The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Seeing as the Aussies can do a deal and the loans will roll without even the need for consulation over them is strange why it hasn't happened. Is it because they need them cleared because they want to borrow against The Valley or is it because they feel its Roland's problem to sort as he inherited them. And to be fair its not their fault Roland didnt bother doing DD when he purchased the Club. I believe its the latter .3
-
I would tend to agree with this.vff said:
Thanks @king addick & @RedChaser. I can follow what you saying @king addick. Is it enough to break the whole deal though ?king addick said:
Would you not want a clean break from this shit show? Can imagine they were open minded coming into the process but with RD (it seems) constantly moving the goal posts, I can imagine they just want rid and a blank canvass to create there own legacy & not having to deal with the leftovers of RDs legacy.vff said:
If they agreed for that to be rolled on, with agreement with the Directors, then they would not have to spend £7million. What’s the big deal with clean title ?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said:There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
I also find it difficult to understand how the issue of the directors loans would not have been picked up in due diligence. Its not like its a secret. This takeover thing & Aussie interest has been going on for nearly as long as an elephant's pregnancy.
Regading rolling on of the loans. Some of the Directors may be a bit more annoying, but surely they would not be able to have any particular say in the running of the team going forward ? Murray had a nominal title but had no specific influence on things, I could see. I can still remember the conscending look of Duchatelet & incredulous look Meire gave Murray in the beginning when Murray was blathering on about Charlton not having to sell any of the young players.
Also bear in mind these are all ex-directors - rolling over the loans doesn't give any of them any power in commercial decision making. Uncle Dickie can still be kicked into the long grass with or without a first charge on the assets.0 -
Every time I see a photo of Keohane he looks paler than before. I reckon he's a vampire.Scoham said:
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?robinofottershaw said:Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
3 -
I guess it depends on what was offered. Using the £40m that has been banded about, if they were offered the club in full, all sold, for that sum the Aussies would fairly assume that they would own the club and there would be no charges left on it. If they got to the exchange of contracts stage and they are told they are paying £40m and there is a £7m debt still to pay that will quite rightly piss them off and lead to some renegotiation.harveys_gardener said:
This seems madness and I struggle to believe this is an issue with serious businessmen. They are only repayable in the Prem where they will be tbe equivalent of change down the back of the sofa. Meanwhile we face another two years in L1 due to weak squad and only 40 days to re-enforce, which I am sure is not in their 5 year plan.JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said:There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.6 -
If I was putting £40m of my cash in with up to 5 others on a five year deal I'd wouldn't want any debts or interests in front, would you?
Just because Roland was daft enough to do that, doesn't mean others are. The Spivs only paid a quid (effectively £7m) for us (or whatever the F Director debt is).3 -
He's looks like he can't remember if he's left the oven on!
2 -
Bottom line is people wouldn't have been getting worked up about the takeover til xmas - or this summer - had Meire not decided to jump ship - if the Aussies hadn't been leaking info for the last 18 months and getting everybody's hopes up prematurely. Nothing happening in October and certainly apparent a full DD had not been undertaken - price agreed in February, further DD and now a reduction in the offer by the Aussies - that's my take on it and now we have a stand off but hopefully they will resolve it soon5
-
It depends how much I was worth and how much we thought would need investing over the next few years.razil said:If I was putting £40m of my cash in with up to 5 others on a five year deal I'd wouldn't want any debts or interests in front, would you?
Just because Roland was daft enough to do that, doesn't mean others are. The Spivs only paid a quid (effectively £7m) for us (or whatever the F Director debt is).0 -
....but then I would've sorted this out or walked months ago1
-
You could always release £3.5million out your pension pot.blackpool72 said:This is what I can't understand.
If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
They are already paying too much for us..3
-
I think investors have been promised clean title as a precondition. You can't then go back to them and say, sorry, there's this weird fella with duck tape who won't clear these debts. Would you mind doing it?vff said:
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said:There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
For what it's worth, Twitter poll. 251 votes.
