Redeveloping Valley
He can improve facilities like he is doing at Training Ground but he can't change the use and he can't build flats and lease them.
Airman probably has all the details but charges over property come with restrictions and their loans sit ahead of Rolands when it comes to the assets of the Club, he is unsecured, so as his Finance Director said on video at meeting with supporters,his loans are effectively Equity, especially if we get relegated.
Comments
-
Thank you for clearing that up.3
-
Speaking personally if the Jimmy Seed was developed, modernised if you like with a capacity of 7 or 8 thousand then not only would we get more income from large away followings from the likes of Fleetwood and Shrewsbury, but our capacity would go over the magic 30,000.
If they do that, then offices and apartments wouldn't worry me.23 -
But change is bad.seth plum said:Speaking personally if the Jimmy Seed was developed, modernised if you like with a capacity of 7 or 8 thousand then not only would we get more income from large away followings from the likes of Fleetwood and Shrewsbury, but our capacity would go over the magic 30,000.
If they do that, then offices and apartments wouldn't worry me.0 -
Yeah sorry, you're right. All the changes have worked wonderfully so far.PL54 said:
But change is bad.seth plum said:Speaking personally if the Jimmy Seed was developed, modernised if you like with a capacity of 7 or 8 thousand then not only would we get more income from large away followings from the likes of Fleetwood and Shrewsbury, but our capacity would go over the magic 30,000.
If they do that, then offices and apartments wouldn't worry me.4 -
Thought the charge was only over the West Stand so he could therefore do what he likes with the others?Davidsmith said:There have been lots of comments about Roland redeveloping Valley, lets get one thing straight ,until he pays off Ex Directors Loans and removes their charges from all the Clubs property, he cannot do anything .
He can improve facilities like he is doing at Training Ground but he can't change the use and he can't build flats and lease them.
Airman probably has all the details but charges over property come with restrictions and their loans sit ahead of Rolands when it comes to the assets of the Club, he is unsecured, so as his Finance Director said on video at meeting with supporters,his loans are effectively Equity, especially if we get relegated.0 -
"People don't like change".
How so apt after the past two years nonsense.
0 -
Charges are over all assets of the club,Valley,Training Ground ,Plant and Machinery,lock ,stock and barrel. So in administration the overdraft and their loans have to be cleared first, and any loans against future development would have to be unsecured unless they are repaid early.
0 -
On The basis that Fleetwood and Shrewsbury would bring large numbers we should probably make sure theses fixtures are categorised as Gold games.6
-
Very astute to raise the issue of increasing capacity today, as we travel over to West London to witness at first-hand the untapped hoards of potential Charlton supporters identified by Katrien. I presume both the away and neutral areas are a complete sell out as the people of Putney take advantage of a rare opportunity to see Zakarya Bergdich in the flesh.16
-
Dave.
He will repay the existing Director loans and apply for a change of use.
It will cost him a few million - but that is peanuts compared to the value of the site when redeveloped.
Onlly LBG can stop redevelopment and they are desperate for new housing stock - so it is unlikely they would put hurdles in the way IMO.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
the words used was "quasi equity" - which in laymans terms is business speak for "if it all goes well it will be equity, if it all goes horribly wrong then it's a loan."Davidsmith said:There have been lots of comments about Roland redeveloping Valley, lets get one thing straight ,until he pays off Ex Directors Loans and removes their charges from all the Clubs property, he cannot do anything .
He can improve facilities like he is doing at Training Ground but he can't change the use and he can't build flats and lease them.
Airman probably has all the details but charges over property come with restrictions and their loans sit ahead of Rolands when it comes to the assets of the Club, he is unsecured, so as his Finance Director said on video at meeting with supporters,his loans are effectively Equity, especially if we get relegated.
I have to say, I'm not convinced the club won't have to pay him back at some point when he wants out.2 -
If he wants out in Div 1 ,there is no "Club has to pay him back", as club will be losing £7mn a year.Buyer is only one to pay him and they will want assets so will pay off Ex Directors secured loans first to get their hands on assets and then he will get whatever above that they believe the club is worth and that will be very little with £7mn of annual losses! So in reality his Loans he has in Championship are Equity in Division 1 with no assets to secure those loans.0
-
Would it cost the Rat more to discharge the ex directors secured loans, than the value of turning the Valley into a housing estate?. Would the consequences of Relegation possibly mean the Rat would have no realistic option other than to sell for whatever he can get for a ruined League one club.0
-
It would be a peculiarly complicated way to obtain development rights on a mediocre piece of land.2
-
But they aren't equity they are loans and as the largest creditor he could effectively wind the club up as soon as he loses interest in his experiment. Yes the old directors will get there money back but where would CAFC be?Davidsmith said:If he wants out in Div 1 ,there is no "Club has to pay him back", as club will be losing £7mn a year.Buyer is only one to pay him and they will want assets so will pay off Ex Directors secured loans first to get their hands on assets and then he will get whatever above that they believe the club is worth and that will be very little with £7mn of annual losses! So in reality his Loans he has in Championship are Equity in Division 1 with no assets to secure those loans.
