The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Having "filleted the Haddock" I feel duty bound to respond to our Antipodean friend. I liked Chizzs' earlier comments. I welcomed JamesSeeds' information. I have no problem with NLAs' financial assertions.

Ozziedave has his view. I have not walked in his shoes but he has a point. How many owners have been "Charlton". M Gliksten who viewed a move to Milton Keynes? Sunleys, who took the club to SE25? Murray, a long time Wolves fan? Slater? Jiminez? Cash? Duchatelet (RD)?

I understand the concerns but some need to be calmer until the details of ANY deal are announced. They may or may not have just cause for concern.

A deal has been "on" for a year. With respect to every contributor "games" have been played. The last RD transcript displays delusion & confusion. Has he ever done anything else? Like a brilliant IT guy who offends clients at will he cannot help himself! Nothing fits into a normal process. Nothing can be assumed from anything he says.

After 4yrs why believe a word emanating from him or any of his sources?

Our rush to judgement is now borderline knee jerk. Some judge Bowyer on a few weeks with an inherited squad, no attacking presence, balance or experience. Now we have the repeated "snap churn" over the Australian interest.

The situation today is farcical but let's not blame such ills on all & sundry. We really want to blame any new investors "for not having the money"? How perverse do we want to get? The responsibility for this situation sits in one place alone.

Today we have no CEO, no CFO, no board, no manager, no leadership. We did tidy up immediate player contract issues but 15/ 20 senior squad are entering their final contract year. It is a template of a club in administration.

If new investors will underwrite "benefits" to RD stretching over future trading if it does not impinge on their ability to support the club trading in the EFL and above it is a step forward.

The requirement is to restore the club to a viable functioning football organisation not the empty shell we see today. Such is the scale of debt it will be exceptional if it can be achieved overnight.

Unless the Aussie financial press have blatantly lied, if Muir is involved, it is not a question of money/ liquidity. What funds do people seek disclosed? Who seeks it? RD? the EFL? The negotiating lawyers? For what purpose? To deter time wasters after a year? Who discloses private financial data in a negotiation? It resembles corporate lawyer speak. Muir may not be prepared to "show the money" RD wants to see.

The one party new investors need to satisfy re long term resourcing is the EFL.

The disparaging comments "they have not got the money" reads like a mantra from RDs' own lips and ignore those providing new finance will likely assume the mantle of being the biggest investors in our history but he disparages everybody not in HIS camp.

How many others have been rebuffed or walked away? You want to malign those still wanting to move forward? A 2nd party in the wings is the most novice sales pitch in the world. Where are they? Who are they? It's a game.

Impasse 1 The scale of debt IS unsustainable. You cannot resolve it via normal trading. "Friendly" debt, as it always does, has come to the fore. Not so friendly is it? A line is being drawn. No one wants to pick up the tab. We have all evaluated an asking price. If it includes the bulk of the Staprix debt nobody is going to pay it.

Impasse 2 - As per JamesSeed RD failed to complete proper due diligence. Even the courts could not identity with certainty who was the ultimate owner under Cash, Slater & Jiminez. You want to attack the Aussies for sorting this out? They did not dig this hole. It may need title insurance. Every bump in due diligence comes at a price.

Nobody shells out £35/40mn without access to clear title.

No sane businessman will take on unsustainable debt

No sane businessman will launch any venture without his financial dots in a row.

A sane businessman secures working capital before taking one step through the door. To reach this stage suggests new investors have indicated an acceptable package they would be prepared to pay but "the numbers" have to work.

It is not necessary to try to buy success. The funding under RD hit pro rata circa £16mn p.a.. We have done to death the ill equipped costly signings, a managerial revolving door and stalled training ground development.

RD ultimately like Cash deals in property. As per STVV he picked up our trading debt securing our freehold assets. He has sought to use the mechanics of the game to serve our financial position and his intellectual ego. In SE7 he failed and now uses the assets which enable the club to operate to offset the debt.

Whether it happens today, tomorrow, in 2 weeks or a month THIS deal has to be right. If not we will all get repent at our leisure.

As a side issue we have the option of launching a share offering. It has been a traditional method of raising finance for centuries. A common practice at a certain level of finance no investment bank will take any company to market, in this industry, without the share offering being underwritten by key investors.

If a consortium seeks £40/50mn via equity it will underwrite such investment. They will buy every unsold share. Every share sold increases the liquidity for investment. There are people who have money. It is how any proposition is positioned.

Few, if any, Aussies clubs own their grounds. In reality buying the ground/training ground merely offers a place to trade. It is the sunk cost of doing business. Such assets will not secure one League point or put one bum on a seat.

Pure hypothesis but one option is to issue shares in a company to buy The Valley & the training ground. Consider the endless concerns about owners aspirations for the ground. Raising say £30mn to buy the freehold assets, settle ex director charges strengthens the security of tenure in supporting the club as a legacy to future generations.

The shares would be in a property company. The shareholding could stipulate a requirement of an 80% shareholder approval in terms of any sale of the ground with an inbuilt guarantee of future comparable secure facilities for the club. The creation of long term leases then creates security of tenure for the club.

To benefit the club the cost of the lease could initially be set to cover operating costs with any shareholder "dividends" rolled over until attaining PL status at which point you could set a return on investment at 10%, 15%, 20% per annum, for each year the club retains PL status. It is how business is supposed to work, Investors take risk, invest, the business performs, risk equals reward, investors receive their ROI.

I have no idea if Muir would fund such a project but it offers the possibility of a return, the primary investors to ultimately get some money back and a chance of ownership to fans who can afford it. Any number of schemes could incentivise supporters. Sponsorship, Membership, Long term season tickets, deferred payment plans, Vice Presidents Clubs, Valley Gold could all enable supporter participation.

"Parking" the cost of ground purchase can focus the use of club funding to facilitate the growth and development of the business. The funding of team operational costs would be for the football club. Either you believe in your ability to deliver a successful business in your chosen industry or you do not. The abuse of a "property hedge" is and has been a distraction for too long.

These latter paragraphs are all speculation but there is one certainty here.

There is just one circus & a deluded ringmaster in town. Never been a fan of circuses. The maltreatment of those participating taints the entertainment. We can but hope the final curtain will be drawn on its London productions in very quick time.