The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

NapaAddick said:

Debentures are debt not backed by any assets.

I don't see Roland setting up the debt he owes to himself as not being backed by the assets of the club. And no bank would set up debt that way. So what other debt could it be?

Debt that has a clause for example that the money "does not have to be paid off until the club is promoted" would qualify as a debenture.

I would not at all be surprised if the director debt is set up as a debenture. In other words, directors do not have recourse to sell off assets of the club if the debt falls through. The debt is simply dependent on the club's creditworthiness or promise.

In general terms debenture holders have a CHARGE over the assets which means they rank higher than other creditors and thus have more chance of being paid in part or in full if everything goes tits up and assets have to be realised as cash.

In Charlton terms if the Club wanted to borrow elsewhere prospective lenders would not be happy to see charges already over the assets. Hence the various discussions about the 'power' held by the former directors.

Dazzler21 said:

You have to much time on your hands.

JamesSeed said:

Rich Crawley hasn't heard back from them. It's possibly going to be a national press release, so could be in the papers tomorrow, if it's embargoed. Hopefully today though.

(See what I did there?)

Is yesterday, tomorrow, today?

The Red Robin said:

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Big in Brasov said:

Up till now the fixed charges that ex-directors have on the real estate has prevented Duchâtelet from selling the club and keeping the Valley, - at least that is my understanding.

If Duchâtelet is trying to settle all these charges and ex-directors are willing to comply, then we are truly f##ked

Companies house shows those charges are the ones numbered 3 to 9 and they are still in place. 1 & 2 were HSBC and Lombard North and they've been satisfied. The directors ones are 3 Derek Chappell, 4 David White 5 David Hughes 6 Sir Maurice Hatter 7 Richard Murray 8 56 Developments LLP (Robert and Helen Whitehand) 9 David Sumners

Companies House also shows that the HSBC charge has just been satisfied against the listing by giving the date. It’s just paperwork and nothing to do with repaying the ex-directors’ loans.

So what could that mean in relation to any takeover?

Probably nothing.

The financial year end is 30 June and last year the auditors probably picked up that the HSBC charge had not been discharged at Companies House.

Someone has probably noticed and 'tidied up.'

Cafc43v3r said:

Airman Brown said:

The Red Robin said:

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Big in Brasov said:

Up till now the fixed charges that ex-directors have on the real estate has prevented Duchâtelet from selling the club and keeping the Valley, - at least that is my understanding.

If Duchâtelet is trying to settle all these charges and ex-directors are willing to comply, then we are truly f##ked

Companies house shows those charges are the ones numbered 3 to 9 and they are still in place. 1 & 2 were HSBC and Lombard North and they've been satisfied. The directors ones are 3 Derek Chappell, 4 David White 5 David Hughes 6 Sir Maurice Hatter 7 Richard Murray 8 56 Developments LLP (Robert and Helen Whitehand) 9 David Sumners

Companies House also shows that the HSBC charge has just been satisfied against the listing by giving the date. It’s just paperwork and nothing to do with repaying the ex-directors’ loans.

So what could that mean in relation to any takeover?

It’s just housekeeping because the overdraft facility is no longer there, I assume.

Strange time for house keeping if it hadn't been used for about 4 years, if it's nothing to do with anything, why do it now?

Oh and who would file it? The ceo, the fd, the tea lady?

As posted above the financial year end appears to be 30 June.

It's probably been noticed as part and parcel of the preparations for that or alternatively, as I suggested above, picked up previously by the auditors.

roseandcrown said:

iamdan said:

What the fuck is going?!

Richard Murray has just had lunch and is now removing his bib, he will now prepare the British Groups statement.

Not sure he's actually capable of removing his own bib.

If the statement is going to be on the official site, then ever the optimist, it's going on there as they are the new owners.

Cannot see the Bastard Belgian allowing to use the Clubs official channels, particularly as another alleged buyer is still in the picture.

iamdan said:

What the fuck is going?!

