Maybe too much sun but in the unlikely event of reaching the premier then the 7 million owed to ex directors would be small fry in the amount you receive in windfall.
Sorry snakes and ladders time, I will start reading from the first page because I have obviously missed some salient points in between the fish puns and Samuel Beckett (guilty as charged)
I know board takeovers can take forever but I'm in the middle of something ridiculous. The takeover has been going on for 3-4 months at least and there hasn't been an update from the chairman telling me what's going on and there hasn't been a news item on it (i.e. takeover on the rocks, new owners don't have the funds etc.).
SPORTS INTERACTIVE FOOTBALL MANAGER GAME THREAD Posted April 12, 2016 Amateur James_Fraser Managing Stockport County. In the Prem now!
Uncanny, and of course in the real world Stockport County are not in the Prem but have fallen down the pyramid and out of the Football League altogether so.........................oh dear!
No one has doubted who the delay is down too in the last 4 weeks or who is responsible for the shit state we find ourselves In
The delay is financial 100%
But there has to be a point where someone moves and it won’t be two shit cnut chalets
Or he would’ve done it by now
That leaves the buyers to either walk away or find a solution to resolve it or we wi just right off this season and more than likely give atleast a ten point start to every other club around us because our squad is not good enough or big enough to cope right now
If that happens they will have to be preapared for another season after this one in lge 1 or even if they want a lge 2 club
If the rumours are right and Murray is involved in the Brits interest he certainly won’t be rushing to do anything pre xmas when they can gauge the road ahead of them
Murray can't do anything without clear title, he can't afford to but, maybe that was the reason for the offer to the directors?
I find it hard to believe that Murray has a major financial involvement with the rival consortium, we've had 2 rescues (Spivs and Roland) takeovers since he was in charge, and the money ran out.
Apart from anything else, he's older and his health is worse, I doubt he would be up to a major role, other than some sort of part time Chairman/President role
Sorry I ment as part of a bid, I doubt he could raise enough to buy the whole club but it could be him that suggested the lease back option?
Maybe too much sun but in the unlikely event of reaching the premier then the 7 million owed to ex directors would be small fry in the amount you receive in windfall.
Sorry snakes and ladders time, I will start reading from the first page because I have obviously missed some salient points in between the fish puns and Samuel Beckett (guilty as charged)
If you've offered (say) £35m for something that you think you are buying outright - to then find out "oh by the way when you reach (if ever) the Premier league - you have to pay out another £7m" is not, in my mind, small fry! It's effectively another 20%.
I think Duchatelet would be forced to appoint Bowyer as manager if we get to the start of the season under his ownership, i.e Bowyer would, quite rightly, demand it. So the fact he remains caretaker is interesting.
You think he's going to pull a rabbit out of the hat? I don't. It's classic Duchatelet. We've been without a CEO for how long now?
He's just being his ameteurish, unprofessional and completely out of touch self . No doubt Bowyers new contract will be hastily drawn up the night before the season kicks off.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Indeed, or to look at it from another angle. RD paid £14m for it (do we agree on that figure, btw?. Certainly not as much as £20m). Since then he has spent £1m on the pitch, and made a start (only) on the training ground. Meantime he has taken the club down a division and has lost thousands of customers in the process.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Indeed, or to look at it from another angle. RD paid £14m for it (do we agree on that figure, btw?. Certainly not as much as £20m). Since then he has spent £1m on the pitch, and made a start (only) on the training ground. Meantime he has taken the club down a division and has lost thousands of customers in the process.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
But we keep hearing that the price has been agreed?
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Indeed, or to look at it from another angle. RD paid £14m for it (do we agree on that figure, btw?. Certainly not as much as £20m). Since then he has spent £1m on the pitch, and made a start (only) on the training ground. Meantime he has taken the club down a division and has lost thousands of customers in the process.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Indeed, or to look at it from another angle. RD paid £14m for it (do we agree on that figure, btw?. Certainly not as much as £20m). Since then he has spent £1m on the pitch, and made a start (only) on the training ground. Meantime he has taken the club down a division and has lost thousands of customers in the process.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
But we keep hearing that the price has been agreed?
If the potential buyers had told him £20m max was all they would pay, Roland would have had to reduce his asking price surely?
The charges would also complicate any attempt to borrow new money against the assets and it may concern investors in the company that they are a first charge in the event of insolvency, which may be the most significant aspect.
I believe this sums up the true importance of ex-Director loans.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Indeed, or to look at it from another angle. RD paid £14m for it (do we agree on that figure, btw?. Certainly not as much as £20m). Since then he has spent £1m on the pitch, and made a start (only) on the training ground. Meantime he has taken the club down a division and has lost thousands of customers in the process.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
No, we don't. The 2016 Baton accounts state that a debt of £18.6m was acquired at the date of acquisition. That figure was also referred to by Joyes in a meeting as what Duchatelet paid.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
So ITK types, do any of you think this will be done to give Bowyer time to do business in the transfer window?
