Can’t get excited about the takeover when The Valley and Sparrow’s Lane are still owned by the odious Duchatelet but we were withering on the vine under Sandgaard, so there are at least some grounds for optimism, however guarded.
We shall see.
Why we have 13 year left in the lease .. they are not a problem at all
With your obvious access to a very effective crystal ball, what happens in 2036, Col?
Is this going to be better than all the other takeovers? If so, how?
Now is the time to wait and see. I am certainly not unhappy with transfers so far but we are still not where we need to be so I am waiting for the evidence that we look to be in that space. There is still good time for that so no need to panic or get frustrated.
Is this going to be better than all the other takeovers? If so, how?
Now is the time to wait and see. I am certainly not unhappy with transfers so far but we are still not where we need to be so I am waiting for the evidence that we look to be in that space. There is still good time for that so no need to panic or get frustrated.
I get it - I just don't have any kind of emotional response to this other than, oh, this again? But agree with you re transfers so far.
The Cawley article contains an interesting bit of information, or at least makes clear something that seemed to me to be a bit vague. Each shareholder has to have two years money to keep Charlton going in proportion to their shareholding or they don’t get the nod from the EFL. In back of an envelope terms if the club loses 10 million a year (20 over two years) and Mr Methven has a 10% share, then he has to prove he is good for 2 million over the next two years. I would expect the EFL to have some kind of method where that 20 million is locked away in a vault of some kind for two years (accumulated in proportion to shareholding) and those monies are released at need by some kind of burser. Now I know with my business ignorance it probably doesn’t work quite like that, maybe somebody can clarify how indeed it does work. What stops somebody showing they have funds for the future, but not fronting up when the need arises?
I don’t think the EFL lock the funds away in some sort of high security vault in Preston! I would imagine you just need to demonstrate sufficiency of funds for the duration (I.e you have adequate liquid assets to cover your share of the running costs)
Correct - proof of sufficiency of funds is all that is required, not the funds up front locked away in some escrow account.
Does that lead to a risk if shareholders are called on to make good their promise but they refuse, or melt away when that time comes?
The Cawley article contains an interesting bit of information, or at least makes clear something that seemed to me to be a bit vague. Each shareholder has to have two years money to keep Charlton going in proportion to their shareholding or they don’t get the nod from the EFL. In back of an envelope terms if the club loses 10 million a year (20 over two years) and Mr Methven has a 10% share, then he has to prove he is good for 2 million over the next two years. I would expect the EFL to have some kind of method where that 20 million is locked away in a vault of some kind for two years (accumulated in proportion to shareholding) and those monies are released at need by some kind of burser. Now I know with my business ignorance it probably doesn’t work quite like that, maybe somebody can clarify how indeed it does work. What stops somebody showing they have funds for the future, but not fronting up when the need arises?
I don’t think the EFL lock the funds away in some sort of high security vault in Preston! I would imagine you just need to demonstrate sufficiency of funds for the duration (I.e you have adequate liquid assets to cover your share of the running costs)
Correct - proof of sufficiency of funds is all that is required, not the funds up front locked away in some escrow account.
Does that lead to a risk if shareholders are called on to make good their promise but they refuse, or melt away when that time comes?
If the club, like any other business, fails to pay the bills as and when they fall due then they are insolvent and the EFL can take action.
The proof of sufficiency of funds is nothing more than an affordability test, just like mortgage lenders carry out. It doesn't absolutely prevent default.
The Cawley article contains an interesting bit of information, or at least makes clear something that seemed to me to be a bit vague. Each shareholder has to have two years money to keep Charlton going in proportion to their shareholding or they don’t get the nod from the EFL. In back of an envelope terms if the club loses 10 million a year (20 over two years) and Mr Methven has a 10% share, then he has to prove he is good for 2 million over the next two years. I would expect the EFL to have some kind of method where that 20 million is locked away in a vault of some kind for two years (accumulated in proportion to shareholding) and those monies are released at need by some kind of burser. Now I know with my business ignorance it probably doesn’t work quite like that, maybe somebody can clarify how indeed it does work. What stops somebody showing they have funds for the future, but not fronting up when the need arises?
I don’t think the EFL lock the funds away in some sort of high security vault in Preston! I would imagine you just need to demonstrate sufficiency of funds for the duration (I.e you have adequate liquid assets to cover your share of the running costs)
Correct - proof of sufficiency of funds is all that is required, not the funds up front locked away in some escrow account.
Does that lead to a risk if shareholders are called on to make good their promise but they refuse, or melt away when that time comes?
If the club, like any other business, fails to pay the bills as and when they fall due then they are insolvent and the EFL can take action.
Which presumably means points deductions and fines.
In that scenario I imagine a few of us will watch and study each and every shareholder like a hawk in order to get an early warning that a points deduction might be coming down the track.
I know that sounds negative, but it also seems to be reality.