67% 5 year plan Aussies
10% Mystery Brits
09% Roland Devil U Know
14% Others - Saudis?0 -
Fuck offclb74 said:
You could always release £3.5million out your pension pot.blackpool72 said:This is what I can't understand.
If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.
That would only leave me with £15 million3 -
@vff Murray has been very influential, wasn't he made non exec Chairnan and would have certainly had KMs ear and more latterly that of RD. We know he and Varney didn't get on and would not have sung his praises when he was trying to broker a deal. RD also thinks Muzza is a top fella huh. Also KM came out with the move to the Peninsular cock and bull about Varney, wonder who sowed that seed.
The compromise issue aside and apart from the Aussies wanting a clean title on the land (I most certainly would if I was an investor) the ex directors might just want out and their money back. Why should they roll it over if they don't want to none of them are spring chickens and they may want to share it amongst / enjoy it with their families now, I would.
And remember @harveys_gardener the land cannot be sold unless they are paid off in full, or leased without all of their consents so no they don't have to wait until we get to the Prem in the case of the former and again I would ask why the hell should they.
The Douchbag has buried his head in the sand on this issue and thought he could steamroller all in his way at sale time like he usually does. Big mistake, not this time Rolly, you've failed big time. Sadly though we the fans are the collateral damage but he's the only person who should be at the brunt of people's frustrations, no one else.
WIOTOS16 -
As an accountant, charges on property assets would be top of my DD and would/could be done before any approach is made for £1 at Land Registry. Again £7m is a drop in the ocean compared to the £150m+ needed to finance the 5 year plan and need not be paid until Prem. This is a redChrispy51 said:
I guess it depends on what was offered. Using the £40m that has been banded about, if they were offered the club in full, all sold, for that sum the Aussies would fairly assume that they would own the club and there would be no charges left on it. If they got to the exchange of contracts stage and they are told they are paying £40m and there is a £7m debt still to pay that will quite rightly piss them off and lead to some renegotiation.harveys_gardener said:
This seems madness and I struggle to believe this is an issue with serious businessmen. They are only repayable in the Prem where they will be tbe equivalent of change down the back of the sofa. Meanwhile we face another two years in L1 due to weak squad and only 40 days to re-enforce, which I am sure is not in their 5 year plan.JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said:There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.addockherring1 -
He's done that for the last 4 yearsIsawsummersplay said:I suspect Duchatelet will try to run the club without a proper management team in place.
13 -
I don’t get this “£7m is not a lot of money”.
It is.
It is also a considerable increase in price.
Speculation that it may cost £200m to get into the Prem is simply not valid. It may not be the only objective, or the only way they believe it could be achieved.4 -
Anyone got a stake?Davo55 said:
Every time I see a photo of Keohane he looks paler than before. I reckon he's a vampire.Scoham said:
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?robinofottershaw said:Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
It is quite a lot to be fair, even as a % of the purchase price of the club.blackpool72 said:
It is absolutely a small amount when you think of the cost of buying a club.bobmunro said:
That's £3,500,000.00 each - that's in no way a small amount.blackpool72 said:This is what I can't understand.
If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.1 -
He's like a negative of a pandaDavo55 said:
Every time I see a photo of Keohane he looks paler than before. I reckon he's a vampire.Scoham said:
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?robinofottershaw said:Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
10 -
Y1 L1 crap squad. Costs £12mRedrobo said:I don’t get this “£7m is not a lot of money”.
It is.
It is also a considerable increase in price.
Speculation that it may cost £200m to get into the Prem is simply not valid. It may not be the only objective, or the only way they believe it could be achieved.
Y2 L1 Costs £14m Tfrs £3m
Y3 Ch Costs £15m Tfrs £10m
Y4 Ch Costs £18m Tfrs £20m
Y5 Ch Costs £25m Tfrs £33m
Y6 Pr Bingo! £150m plus £7m payoff
Estimates at todays prices. Assumes our threadbare squad won't go up 18/19 and consolidation if we do next season. Ignores pay-offs for duds. Obviously swop Y5 for Y3 is a gamblè, but one I doubt an astute consortium would make. LB could turn out to be a magician but he promised promotion if we made play-offs so I doubt it. Incalculables, training ground and player sales.0 -
COB and another "deadline" passes ----anyone surprised ?1
-
No though according to Airman it was a deadline to prove they had the funding, with the second week of July the deadline to complete the deal.Goonerhater said:COB and another "deadline" passes ----anyone surprised ?