I think that ship has sailed.
Unless they are 'all' identified and just waiting for the go ahead once the ink is dry. Still 2+ weeks to sign 'them'. Whether it will actually happen is one question. Whether 'they' are fit/ready go is another question....
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Right. So when we look for an increase in the value of the business as a whole since he bought it, land value is not driving any increase. Is that fair to say, IYO?
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m. Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
William the Conquerer was my 26th Great Grandfather.
Just saying.
hello Danny Dyer ;-)
I suspect he was everyone's 26th Great Grandfather - 2 to the power of 28 = 268,435,456 which was more than the population of the world in 1066.
That’s not quite how it works but...
Merde.
It sort of is - everyone has 268m 26th great grandparents - of course it some overlap between those 268m given that we are talking about Danny Dyer and our Royal family.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
The same person who told me that the realistic price for Charlton was £20-25m, also always said that this was based on a property play. My understanding then was that this could have meant some sort of sale/development of excess land at the training ground (not a Valley/Peninsular swap).
My scepticism then was that the likelihood of getting planning permission was minimal (just look at how long the GAA grounds down the road have lain dormant). That said, the rules around planning have changed in the last couple of years and a development that delivers much needed homes may now get through ( @Airman Brown - does your council experience suggest that a housing development proposal may be viewed favourably?)
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
The same person who told me that the realistic price for Charlton was £20-25m, also always said that this was based on a property play. My understanding then was that this could have meant some sort of sale/development of excess land at the training ground (not a Valley/Peninsular swap).
My scepticism then was that the likelihood of getting planning permission was minimal (just look at how long the GAA grounds down the road have lain dormant). That said, the rules around planning have changed in the last couple of years and a development that delivers much needed homes may now get through ( @Airman Brown - does your council experience suggest that a housing development proposal may be viewed favourably?)
I was very suspicious about the fact that RD included permission for residential accommodation in the training ground scheme. I'm also unpersuaded that the money he committed to the rugby ground site was only about securing better vehicle access to Footscray Road for CAFC facilities (when he himself had removed a new access at the back of the CAFC site from the original 2014 scheme). One conceivable explanation is that he was looking to open up the site for future residential applications. But it's really about changes in national planning policy. There have been a few rumours but I don't see Greenwich approving anything and it would get referred upwards anyway as a breach of local policy.
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Right. So when we look for an increase in the value of the business as a whole since he bought it, land value is not driving any increase. Is that fair to say, IYO?
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m. Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
I suspect he had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price. It may well have been undervalued previously, but as there is no significant market for football stadiums it's hard to say. However, it is possible to argue that both the 2010 and 2014 transactions were distressed sales. There is also a scarcity of available London football clubs where you can drive value up, and London is the place to be. The general view seems to be £20m would be fair, though. If the premium is deferred that would make more sense.
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Right. So when we look for an increase in the value of the business as a whole since he bought it, land value is not driving any increase. Is that fair to say, IYO?
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m. Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
I suspect he had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price. It may well have been undervalued previously, but as there is no significant market for football stadiums it's hard to say. However, it is possible to argue that both the 2010 and 2014 transactions were distressed sales. There is also a scarcity of available London football clubs where you can drive value up, and London is the place to be. The general view seems to be £20m would be fair, though.
And football is becoming increasingly lucrative at the top end.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Indeed, or to look at it from another angle. RD paid £14m for it (do we agree on that figure, btw?. Certainly not as much as £20m). Since then he has spent £1m on the pitch, and made a start (only) on the training ground. Meantime he has taken the club down a division and has lost thousands of customers in the process.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
But we keep hearing that the price has been agreed?
If the potential buyers had told him £20m max was all they would pay, Roland would have had to reduce his asking price surely?
Depends whether his priority s selling the club or trying to get his money back.
Comments
Sorry snakes and ladders time, I will start reading from the first page because I have obviously missed some salient points in between the fish puns and Samuel Beckett (guilty as charged)
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
Look at point 11 on page 25.
If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M.
RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership.
Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/EeGU-LE8qxO5pknvnjnOUWS8-UWFb1LbhDhDU1XoESI/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAIZRXNPMEGUL4QIFQ/20180723/eu-west-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20180723T111947Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=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&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=e6219781c0b0ee359e84145f6f8a882de91b7df562ad0660deb63802c8216876
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m.
Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
My scepticism then was that the likelihood of getting planning permission was minimal (just look at how long the GAA grounds down the road have lain dormant). That said, the rules around planning have changed in the last couple of years and a development that delivers much needed homes may now get through ( @Airman Brown - does your council experience suggest that a housing development proposal may be viewed favourably?)