Haven’t we been through all this with ESI wanting to take control of all footballing matters in Jan, so an agreement has been written up re legal ownership to be done in due course?
Haven’t we been through all this with ESI wanting to take control of all footballing matters in Jan, so an agreement has been written up re legal ownership to be done in due course?
I think the confusion has been caused by MS saying last week they have purchased the footballing side and The Valley and they have a legal obligation to purchase the Training Ground in six months.
Today's news appears to show that they have not purchased The Valley though?
Makes sense that they would want to take up the footballing side in January as it is crucial we keep our Championship status. Otherwise we would see a Duchatelet like transfer window with no signings.......er wait a minute. Still time for some signings, including a new contract for the manager. Will be relieved when I see them though!
So if I read correctly, as it stands they are in ‘Mark Goldberg territory’ (with Noades still owning Selhurst) and them just owning the ‘football club with no fixed assets’?
If that’s the case, anyone with any knowledge around these attached legal obligations? Does there mean there is a fixed agreement of price to be completed within a certain timeline?
What happens if that doesn’t get met?
Depends what is in the sale contract. I would suspect the first thing he does is sue ESI for breach of contract to which ESI as a new company with likely little assets just folds-there will be no through recourse to MS or His Excellency unless in the contract. Then either RD kicks us out as tenant or resumes control of the club.
If they do not own The Valley or training ground then surely all they have acquired is the operating business RD said he would give away for nothing so what actual hurt money do these guys currently have in the deal.
This makes me very uneasy and I am glad I did not renew my season ticket now, potential to be our most spivy owners of all time.
So if I read correctly, as it stands they are in ‘Mark Goldberg territory’ (with Noades still owning Selhurst) and them just owning the ‘football club with no fixed assets’?
If that’s the case, anyone with any knowledge around these attached legal obligations? Does there mean there is a fixed agreement of price to be completed within a certain timeline?
What happens if that doesn’t get met?
Depends what is in the sale contract. I would suspect the first thing he does is sue ESI for breach of contract to which ESI as a new company with likely little assets just folds-there will be no through recourse to MS or His Excellency unless in the contract. Then either RD kicks us out as tenant or resumes control of the club.
If they do not own The Valley or training ground then surely all they have acquired is the operating business RD said he would give away for nothing so what actual hurt money do these guys currently have in the deal.
This makes me very uneasy and I am glad I did not renew my season ticket now, potential to be our most spivy owners of all time.
I agree up to a point. If you fail to complete after exchanging, you would normally forfeit your exchange deposit and could be sued for compensation. But as you say what assets do ESI have ? Presumably not a lot.
However, we have been told by many sources that HE is a 100% trusted businessman and on that basis I cannot envisage he would be involved in anything underhand.
Charlton Athletic FC is the football club and its assets include the players' registrations and the leasehold to the Valley
ESI, by buying CAFC, own and retain Charlton's shareholding in the EFL and can therefore compete in its competitions without recourse to Roland
Charlton Athletic Holdings owns the freehold of the Valley and the freehold of Sparrows Lane
CA Holdings is still owned by Roland
ESI's deal with Roland is to purchase CA Holdings on or by 30 June for an undisclosed figure
When that purchase goes through, ESI will own the freehold of the Valley and the training ground as well as all the assets of the football club
The Directors' loans (£7m) are, in effect, a mortgage against the freehold of the Valley and are on the books of CA Holdings (not CAFC)
Until such time as the freehold of the Valley changes hands, there is no obligation to inform the Directors
When (if) ESI complete the purchase of CA Holdings, they will then owe the £7m, but it is still not payable until Charlton make it to the Premier League, which cannot happen before the due date for the completion of the purchase of CA Holdings
I appreciate the fact you have read this far down the list
But please be aware that none of this is confirmed
I recognise many (not unreasonably) will be uncomfortable with the delay in acquiring the freehold assets.
I am not going to go down that path at this point but logically:
a) as with the house buying analogy there is due diligence to be completed
b) any legal agreement to buy is subject to due diligence finding no significant barriers to the purchase
I am mindful of possible challenges with the BVI chain of title, commitment to sundry parties involved with or adjacent to the training ground.
