away, and the owner-before-last has reacted to all of this by putting the price up.
Have I missed anything out?
What, again? I know there where rumours of him putting the price up after we got promoted, but now?
He’s relying on the agreement he has with ESI, so status has an effect but otherwise he can’t put the price up.
Oh thank goodness for that. I thought he had put the price up. But, if he's being sensible and still only asking fifty million quid, I am sure he'll find a buyer very soon. After all, you don't become the Belgian Turing without knowing your numbers very well indeed.
Comments
Without being specific it is macabrely fascinating to see how some positions have 'evolved' shall we say.
Only leaves a few of us left with any self respect .
I mentioned this in the shenanigans thread the other day and I don't think it got answered.
I'm not the most clued up on this subject so would like some clarity if possible. Before Southall's twitter exit the other day, in one of the tweets he mentioned that CAFC ltd owns the stadium but RD owns the freehold.
What does this actually mean? ESI own the valley? Because CAFC Ltd are owned by ESI... correct?
ESI & CAFC Ltd own naff all
Roly's group of companies own all the meaningful stuff, the real estate and buildings thereon. ESI & CAFC Ltd hold Charlton's access to compete in the football league and allegedly an obligation to start paying an indeterminate price to roly for the land & buildings over a period of time in the future that might be 2 to 5 years.
Whereas, the current owner bought only the club and not the ground, the previous owner no longer needs the ground as he doesn't own the club any more and he lives a very long way away, and the owner-before-last has reacted to all of this by putting the price up.
Have I missed anything out?