0 -
The administrator has a duty to get maximum value for the assets on behalf of the creditors. This will include people like HMRC and employees. So long as there is a potential buyer of the club at that time then that is likely to be the maximum value.
The sooner the better!0 -
All this assumes Greenwich will grant a consent on land currently designated as amenity space - they won't. Nor would local residents and supporters let them.
Yes......some clubs have redeveloped their original ground. Sunderland, Leicester, Derby, Arsenal - but always by providing a new stadium within the same local authority area. Until Roland, or any other owner, comes up with a proposal to do that selling the Valley for redevelopment is a dead duck. And any potential buyer will know that.0 -
But not in Brighton.......simonmatthews said:All this assumes Greenwich will grant a consent on land currently designated as amenity space - they won't. Nor would local residents and supporters let them.
Yes......some clubs have redeveloped their original ground. Sunderland, Leicester, Derby, Arsenal - but always by providing a new stadium within the same local authority area. Until Roland, or any other owner, comes up with a proposal to do that selling the Valley for redevelopment is a dead duck. And any potential buyer will know that.0 -
I wish this was true - but in reality it is not.simonmatthews said:All this assumes Greenwich will grant a consent on land currently designated as amenity space - they won't. Nor would local residents and supporters let them.
Yes......some clubs have redeveloped their original ground. Sunderland, Leicester, Derby, Arsenal - but always by providing a new stadium within the same local authority area. Until Roland, or any other owner, comes up with a proposal to do that selling the Valley for redevelopment is a dead duck. And any potential buyer will know that.
RD owns the club - the whole shebang, training ground, car park, knives and forks etc. CAFC could play at Sparrows Lane - nobody says he has to allow spectators.
All he will do is run the club into the ground, and with the reduced support it will be less viable to play at the Valley.
We will then play our home games wherever he wants us to (remember..... he owns the whole thing and makes the decisions).
Now you are left with a derelict Valley that will become an eyesore again.
LBG will be presented with a business case - as to why CAFC don't need to play there anymore - and LBG will make the rational decision to allow housing (based on the dire need locally).
Supporters may kick up a fuss (great) - but only local residents will have the ear of LBG, and I ask......
what % age of our support now comes from the Borough ?
People in the surrounding streets will be delighted to have the Valley redeveloped.
How much LOCAL employment does it now provide ?........... I would suggest not much.
We have a major battle coming our way again in the next 5 years and we should not be complacent that it "cannot happen" or "would not be allowed".
Please keep in mind that RD has NO INTEREST IN FOOTBALL, OR OUR HISTORY.
1 -
You are assuming that those that hold Charges over assets of the club (7 Ex Directors),and that is all assets, will sit by and watch him run the club into the ground,I think you might find the terms of their charge will prevent that,or he will have to repay them their £7mn first.He might own it all but it is all Mortgaged .0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Do you actually believe the crap you have written?Valiantphil said:
I wish this was true - but in reality it is not.simonmatthews said:All this assumes Greenwich will grant a consent on land currently designated as amenity space - they won't. Nor would local residents and supporters let them.
Yes......some clubs have redeveloped their original ground. Sunderland, Leicester, Derby, Arsenal - but always by providing a new stadium within the same local authority area. Until Roland, or any other owner, comes up with a proposal to do that selling the Valley for redevelopment is a dead duck. And any potential buyer will know that.
RD owns the club - the whole shebang, training ground, car park, knives and forks etc. CAFC could play at Sparrows Lane - nobody says he has to allow spectators.
All he will do is run the club into the ground, and with the reduced support it will be less viable to play at the Valley.
We will then play our home games wherever he wants us to (remember..... he owns the whole thing and makes the decisions).
Now you are left with a derelict Valley that will become an eyesore again.
LBG will be presented with a business case - as to why CAFC don't need to play there anymore - and LBG will make the rational decision to allow housing (based on the dire need locally).
Supporters may kick up a fuss (great) - but only local residents will have the ear of LBG, and I ask......
what % age of our support now comes from the Borough ?
People in the surrounding streets will be delighted to have the Valley redeveloped.
How much LOCAL employment does it now provide ?........... I would suggest not much.
We have a major battle coming our way again in the next 5 years and we should not be complacent that it "cannot happen" or "would not be allowed".
Please keep in mind that RD has NO INTEREST IN FOOTBALL, OR OUR HISTORY.
RD is a successful businessman, whatever you think of him. He has put a million into the pitch another million into revamping the stadium. Do you honestly think he has ploughed £2 million to run it into the ground?
They have done a crap job with the team, but come on get real!3 -
This thread is the biggest giggle I've had all day.
David White comes on here to correct some misconceptions about rumours started about what RD intends to do, and some of you correct him?
David White knows more about business, and the running of Charlton Athletic, than all you keyboard warriors added together.
And has put MILLIONS (no exaggeration) of his own money into the club.
I suggest some of you find out who you're talking to, before typing what your brain tells you makes sense...