Does the legal obligation to purchase the freeholds require any specific action to be completed by the vendor?
I am more troubled by the approach here.
I have worked with some absolute masters of smoke and mirrors. They too were excellent deal makers. Do not get me wrong they were very good at the job and served the business well but there are only so many times you can ask people to "go to the well of clarity" before a credibility gap emerges.
We are not talking about a audience of 5 or 10 in a sales pitch we are talking of an audience of thousands.
Just how many layers do we have to keep peeling back?
If he uses the phrase "we are aiming to be competitive" the petrol cans come out of retirement .
Monday --- no news re Bowyer signing contract or Maddison signing Tuesday -- We loose Connor Wednesday -- We find the "owners" don't own The Valley
Thursday -- we sign Roger Johnson Friday--Taylor signs for Millwall Saturday -- We loose 6 nil to Preston ,but try hard Sunday --- His Excellency informs us he isn't minted and it's all a spoof from Belgian TV channel owned by RD
Maybe the price changes if we are relegated. That would make sense, in one way. However why would he state they have bought the valley then a few days later say they haven't.
This is what gives him the shister, Trump like deal maker image that erodes the integrity that Grapevine has talked about on another thread.
If he explained the good reason they have not yet bought the assets, then maybe I would be alright with that. But to say we have bought the Valley then seemingly denying it needs some urgent explanation. He will understand our concerns as he understands our history. He needs to explain himself, that's all. We so want to believe in him and ESI, he just needs to help us more to achieve this.
If he uses the phrase "we are aiming to be competitive" the petrol cans come out of retirement .
Monday --- no news re Bowyer signing contract or Maddison signing Tuesday -- We loose Connor Wednesday -- We find the "owners" don't own The Valley
Thursday -- we sign Roger Johnson Friday--Taylor signs for Millwall Saturday -- We loose 6 nil to Preston ,but try hard Sunday --- His Excellency informs us he isn't mined and it's all a spoof from Belgian TV channel owned by RD
Nothing nothing is ever fecking simple with CAFC.
If you can correct your spellings, you’ll earn a like from me
This sounds like Jimenez part 2, something’s not right here.
He clearly said they owned the valley, this is saying the opposite.
Said it day one frying pan to fire, really hope I’m wrong.
MS talks the talk, thus far not walking the walk.
More worried after reading this.
ESI own the leasehold to the Valley.
But under Uncle Roland he owned both sides of the ‘contract’, the lease and the property - now he owns the asset which has a value and ESI own the asset which is a liability
We are not privy to the terms of the delayed purchase agreement and what it says about non performance on the part of ESI
Roland will however hold all the cards if they don’t perform, let’s not kid ourselves he would agree to anything other than a position which protects his ownership of the most valuable thing of all ........The Valley
So we know ESI have purchased the bit that we can all afford - the club itself. They have a requirement to purchase the expensive bits by the end of June. We know Roland was asking a ridiculous price for that part of the business as you can't build houses or hotels on the Valley and we don't know how much ESI have promised to pay for it. If ESI folds and is unable to pay Roland what has been agreed, say the Sheikh drops out after our relegation, I presume Roland can charge any rent he wants or get his money back by selling the land for houses and hotels with no responsibility for the club.
Strangely, what reassures me is that the EFL have looked into all of this and signed it off. We are probably just being paranoid. Would be good to see some positive indicators in the next few days though!
Can someone just ask Matt on Twitter, ‘have you or have you not at this moment in time purchased the freehold of The Valley’ ... simples.
To which you might get a simple, straight answer, either "yes" or "no".
If he says "yes", some will take as meaning "yes, we have purchased the freehold of The Valley". But he might mean "yes, we have or have not purchased the freehold".
And if he says "no", some will take it as meaning "no, we have not purchased the freehold". But he might mean, "no, we have not purchased it at this moment in time, we purchased it last week".
