Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Who owns the Valley? - The Ownership Thread
Comments
-
So from LenGlovers post, whilst Companies House is a little ambiguous I am going to guess that HE owns likely 75% and Matt Southall 25%? If asking price was £50m where does Southall get £12.5m from not to mention future money to keep club running...? Or is he fronting for someone else's money (like Slater did) or is his 25% of the opco not the propco?1
-
-
Hence my assertion that there must be a beneficial owner we don't know about. And to potentially complicate matters further, do shareholders with less than 10% have to be named or declared ? Perhaps Heller is one of those ?Athletico Charlton said:So from LenGlovers post, whilst Companies House is a little ambiguous I am going to guess that HE owns likely 75% and Matt Southall 25%? If asking price was £50m where does Southall get £12.5m from not to mention future money to keep club running...? Or is he fronting for someone else's money (like Slater did) or is his 25% of the opco not the propco?0 -
This was all hugely positive when it was published in November. But is it appropriate to have concerns that none of the real estate ownership is confirmed to have changed in the six or so weeks subsequently?Red_Raver said:
I hope it all proves to be as simple and straightforward as it appeared that it was going to be.0 -
It’s not wumming mate. He can ask things in a less leading way, but they are valid questions underneath it.blackpool72 said:Chizz wuming at his best.
Ignore
Douchbag now owns fuck all of Charlton
what exactly have ESI bought?
is there another company in the financial chain behind ESI? (as in the greatest respect to him, Southall doesn’t seem like he has the funds to buy 5% of a Champ club, let alone 25%)
what has happened / is happening to Baton?
Do Duchatelet or Murray have ANY ongoing interest in what was Charlton and it’s land assets / charges?
12 -
Why would the real estate ownership change. It’s owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings. The directors or CAH will change but nothing else, apart from rent the directors charges assuming they are being repaid.Chizz said:
This was all hugely positive when it was published in November. But is it appropriate to have concerns that none of the real estate ownership is confirmed to have changed in the six or so weeks subsequently?Red_Raver said:
I hope it all proves to be as simple and straightforward as it appeared that it was going to be.0 -
Wouldn't worry too much.Cafc43v3r said:No change for Baton, Football club or holdings at companies House as of yet.
Charlton Athletic football company Ltd still shows Murray and Duchatelet's involvement in there
The OS ownership page has now been updated and clearly states East Street investments are the new incumbents.1 -
I'm going it has changed. But i haven't seen anywhere that confirms it has. This is almost certainly because I don't know where to look. But, (I understand) CAH owns the Valley and is owned by Baton 2010, which is, in turn, owned, through Staprix by Duchatelet.SomervilleAddick said:
Why would the real estate ownership change. It’s owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings. The directors or CAH will change but nothing else, apart from rent the directors charges assuming they are being repaid.Chizz said:
This was all hugely positive when it was published in November. But is it appropriate to have concerns that none of the real estate ownership is confirmed to have changed in the six or so weeks subsequently?Red_Raver said:
I hope it all proves to be as simple and straightforward as it appeared that it was going to be.
Has ESI bought Baton? Or just some (or all) of its assets?0 -
You don't have to pay 25% of the consideration or value to own 25%.
Time for a house analogy.
I could gift my house to my grown up kids (for nothing) & they would still be the owners.1 -
Thanks for this. The OS confirms only that ESI owns Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd (which is the football club) but makes no mention of Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd (which owns the ground and training ground). If ESI own that too, then that's all good. But I can't find anywhere that says that's the case.carly burn said:
Wouldn't worry too much.Cafc43v3r said:No change for Baton, Football club or holdings at companies House as of yet.
Charlton Athletic football company Ltd still shows Murray and Duchatelet's involvement in there
The OS ownership page has now been updated and clearly states East Street investments are the new incumbents.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Chizz - did you forget to take your sertraline this morning0
-
It's kind of important to know who owns the Valley, this year, especially. Can you shed any light on it?Bostonaddick said:Chizz - did you forget to take your sertraline this morning3 -
Lol.