In my defence I repeat that I was the first person on CL to warn about the Southall takeover, it was at a time when a lot of people were urging the EFL to hurry up and approve him. My warning back then was about sufficiency of funds.
Predictably I was roundly castigated by other CL posters as being negative, many of whom were probably chanting ‘we’re effing rich’ soon afterwards.
Is this going to be better than all the other takeovers? If so, how?
Well for a start it appears likely that they will have experienced football people in some senior club roles. Whereas before we've had Katrien and Sandgaard's son.
They might also finally be the ones who get rid of burger boy.
The Cawley article contains an interesting bit of information, or at least makes clear something that seemed to me to be a bit vague. Each shareholder has to have two years money to keep Charlton going in proportion to their shareholding or they don’t get the nod from the EFL. In back of an envelope terms if the club loses 10 million a year (20 over two years) and Mr Methven has a 10% share, then he has to prove he is good for 2 million over the next two years. I would expect the EFL to have some kind of method where that 20 million is locked away in a vault of some kind for two years (accumulated in proportion to shareholding) and those monies are released at need by some kind of burser. Now I know with my business ignorance it probably doesn’t work quite like that, maybe somebody can clarify how indeed it does work. What stops somebody showing they have funds for the future, but not fronting up when the need arises?
I don’t think the EFL lock the funds away in some sort of high security vault in Preston! I would imagine you just need to demonstrate sufficiency of funds for the duration (I.e you have adequate liquid assets to cover your share of the running costs)
Correct - proof of sufficiency of funds is all that is required, not the funds up front locked away in some escrow account.
Does that lead to a risk if shareholders are called on to make good their promise but they refuse, or melt away when that time comes?
If the club, like any other business, fails to pay the bills as and when they fall due then they are insolvent and the EFL can take action.
Which presumably means points deductions and fines.
In that scenario I imagine a few of us will watch and study each and every shareholder like a hawk in order to get an early warning that a points deduction might be coming down the track.
I know that sounds negative, but it also seems to be reality.
In my defence I repeat that I was the first person on CL to warn about the Southall takeover, it was at a time when a lot of people were urging the EFL to hurry up and approve him. My warning back then was about sufficiency of funds.
Predictably I was roundly castigated by other CL posters as being negative, many of whom were probably chanting ‘we’re effing rich’ soon afterwards.
The Cawley article contains an interesting bit of information, or at least makes clear something that seemed to me to be a bit vague. Each shareholder has to have two years money to keep Charlton going in proportion to their shareholding or they don’t get the nod from the EFL. In back of an envelope terms if the club loses 10 million a year (20 over two years) and Mr Methven has a 10% share, then he has to prove he is good for 2 million over the next two years. I would expect the EFL to have some kind of method where that 20 million is locked away in a vault of some kind for two years (accumulated in proportion to shareholding) and those monies are released at need by some kind of burser. Now I know with my business ignorance it probably doesn’t work quite like that, maybe somebody can clarify how indeed it does work. What stops somebody showing they have funds for the future, but not fronting up when the need arises?
I don’t think the EFL lock the funds away in some sort of high security vault in Preston! I would imagine you just need to demonstrate sufficiency of funds for the duration (I.e you have adequate liquid assets to cover your share of the running costs)
Correct - proof of sufficiency of funds is all that is required, not the funds up front locked away in some escrow account.
Does that lead to a risk if shareholders are called on to make good their promise but they refuse, or melt away when that time comes?
If the club, like any other business, fails to pay the bills as and when they fall due then they are insolvent and the EFL can take action.
Which presumably means points deductions and fines.
In that scenario I imagine a few of us will watch and study each and every shareholder like a hawk in order to get an early warning that a points deduction might be coming down the track.
I know that sounds negative, but it also seems to be reality.
In my defence I repeat that I was the first person on CL to warn about the Southall takeover, it was at a time when a lot of people were urging the EFL to hurry up and approve him. My warning back then was about sufficiency of funds.
Predictably I was roundly castigated by other CL posters as being negative, many of whom were probably chanting ‘we’re effing rich’ soon afterwards.
Cheer up lad
Congratulations on your graduation. I hope the ceremonials were really nice. If I am right in remembering what you posted I reckon you qualify as a lad much more than me. I qualify as a miserable old git.
Methven told the Dossier that all the consortium was grouped together under the Global Football Partners name, partly to satisfy EFL.
If one part of a large consortium starts to fail then wouldn’t it ultimately reflect badly on the other parts and serious businessmen’s reputation ? Would think unless it’s a major player with major financial responsibilities, any reasonable financial problems that were outside of the football club in nature would be picked up by the remainder.
The Cawley article contains an interesting bit of information, or at least makes clear something that seemed to me to be a bit vague. Each shareholder has to have two years money to keep Charlton going in proportion to their shareholding or they don’t get the nod from the EFL. In back of an envelope terms if the club loses 10 million a year (20 over two years) and Mr Methven has a 10% share, then he has to prove he is good for 2 million over the next two years. I would expect the EFL to have some kind of method where that 20 million is locked away in a vault of some kind for two years (accumulated in proportion to shareholding) and those monies are released at need by some kind of burser. Now I know with my business ignorance it probably doesn’t work quite like that, maybe somebody can clarify how indeed it does work. What stops somebody showing they have funds for the future, but not fronting up when the need arises?