Surely the question is ‘why is this information being drip fed out’ - indeed why was the previous comment ‘we have to buy Sparrows Lane in 6 months’ and now we find its also The Valley - words and figures differ at the moment
I hope it’s all fine - but I remember the period 1984 to 1992 and that we as fans had such a huge part in getting Charlton back to The Valley
It’s those of us who remember those days who are now very wary - and rightly so - I don’t want to see those days repeated (even though Hulyer’s reign enabled me to see Simmo in a Charlton shirt)
It goes back to what started me getting jittery. ESI have said they have done it this way because the January window is so vital. Well so far, the January window has been a bit of a disaster - 15 days into it. If they wanted control to improve the playing side, surely we need to see that happening before we can fully relax. As of now, LB and LT have yet to agree contracts, we have lost CG and brought in one loan player.
Comments
Today's news appears to show that they have not purchased The Valley though?
If they do not own The Valley or training ground then surely all they have acquired is the operating business RD said he would give away for nothing so what actual hurt money do these guys currently have in the deal.
This makes me very uneasy and I am glad I did not renew my season ticket now, potential to be our most spivy owners of all time.
If you fail to complete after exchanging, you would normally forfeit your exchange deposit and could be sued for compensation.
But as you say what assets do ESI have ?
Presumably not a lot.
However, we have been told by many sources that HE is a 100% trusted businessman and on that basis I cannot envisage he would be involved in anything underhand.
We just need some clarity.
He clearly said they owned the valley, this is saying the opposite.
Said it day one frying pan to fire, really hope I’m wrong.
MS talks the talk, thus far not walking the walk.
More worried after reading this.
Heather an extremely well written article.
I recognise many (not unreasonably) will be uncomfortable with the delay in acquiring the freehold assets.
I am not going to go down that path at this point but logically:
a) as with the house buying analogy there is due diligence to be completed
b) any legal agreement to buy is subject to due diligence finding no significant barriers to the purchase
I am mindful of possible challenges with the BVI chain of title, commitment to sundry parties involved with or adjacent to the training ground.
Does the legal obligation to purchase the freeholds require any specific action to be completed by the vendor?
I am more troubled by the approach here.
I have worked with some absolute masters of smoke and mirrors. They too were excellent deal makers. Do not get me wrong they were very good at the job and served the business well but there are only so many times you can ask people to "go to the well of clarity" before a credibility gap emerges.
We are not talking about a audience of 5 or 10 in a sales pitch we are talking of an audience of thousands.
Just how many layers do we have to keep peeling back?
Many thanks for an enjoyable read.
Monday --- no news re Bowyer signing contract or Maddison signing
Tuesday -- We loose Connor
Wednesday -- We find the "owners" don't own The Valley
Thursday -- we sign Roger Johnson
Friday--Taylor signs for Millwall
Saturday -- We loose 6 nil to Preston ,but try hard
Sunday --- His Excellency informs us he isn't minted and it's all a spoof from Belgian TV channel owned by RD
Nothing nothing is ever fecking simple with CAFC.
We are not privy to the terms of the delayed purchase agreement and what it says about non performance on the part of ESI
Roland will however hold all the cards if they don’t perform, let’s not kid ourselves he would agree to anything other than a position which protects his ownership of the most valuable thing of all ........The Valley
Strangely, what reassures me is that the EFL have looked into all of this and signed it off. We are probably just being paranoid. Would be good to see some positive indicators in the next few days though!
If he says "yes", some will take as meaning "yes, we have purchased the freehold of The Valley". But he might mean "yes, we have or have not purchased the freehold".
And if he says "no", some will take it as meaning "no, we have not purchased the freehold". But he might mean, "no, we have not purchased it at this moment in time, we purchased it last week".
I hope it’s all fine - but I remember the period 1984 to 1992 and that we as fans had such a huge part in getting Charlton back to The Valley
It’s those of us who remember those days who are now very wary - and rightly so - I don’t want to see those days repeated (even though Hulyer’s reign enabled me to see Simmo in a Charlton shirt)
No reply as yet.