0 -
Duchatelet can remove the ex-directors from the picture at any time by repaying their loans, which excluding Murray comes to £4.4m in total.East_Stand_Loopy said:This thread is the biggest giggle I've had all day.
David White comes on here to correct some misconceptions about rumours started about what RD intends to do, and some of you correct him?
David White knows more about business, and the running of Charlton Athletic, than all you keyboard warriors added together.
And has put MILLIONS (no exaggeration) of his own money into the club.
I suggest some of you find out who you're talking to, before typing what your brain tells you makes sense...
David White is owed £250,000 of that, which is not a substantial sum to Duchatelet, although it would be to most of us. Bob Whitehand, Dave Sumners and Derek Chappell represent £2.65 combined.
Sir Maurice Hatter is owed £1m and David Hughes £500k.
Much larger sums were written off in 2010, but that is the position now.1 -
If it is true that he is funding £1m a month losses he will just pay up the £7m and he then holds all the aces.Davidsmith said:You are assuming that those that hold Charges over assets of the club (7 Ex Directors),and that is all assets, will sit by and watch him run the club into the ground,I think you might find the terms of their charge will prevent that,or he will have to repay them their £7mn first.He might own it all but it is all Mortgaged .
0 -
Has David White posted on this thread?East_Stand_Loopy said:This thread is the biggest giggle I've had all day.
David White comes on here to correct some misconceptions about rumours started about what RD intends to do, and some of you correct him?
David White knows more about business, and the running of Charlton Athletic, than all you keyboard warriors added together.
And has put MILLIONS (no exaggeration) of his own money into the club.
I suggest some of you find out who you're talking to, before typing what your brain tells you makes sense...3 -
I am Spartacus.1
-
In fact if that is Maurice Hatter in video of season ticket warrior, then as President of Club still? and seated in Directors Box with Katrien ,I assume he is supporting regime,therefore Duchatalet only has to pay off the other five guys for a total of £3.4mn ,as Murray and Hatter will probably do their own deal as they appear to have done before by still being in the frame.0
-
Al,Essex_Al said:
Do you actually believe the crap you have written?Valiantphil said:
I wish this was true - but in reality it is not.simonmatthews said:All this assumes Greenwich will grant a consent on land currently designated as amenity space - they won't. Nor would local residents and supporters let them.
Yes......some clubs have redeveloped their original ground. Sunderland, Leicester, Derby, Arsenal - but always by providing a new stadium within the same local authority area. Until Roland, or any other owner, comes up with a proposal to do that selling the Valley for redevelopment is a dead duck. And any potential buyer will know that.
RD owns the club - the whole shebang, training ground, car park, knives and forks etc. CAFC could play at Sparrows Lane - nobody says he has to allow spectators.
All he will do is run the club into the ground, and with the reduced support it will be less viable to play at the Valley.
We will then play our home games wherever he wants us to (remember..... he owns the whole thing and makes the decisions).
Now you are left with a derelict Valley that will become an eyesore again.
LBG will be presented with a business case - as to why CAFC don't need to play there anymore - and LBG will make the rational decision to allow housing (based on the dire need locally).
Supporters may kick up a fuss (great) - but only local residents will have the ear of LBG, and I ask......
what % age of our support now comes from the Borough ?
People in the surrounding streets will be delighted to have the Valley redeveloped.
How much LOCAL employment does it now provide ?........... I would suggest not much.
We have a major battle coming our way again in the next 5 years and we should not be complacent that it "cannot happen" or "would not be allowed".
Please keep in mind that RD has NO INTEREST IN FOOTBALL, OR OUR HISTORY.
RD is a successful businessman, whatever you think of him. He has put a million into the pitch another million into revamping the stadium. Do you honestly think he has ploughed £2 million to run it into the ground?
They have done a crap job with the team, but come on get real!
yes, i do beleive the stuff I have written - I always do, otherwise why bother posting ?
Anyway..........
RD spends about £1m a month - just to watch us get beat 3-0, 4-0, 5-0, 6-0.
The value of the Valley land if turned into housing would run into the tens of millions, so £2m on the pitch and some cosmetic changes is peanuts.
Apartments on the old Ferrier Estate in Kidbrook are going for £600k !
In L1, RD will be spending more than at present - so are you thinking that this "successful businessman" is going to spend £10m or £20m A YEAR just for the fun of it ?
.........Or what do you think his plan is ?
Spend £100m and get us into the Prem in 5 years ?
Have you seen any evidence that we have Premiership aspirations ?
Does his "Premiership plan" start by going into L1 ?
Would YOU keep your job if you had made as many errors as KM has in the last 18 months ?
1 -
Roland doesn't do failure NightMeire told us. Well, relegation is failure and so is a football club losing several million pounds a year. Hopefully he will sell up when he realises what NightMeire & Co have really been up to0
-
Perhaps RD is cleverer than we think, He appoints KM as CEO, knowing she has no experience in football and will probably cock everything up, knows her personality, so probably banking on her to say stupid things, then states, I do not run the club only own it, KM runs it, if it goes wrong she is to blame0