4 -
Also understand your point.vff said:
Thanks @king addick & @RedChaser. I can follow what you saying @king addick. Is it enough to break the whole deal though ?king addick said:
Would you not want a clean break from this shit show? Can imagine they were open minded coming into the process but with RD (it seems) constantly moving the goal posts, I can imagine they just want rid and a blank canvass to create there own legacy & not having to deal with the leftovers of RDs legacy.vff said:
If they agreed for that to be rolled on, with agreement with the Directors, then they would not have to spend £7million. What’s the big deal with clean title ?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said:There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
I also find it difficult to understand how the issue of the directors loans would not have been picked up in due diligence. Its not like its a secret. This takeover thing & Aussie interest has been going on for nearly as long as an elephant's pregnancy.
Regading rolling on of the loans. Some of the Directors may be a bit more annoying, but surely they would not be able to have any particular say in the running of the team going forward ? Murray had a nominal title but had no specific influence on things, I could see. I can still remember the conscending look of Duchatelet & incredulous look Meire gave Murray in the beginning when Murray was blathering on about Charlton not having to sell any of the young players.
RD may have buried the loans or made a promise he would pay them off only to then change is mind in petulance?
All speculation on my part of course but through interviews and actions, it's not hard to get the measure of the man.0 -
Amazing how many Charlton fans think £3.5 - £7M is not a lot of money. CL should have got a consortium together to buy the club.
I have no idea if this really is the hold up or not and if it is, what caused it. I can imagine a scenario where the Aussies made an offer of £X for the club with clean title and RD was daft enough to think that would all go to him and has now found out that actually to get clean title will cost him £7M of the £40M so is scrabbling around trying to do deals with the ex-Directors. It would follow the business sense he has shown to date throughout his ownership of our club.
If that scenario was broadly accurate and I was the Aussies, no way would I be backing down. It’s his problem and he should deal with it, especially if The Aussies are already paying a full price. The cost of a 5 year plan is irrelevant, that is high risk gambling money for the reward of the PL. The £7M is just an unecessary additional upfront burden or watering down of an IRR if we made it back to the PL.
For me, this all sits on RD’s doorstep, his problem. Making cuts will just reduce his monthly black hole, not cure it and there is no one of value left to sell so unless he thinks he can trouser cash from a Nick Pope sell on, that £7M he needs to pay off the former directors will soon be gone just maintaining us if he does not sell.
Let’s hope it is over soon, Murphy and Muir comes across as decent people to me but also not the sort of people who have got where they have got by being had over / overpaying and clearly not for lax diligence.19 -
Bet that ain't far off their actual business planharveys_gardener said:
Y1 L1 crap squad. Costs £12mRedrobo said:I don’t get this “£7m is not a lot of money”.
It is.
It is also a considerable increase in price.
Speculation that it may cost £200m to get into the Prem is simply not valid. It may not be the only objective, or the only way they believe it could be achieved.
Y2 L1 Costs £14m Tfrs £3m
Y3 Ch Costs £15m Tfrs £10m
Y4 Ch Costs £18m Tfrs £20m
Y5 Ch Costs £25m Tfrs £33m
Y6 Pr Bingo! £150m plus £7m payoff
Estimates at todays prices. Assumes our threadbare squad won't go up 18/19 and consolidation if we do next season. Ignores pay-offs for duds. Obviously swop Y5 for Y3 is a gamblè, but one I doubt an astute consortium would make. LB could turn out to be a magician but he promised promotion if we made play-offs so I doubt it. Incalculables, training ground and player sales.0 -
Not bothered now if the deal falls through.
Let Roland try and do his worse and if over the next month his cutting back on everything will have a think about backing the season ticket.
Then be joining the thousands of doing the aways but not the homes.2