You guys do realise that things like the Land Registry and Companies House don't get updated online instantly, don't you?
It's not Wikipedia.1 -
I've changed directors, filed confirmation statements and micro accounts recently online and without exception all were accepted within a couple of hours and the Companies House Beta Filing History section for the relevant company updated accordingly.Off_it said:Lol.
You guys do realise that things like the Land Registry and Companies House don't get updated online instantly, don't you?
It's not Wikipedia.
So it can be quick actually. It's HMRC who drag their heels
1 -
Chizz mate, a lot of solicitors practices, civil servants and their departments are still on annual leave until Monday. Len Glover and others above have checked at Companies House and the Land Registry but are unable to give you the reassurances you are looking for ATM. These things take time to be updated on the various systems so my best advice is just relax and all will be revealed shortly as soon as it is in the public domain.
I'm keen to know that our new owners own all the CAFC assets just as much as you but I don't have a crystal ball. Even if I did and the Douchbag stil has an interest what can we do about it? As others have said I just can't see £60m? changing hands without the land and buildings being part of that consideration price. It's a wait and see scenario I'm afraid.
0 -
Thank you. Here are the two questions that come to mind having read your post.RedChaser said:Chizz mate, a lot of solicitors practices, civil servants and their departments are still on annual leave until Monday. Len Glover and others above have checked at Companies House and the Land Registry but are unable to give you the reassurances you are looking for ATM. These things take time to be updated on the various systems so my best advice is just relax and all will be revealed shortly as soon as it is in the public domain.
I'm keen to know that our new owners own all the CAFC assets just as much as you but I don't have a crystal ball. Even if I did and the Douchbag stil has an interest what can we do about it? As others have said I just can't see £60m? changing hands without the land and buildings being part of that consideration price. It's a wait and see scenario I'm afraid.
1. Do we have any confirmation anywhere (other than wild speculation) that the figure is £60m? If it is, then obviously it would seem obvious that the real estate is included. But there's no official statement that states either what the price is or that the ground is included. (Or, if there is, and someone can point me to it, I'll relax!)
2. The OS being updated doesn't require solicitors or civil servants. It's been updated. It says the new owners own the football club. It doesn't say they own the ground. I'm interested to know why not.0 -
Of course. But you don't have to submit the forms immediately and they don't have to update the system immediately.LenGlover said:
I've changed directors, filed confirmation statements and micro accounts recently online and without exception all were accepted within a couple of hours and the Companies House Beta Filing History section for the relevant company updated accordingly.Off_it said:Lol.
You guys do realise that things like the Land Registry and Companies House don't get updated online instantly, don't you?
It's not Wikipedia.
So it can be quick actually. It's HMRC who drag their heels
As you will know Len, it's not a Facebook status update.
On a completely separate point, we submitted a VAT reg application in the afternoon of 23/12 and got a number issued by midday the next day. I almost fell off my chair!1 -
Wouldn't mind betting Baton ceases trading and becomes dissolved.
It was only created by Murray to pass on when better onwers were found ( Jimenez etc)
They had no intention of keeping hold of us so kept it alive.(passed it on) Same for Duchatelet.
Would be a good statement from our new owners to end it.2 -
are you suggesting that ESI only paid the£1 required for the football club and Matt put in 25pChizz said:
Thank you. Here are the two questions that come to mind having read your post.RedChaser said:Chizz mate, a lot of solicitors practices, civil servants and their departments are still on annual leave until Monday. Len Glover and others above have checked at Companies House and the Land Registry but are unable to give you the reassurances you are looking for ATM. These things take time to be updated on the various systems so my best advice is just relax and all will be revealed shortly as soon as it is in the public domain.
