Great news about Bauer. As Donald Fagan from Steeleye Span once said, an average player with a great attitude is better than a great player with an average attitude.
everyone getting excited about Bauer BUT he hasn't signed the offered contract and until he does there is definitely a chance someone will come in with an offer that Roland accepts. I'd hold fire until he signs one before getting carried away.
everyone getting excited about Bauer BUT he hasn't signed the offered contract and until he does there is definitely a chance someone will come in with an offer that Roland accepts. I'd hold fire until he signs one before getting carried away.
This, it looks a lot like a Roland come and get me ploy..........
Anyone who has a 5-year plan to get into the PL that does not include, at minimum, £100M in spending in that period... is a fool.
To get to (and have a chance at staying) in the PL, we would need tens of millions in infrastructure improvements at The Valley (it would be one of the smallest stadiums in the PL), another £10-20M at the training ground (It took Wolves a total of £40M to reach Category One), and probably FFP-busting levels of spending.
It took Brighton almost a decade and £200M to do so.
Getting out of L1 is one thing.... getting out of the Championship when every year three new clubs get massive parachute payments to compete against you and at any one time there might be 6-7 teams getting some level of them, and other teams are willing to risk going bust every year (Villa, for example).... is entirely another.
Millwall scared the shit out of all of us last year on a shoestring budget. It’s not easy but it’s possible to have a good run at it despite the PL teams dropping down. Remind me where Sunderland are ?
Look up the average money spent by clubs to get out of L1 to the PL the last 10 years and then get back to me. Your one single example of a shoestring does not compare to what others have spent. Especially those who stayed a while like Leicester, Watford, Bournemouth, even Palace. Huddersfield are toast this year because they just don't have enough infrastructure to compete. I don't want to be a yo-yo club.
That’s not my point though is it. Yes of course there is a correlation between money spent and relative success. My point is that a well run club doing things in the right way with a manager and supporters in alignment can be more than the sum of its parts.
If you want another example I’ll give you Shrewsbury last season.
Exactly how much would you be willing to bet that Millwall don’t scare us again next season ? Get back to me.
I dream of being a yo-yo club
The only problem is that neither of your examples actually achieved promotion...
True but it does show that you can compete with the right ownership. A manager that fits the club and the whole club including supporters pulling together. Sadly Millwall have all of that in place.
Right, of course, but if your plan was to get to the Premier League in five years you’d surely be preparing to spend Wolves type money to get there rather than relying on a Millwall/Shrewsbury style near miss?
Oh I agree. Any serious ambition requires serious money but from what I gather if the Aussies do eventually buy us i think the plan will be more in alignment with trying to get the best background expertise and people in place to give the players every chance of achieving success rather than throwing money at it.
Great news about BFG. There must of been some highly persuasive chats behind the scene for him to even consider staying which should be seen as a positive sign for the future. It’s gonna happen!
Great news about Bauer. As Donald Fagan from Steeleye Span once said, an average player with a great attitude is better than a great player with an average attitude.
The debentures are with Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
Not true, no other charges can be made without Ex Directors permission and only one has to say no. The Negative Pledge stops subsequent charges, why did Roland not take charges because he couldn't, he remained unsecured.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
Meanie
Why, its the facts.Too many people on here questioning what is in black and white at Companies House and in the History Books.
everyone getting excited about Bauer BUT he hasn't signed the offered contract and until he does there is definitely a chance someone will come in with an offer that Roland accepts. I'd hold fire until he signs one before getting carried away.
Even if BFG were to sign this allegedly proffered contract, roly would sell him 10 minutes later if, in his crazed shitdrenched mind, the numbers added up. We'll only know which bodies remain on the roster after the windows close. The number of them that will be able to stand on both feet, let alone run around, nevermind play football to any standard, will obviously be a fraction of the total and ever declining as each day passes.
I wouldn't take on Lee Bowyer's job for all the tea in China, India, Malaysia and Sainsbury's.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
Meanie
Why, its the facts.Too many people on here questioning what is in black and white at Companies House and in the History Books.
Agreed, but no need to make the fella look bad. Anyway, it’s complicated stuff unless you’re au fait with the world of finance. I expect it’s been an issue with the delays, but wish we knew if it’s the only issue.