Its the opposite of staying.

The Red Robin said:

JamesSeed said:

Rich Crawley hasn't heard back from them. It's possibly going to be a national press release, so could be in the papers tomorrow, if it's embargoed. Hopefully today though.

(See what I did there?)

Is yesterday, tomorrow, today?

She’s got a model’s legs, but are they women’s, are they men’s ?

Addickted said:

If the statement is going to be on the official site, then ever the optimist, it's going on there as they are the new owners.

Cannot see the Bastard Belgian allowing to use the Clubs official channels, particularly as another alleged buyer is still in the picture.

That's my hope, unless it's a joint statement between the mad Belgian and the Aussies.

Cafc43v3r said:

@PragueAddick I could not disagree more strongly. Average league 1 players are NOT the main, or significant, assets. In fact I would suggest that their contracts are actually a liability.

Lionel Messi is an asset, Jason Pearce and Nabby Sarr aren't. If I was buying the club I would only put a nominal value on the current players, or 99% of league 1 players.

If you were seriously rich the only assets you want are the ground, training ground and the golden share.

The advertising agency comparison works with a SMT, football management, academy staff, talent scouts etc who can add massive value. Although that is obviously not the case here.

Well, never mind the ad agency thing, it winds up a few people on here to mention the words. You are saying I think, that if you were buying the club, and you valued it at £40m in January, you would still pay that now, if RD had sold Konsa and then Bauer and Fosu too? I wouldn't .

And btw what is the "golden share" you have referred to more an once?

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Ferryman said:

AFKABartram said:

nth london addick said:

AFKABartram said:

nth london addick said:

Airman Brown said:

The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.

Airman Brown said:

The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.

Says who

Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?

But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard


It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best

But it also reduces the value of the club and its price

Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet

So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?

Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know

Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?

Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.

Why would RD stop paying those bills then ? That leads to possible admin and he losses more money. Therefore it is not “The alternative”.

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Ferryman said:

AFKABartram said:

nth london addick said:

AFKABartram said:

nth london addick said:

Airman Brown said:

The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.

Airman Brown said:

The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.

Says who

Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?

But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard


It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best

But it also reduces the value of the club and its price

Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet

So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?

Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know

Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?

Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.

Why would RD stop paying those bills then ? That leads to possible admin and he losses more money. Therefore it is not “The alternative”.

I have not said he will or wants to stop paying those bills. He wants to reduce the size of the bills and how much he has to pay out of his own pocket

Then why bring administration into your initial post ?

PragueAddick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

@PragueAddick I could not disagree more strongly. Average league 1 players are NOT the main, or significant, assets. In fact I would suggest that their contracts are actually a liability.

Lionel Messi is an asset, Jason Pearce and Nabby Sarr aren't. If I was buying the club I would only put a nominal value on the current players, or 99% of league 1 players.

If you were seriously rich the only assets you want are the ground, training ground and the golden share.

The advertising agency comparison works with a SMT, football management, academy staff, talent scouts etc who can add massive value. Although that is obviously not the case here.

Well, never mind the ad agency thing, it winds up a few people on here to mention the words. You are saying I think, that if you were buying the club, and you valued it at £40m in January, you would still pay that now, if RD had sold Konsa and then Bauer and Fosu too? I wouldn't .

And btw what is the "golden share" you have referred to more an once?

The golden share is effectively the place in the football league.

"The Football League is a company limited by shares. Every club in the Football League is entitled to an ownership share – the 'Golden Share'. The share gives clubs the right to play in the league and share in league incomes from TV and other commercial deals (from a pooled account at the end of the season)."

My point on not being hung up on the players is that none of them are irreplaceable for a relatively, compared to the £200 million investment, low cost.

I would wager you could buy a promotion capable league 1 team for approx 3 or 4 million, not including wages, that you would be paying anyway.