I'm keen to know that our new owners own all the CAFC assets just as much as you but I don't have a crystal ball. Even if I did and the Douchbag stil has an interest what can we do about it? As others have said I just can't see £60m? changing hands without the land and buildings being part of that consideration price. It's a wait and see scenario I'm afraid.
1. Do we have any confirmation anywhere (other than wild speculation) that the figure is £60m? If it is, then obviously it would seem obvious that the real estate is included. But there's no official statement that states either what the price is or that the ground is included. (Or, if there is, and someone can point me to it, I'll relax!)
2. The OS being updated doesn't require solicitors or civil servants. It's been updated. It says the new owners own the football club. It doesn't say they own the ground. I'm interested to know why not.4 -
I still don't have a crystal ball and if you can't be patient I can't help you. You could of course tweet Matt Southall direct or try HE on Instagram 😉Chizz said:
Thank you. Here are the two questions that come to mind having read your post.RedChaser said:Chizz mate, a lot of solicitors practices, civil servants and their departments are still on annual leave until Monday. Len Glover and others above have checked at Companies House and the Land Registry but are unable to give you the reassurances you are looking for ATM. These things take time to be updated on the various systems so my best advice is just relax and all will be revealed shortly as soon as it is in the public domain.
I'm keen to know that our new owners own all the CAFC assets just as much as you but I don't have a crystal ball. Even if I did and the Douchbag stil has an interest what can we do about it? As others have said I just can't see £60m? changing hands without the land and buildings being part of that consideration price. It's a wait and see scenario I'm afraid.
1. Do we have any confirmation anywhere (other than wild speculation) that the figure is £60m? If it is, then obviously it would seem obvious that the real estate is included. But there's no official statement that states either what the price is or that the ground is included. (Or, if there is, and someone can point me to it, I'll relax!)
2. The OS being updated doesn't require solicitors or civil servants. It's been updated. It says the new owners own the football club. It doesn't say they own the ground. I'm interested to know why not.
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Maybe the “strange” bit is ESI not owning the ground and The Helmet still having ownership of it whilst renting it to them and a cheaper deal being met .
and maybe not .....1 -
If it's as simple as that, then it's easily explained. But it would also be a complete disaster.oohaahmortimer said:Maybe the “strange” bit is ESI not owning the ground and The Helmet still having ownership of it whilst renting it to them and a cheaper deal being met .
and maybe not .....1 -
Cawley confirmed they own the club and the land with it. I imagine the reason a middle eastern group has bought the club is a property play.
Bowyer wouldn't be commenting on ownership details in an interview and has already said that "strange" was the wrong word, he meant to say "different"4 -
That reference didn't make clear what the contacts being exchanged were for, eg for the real estate, the football club, goodwill, staff employment contracts...Mal said:If Henry was right, (he hasnt confirmed it) that the contracts were exchanged today, I doubt very little would be changed until that happened, so more like next week before we may see those changes @Chizz.0 -
I see what your getting at Chizz, but it surely would be a seismic shift from what Crawley printed in the SL, as he has obviously been in touch with those in the know, nothing is certain until proved, but i'd be surprised if there's been that shift.Chizz said:
That reference didn't make clear what the contacts being exchanged were for, eg for the real estate, the football club, goodwill, staff employment contracts...Mal said:If Henry was right, (he hasnt confirmed it) that the contracts were exchanged today, I doubt very little would be changed until that happened, so more like next week before we may see those changes @Chizz.1 -
Lol, just trying to put someone's mind at rest but failed miserably it seems. How's the head after your late night in another country 😉clb74 said:0 -
Very true but in this instance on an asking price of £50m would the Abu Dhabis have really gifted Matt Southall 25% or £12.5M. seems very generous. Plus what happens with ongoing costs - he would not be able to afford these so does the other shareholder keep throwing 100% of the money in for 75% of the ownership. Would be super odd and unusual.Covered End said:You don't have to pay 25% of the consideration or value to own 25%.
Time for a house analogy.
I could gift my house to my grown up kids (for nothing) & they would still be the owners.1