I don’t think the EFL lock the funds away in some sort of high security vault in Preston! I would imagine you just need to demonstrate sufficiency of funds for the duration (I.e you have adequate liquid assets to cover your share of the running costs)
Correct - proof of sufficiency of funds is all that is required, not the funds up front locked away in some escrow account.
Does that lead to a risk if shareholders are called on to make good their promise but they refuse, or melt away when that time comes?
If the club, like any other business, fails to pay the bills as and when they fall due then they are insolvent and the EFL can take action.
Which presumably means points deductions and fines.
In that scenario I imagine a few of us will watch and study each and every shareholder like a hawk in order to get an early warning that a points deduction might be coming down the track.
I know that sounds negative, but it also seems to be reality.
In my defence I repeat that I was the first person on CL to warn about the Southall takeover, it was at a time when a lot of people were urging the EFL to hurry up and approve him. My warning back then was about sufficiency of funds.
Predictably I was roundly castigated by other CL posters as being negative, many of whom were probably chanting ‘we’re effing rich’ soon afterwards.
Cheer up lad
Congratulations on your graduation. I hope the ceremonials were really nice. If I am right in remembering what you posted I reckon you qualify as a lad much more than me. I qualify as a miserable old git.
Thank you. Sadly, the ceremony doesn't start until this evening. I have a long day of waiting around before the excitement begins. At least the takeover has put me in a good mood.
Methven told the Dossier that all the consortium was grouped together under the Global Football Partners name, partly to satisfy EFL.
If one part of a large consortium starts to fail then wouldn’t it ultimately reflect badly on the other parts and serious businessmen’s reputation ? Would think unless it’s a major player with major financial responsibilities, any reasonable financial problems that were outside of the football club in nature would be picked up by the remainder.
I think this is a good observation. If all media and other sources constantly refer to us as being owned by Friedman, or Ruppert or whoever, they may not want their reputation tarnished if others in the consortium don’t front up and expose us to risk. How such a scenario might be managed I’m not sure, maybe they will make up for any let down by others by finding more money.
I am of the belief that if we start to do well, there will be a couple of groups within the investment team that want to invest harder than others, and will start to buy out parts of the club from those less willing to push on.
Of course it could also go the other way if things don't go as planned and investors start trying to pull out and sell their share
The official announcement cannot align with us sitting in a clapped out caravan park, which hopefully means something this afternoon with sufficient detail attached to it to get us all chomping at the bit. Most will remain sceptical, we have seen our club abused once too often in recent years for us not to be cautious, but signs are more positive, what appears greater autonomy for management to bring him who they deem fit, with an improved budget. These two things I like a lot, if the club are staffed suitably and the same ‘no d*ckheads’ rule as DH applies to his squad applies to the whole set up, I think we will be in a much happier place.
I would love to see the return of some of our loyal and talented previous CAFC employees, but that may be too much to ask and secondly, none of them would probably want it after TS et al’s treatment.
Comments
Thanks to Cafe West and Bob Munro for today's Buzz word: Escrow 👍
The proof of sufficiency of funds is nothing more than an affordability test, just like mortgage lenders carry out. It doesn't absolutely prevent default.
Methven told the Dossier that all the consortium was grouped together under the Global Football Partners name, partly to satisfy EFL.
In that scenario I imagine a few of us will watch and study each and every shareholder like a hawk in order to get an early warning that a points deduction might be coming down the track.
I know that sounds negative, but it also seems to be reality.
In my defence I repeat that I was the first person on CL to warn about the Southall takeover, it was at a time when a lot of people were urging the EFL to hurry up and approve him. My warning back then was about sufficiency of funds.
Predictably I was roundly castigated by other CL posters as being negative, many of whom were probably chanting ‘we’re effing rich’ soon afterwards.
They might also finally be the ones who get rid of burger boy.
If I am right in remembering what you posted I reckon you qualify as a lad much more than me.
I qualify as a miserable old git.
If all media and other sources constantly refer to us as being owned by Friedman, or Ruppert or whoever, they may not want their reputation tarnished if others in the consortium don’t front up and expose us to risk.
How such a scenario might be managed I’m not sure, maybe they will make up for any let down by others by finding more money.
Of course it could also go the other way if things don't go as planned and investors start trying to pull out and sell their share
Six Stanzas with an AA, BB, CC rhyming scheme all the way down to LL.
I may be wrong ( did I dream it?) but am sure I read that there are 9 different groups involved each or most with multiple investors.
I would love to see the return of some of our loyal and talented previous CAFC employees, but that may be too much to ask and secondly, none of them would probably want it after TS et al’s treatment.
Come on you reds…!🔴⚪️