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
You are familiar are you not, that businesses routinely need/use overdraft facilities, factoring, invoice financing, to manage their working capital, specifically cash needs? Not so long ago CAFC's working overdraft facility was of the order of £1M - just for day to day cashflow management. VAT bills, PAYE/NI bills to name just 2 can be seriously spiky and, officially at least, there is no credit facility to be had. The existence of a list of first charges is highly likely to compromise this business's access to overdraft and credit facilities, with consequences for the cost of any such financing. In the absence of affordable working capital finance, any putative new regime would have to have, and maintain, liquid funds sufficient to meet all foreseeable overheads and liabilities, in a business which at the last count was paying staff costs 1.5 times higher than its total income, total operating costs almost 3 times the revenue. I put it to you that the existence of prior claims on Charlton's assets is critical to any reasoned assessment of it's viability. The very fact that tooshits completely overlooked or ignored it 4 and a bit years ago, just adds weight to how important this theoretical £7M actually is. Of course if £7M is the sort of sum you've got down the back of the sofa, then cough up and we and the Aussies can get on with the future unencumbered by such a triviality.
Seat on the board for Stig methinks.
Come the day, any good words you can put in for me with your football friend will be most sincerely appreciated.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
No. Have read the debentures and cannot see the negative pledge issue which RD seemed to have ducked. Apologies if loans pre-dated Jiminez but that means they weren't an issue with the 2 previous owners but suddenly are with the 3rd despite them being in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. I'd guess any waiver to an NP issue would have to be filed at Companies House and it hasn't on 2 occasions. How had the club functioned for the last 7 years?
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
You are familiar are you not, that businesses routinely need/use overdraft facilities, factoring, invoice financing, to manage their working capital, specifically cash needs? Not so long ago CAFC's working overdraft facility was of the order of £1M - just for day to day cashflow management. VAT bills, PAYE/NI bills to name just 2 can be seriously spiky and, officially at least, there is no credit facility to be had. The existence of a list of first charges is highly likely to compromise this business's access to overdraft and credit facilities, with consequences for the cost of any such financing. In the absence of affordable working capital finance, any putative new regime would have to have, and maintain, liquid funds sufficient to meet all foreseeable overheads and liabilities, in a business which at the last count was paying staff costs 1.5 times higher than its total income, total operating costs almost 3 times the revenue. I put it to you that the existence of prior claims on Charlton's assets is critical to any reasoned assessment of it's viability. The very fact that tooshits completely overlooked or ignored it 4 and a bit years ago, just adds weight to how important this theoretical £7M actually is. Of course if £7M is the sort of sum you've got down the back of the sofa, then cough up and we and the Aussies can get on with the future unencumbered by such a triviality.
Seat on the board for Stig methinks.
Come the day, any good words you can put in for me with your football friend will be most sincerely appreciated.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
No. Have read the debentures and cannot see the negative pledge issue which RD seemed to have ducked. Apologies if loans pre-dated Jiminez but that means they weren't an issue with the 2 previous owners but suddenly are with the 3rd despite them being in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD.
That the debentures weren't an issue for the proven liars and dodgy dealers Jimenez and Slater or for the DIY due diligence of deluded Duchatelet is hardly a valid reason to believe they aren't important.
Pretty sure the Aussies knew about and saw the significance of the debentures from the start of DD, not just now.
The problem is, imho, that Roland told the Aussies he'd deal with the old directors and the £7m but so far he still hasn't.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
No. Have read the debentures and cannot see the negative pledge issue which RD seemed to have ducked. Apologies if loans pre-dated Jiminez but that means they weren't an issue with the 2 previous owners but suddenly are with the 3rd despite them being in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD.
That the debentures weren't an issue for the proven liars and dodgy dealers Jimenez and Slater or for the DIY due diligence of deluded Duchatelet is hardly a valid reason to believe they aren't important.
Pretty sure the Aussies knew about and saw the significance of the debentures from the start of DD, not just now.
The problem is, imho, that Roland told the Aussies he'd deal with the old directors and the £7m but so far he still hasn't.
So we have a rumour of a 25% offer (not from Derek) but nothing further. If Muir is being held up with negotiations over £7m owed to former directors, I'd expect improved bids. More detail from one who is a prolific poster on the subject. BTW Derek fair play to you for investing in our beloved Addicks.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
No. Have read the debentures and cannot see the negative pledge issue which RD seemed to have ducked. Apologies if loans pre-dated Jiminez but that means they weren't an issue with the 2 previous owners but suddenly are with the 3rd despite them being in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. I'd guess any waiver to an NP issue would have to be filed at Companies House and it hasn't on 2 occasions. How had the club functioned for the last 7 years?
On personal Unsecured Loans from Roland and Airmen knows better than me under Jimenez time,but guessing the same.
