Roland definitely isn't the solution to the current mess, but in my opinion he's now a better option than the Chuckle Brothers . Who would have thought he'd be able to find people even worse at running a football club than himself? Another failure to add to his extensive portfolio.
As others have said, Administration may not be what he would want because he has had offers that add up to more than he'd get if just hung on to the land.
If he's half the businessman he thinks he is, he needs to get involved. Since he has the promise of £50M being paid at some point I'd have thought he can instruct a (proper) lawyer to ask ESI what the prospects are for him receiving it. If the answer, as we now suspect, is no prospect whatsoever, he can start thinking about the best way to protect the club, and therefore his remaining investment in it.
One bit of advice though, the club is seriously damaged and this is down to you, Roland. You need to take it on the chin and accept that you are not going to get that much money from anyone legitimate. Maybe start the bidding at £25M and take it from there?
If the land is worth say £40-50m without a soon to be insolvent football club attached why would Roland take £25m? Even the ex director loans might not be much of an impediment as it would make more sense to pay off the directors and let the club go to the wall rather than take a £15-25m hit by selling the club as a going concern (land and all).
If the club went to the wall the directors loans would go with them because they are only payable if we get back tot he premiership,wouldn't they???
My understanding is that what you say is correct all the time the Club remains as a going concern ie continuing as a football club in the normal way.
Should the Club cease trading however, I believe the directors have a fixed charge over the assets which means, in summary, they get first dibs on any proceeds from the sale of those assets.
Maybe we should be going to law about ACV in the spirit of the Act (the selling of the subsidiary essentially separated Club from Ground so ACV in reverse), perhaps it could establish some case law, not forgetting of course that ACV only delays mattes 6 months.
In terms of fans 'chipping in' for the Valley Freehold I like this idea, but for what amount? £20-30m seems excessive, and more so with the (at one point) 99 year lease attached - the realistic valuation would be well within reach of fans.. in that scenario separation of club and ground could work/be acceptable.
We would still have the problem of speculative buyers coming in to buy the football club element, so it wouldn't solve much. If we had guarantees however it might be a safety net of some kind. What a mess but I think it maybe the future for a lot of clubs.
I think the one thing in our favour is that time is against Roland. To obtain any revenue from developing both bits of land could take far longer than he has left on this world. He would be better off finding a credible buyer who would buy the entire club and accept that he will not get the money back that he wasted on piles of crap.
I think his age is irrelevant, he can pass all on to his family.
Another 50 million is neither here nor there to him.
Roland definitely isn't the solution to the current mess, but in my opinion he's now a better option than the Chuckle Brothers . Who would have thought he'd be able to find people even worse at running a football club than himself? Another failure to add to his extensive portfolio.
As others have said, Administration may not be what he would want because he has had offers that add up to more than he'd get if just hung on to the land.
If he's half the businessman he thinks he is, he needs to get involved. Since he has the promise of £50M being paid at some point I'd have thought he can instruct a (proper) lawyer to ask ESI what the prospects are for him receiving it. If the answer, as we now suspect, is no prospect whatsoever, he can start thinking about the best way to protect the club, and therefore his remaining investment in it.
One bit of advice though, the club is seriously damaged and this is down to you, Roland. You need to take it on the chin and accept that you are not going to get that much money from anyone legitimate. Maybe start the bidding at £25M and take it from there?
Roland definitely isn't the solution to the current mess, but in my opinion he's now a better option than the Chuckle Brothers . Who would have thought he'd be able to find people even worse at running a football club than himself? Another failure to add to his extensive portfolio.
As others have said, Administration may not be what he would want because he has had offers that add up to more than he'd get if just hung on to the land.
If he's half the businessman he thinks he is, he needs to get involved. Since he has the promise of £50M being paid at some point I'd have thought he can instruct a (proper) lawyer to ask ESI what the prospects are for him receiving it. If the answer, as we now suspect, is no prospect whatsoever, he can start thinking about the best way to protect the club, and therefore his remaining investment in it.
One bit of advice though, the club is seriously damaged and this is down to you, Roland. You need to take it on the chin and accept that you are not going to get that much money from anyone legitimate. Maybe start the bidding at £25M and take it from there?
If the land is worth say £40-50m without a soon to be insolvent football club attached why would Roland take £25m? Even the ex director loans might not be much of an impediment as it would make more sense to pay off the directors and let the club go to the wall rather than take a £15-25m hit by selling the club as a going concern (land and all).
If the club went to the wall the directors loans would go with them because they are only payable if we get back tot he premiership,wouldn't they???
My understanding is that what you say is correct all the time the Club remains as a going concern ie continuing as a football club in the normal way.
Should the Club cease trading however, I believe the directors have a fixed charge over the assets which means, in summary, they get first dibs on any proceeds from the sale of those assets.
Comments
Should the Club cease trading however, I believe the directors have a fixed charge over the assets which means, in summary, they get first dibs on any proceeds from the sale of those assets.
@Airman Brown will know the finer points.
In terms of fans 'chipping in' for the Valley Freehold I like this idea, but for what amount? £20-30m seems excessive, and more so with the (at one point) 99 year lease attached - the realistic valuation would be well within reach of fans.. in that scenario separation of club and ground could work/be acceptable.
We would still have the problem of speculative buyers coming in to buy the football club element, so it wouldn't solve much. If we had guarantees however it might be a safety net of some kind. What a mess but I think it maybe the future for a lot of clubs.
Another 50 million is neither here nor there to him.