A very stupid question I know.....but is there any news/rumour that this elongated 'Takeover' might happen this week? Arguing among ourselves, again, about the financial situation of ex-director loans when we don't know if it has anything to do with the negotiations seems a little 'futile'.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
No. Have read the debentures and cannot see the negative pledge issue which RD seemed to have ducked. Apologies if loans pre-dated Jiminez but that means they weren't an issue with the 2 previous owners but suddenly are with the 3rd despite them being in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD.
That the debentures weren't an issue for the proven liars and dodgy dealers Jimenez and Slater or for the DIY due diligence of deluded Duchatelet is hardly a valid reason to believe they aren't important.
Pretty sure the Aussies knew about and saw the significance of the debentures from the start of DD, not just now.
The problem is, imho, that Roland told the Aussies he'd deal with the old directors and the £7m but so far he still hasn't.
So we have a rumour of a 25% offer (not from Derek) but nothing further. If Muir is being held up with negotiations over £7m owed to former directors, I'd expect improved bids. More detail from one who is a prolific poster on the subject. BTW Derek fair play to you for investing in our beloved Addicks.
The debentures are with CAHL, owned by Baton 2010 and subsequently Staprix. If new owners want to borrow money on the Valley they do NOT need permission of the 1st chargees. Hence the old git bought us without sucking up to Dick and co. Neither do the Aussies who will buy one of these three entities.
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Valley is an asset of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited. If anybody sought to take acharge on those assets to lend money then the negative pledge (which prevents anyone else taking a charge on these assets) would come into play and prevent anyone elsetaking a charge headroomor not.
Bearing in mind the debentures were Jiminez related not RD, it is highly unlikely there is a negative pledge issue because he bought us with £7m loans in place. Only repayable in the Prem. Again the debentures were in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD. Doubt they became an issue so late on. Also given Muir has a $800m war chest and investors likely similar, it's unlikely he is going cap in hand to banks for an overdraft.
They were executed in 20009 and 2010 before Jimenez, and were done when all 7 Ex Directors were still on the Board and were put in place to provide cash flow to keep Club alive, this has been well documented before,keep up. There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ? They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
No. Have read the debentures and cannot see the negative pledge issue which RD seemed to have ducked. Apologies if loans pre-dated Jiminez but that means they weren't an issue with the 2 previous owners but suddenly are with the 3rd despite them being in the public domain b4 Muir spent £1m+ on DD.
That the debentures weren't an issue for the proven liars and dodgy dealers Jimenez and Slater or for the DIY due diligence of deluded Duchatelet is hardly a valid reason to believe they aren't important.
Pretty sure the Aussies knew about and saw the significance of the debentures from the start of DD, not just now.
The problem is, imho, that Roland told the Aussies he'd deal with the old directors and the £7m but so far he still hasn't.
So we have a rumour of a 25% offer (not from Derek) but nothing further. If Muir is being held up with negotiations over £7m owed to former directors, I'd expect improved bids. More detail from one who is a prolific poster on the subject. BTW Derek fair play to you for investing in our beloved Addicks.
Been reported "elsewhere" that the Aussies have the funds to buy the club, but the sticking point is that the EFL are not convinced that they will be able to finance the club going forward.
No idea if there is any truth to this, it's just a rumour.
Comments
As Donald Fagan from Steeleye Span once said, an average player with a great attitude is better than a great player with an average attitude.
Roland out!
Any lender to Muir will make a judgement call as to whether there is sufficient headroom on the asset to justify a loan. Ditto for a 3rd 4th or 5th charge.
The Negative Pledge stops subsequent charges, why did Roland not take charges because he couldn't, he remained unsecured.
There is a Negative Pledge why would Ex Directors have done their deal otherwise ?
They are repayable in Premier League unless you wish to borrow against the assets and then you need Ex Directors permission, or you do what Jimenez and Roland did which is place unsecured Loans behind them in the queue, is that clear enough for you now?
Right here goes, 151 new posts to go through.
Nothing on the 'bitesize'. Should I speed read or give the thread a miss?
We'll only know which bodies remain on the roster after the windows close. The number of them that will be able to stand on both feet, let alone run around, nevermind play football to any standard, will obviously be a fraction of the total and ever declining as each day passes.
I wouldn't take on Lee Bowyer's job for all the tea in China, India, Malaysia and Sainsbury's.
I expect it’s been an issue with the delays, but wish we knew if it’s the only issue.
Pretty sure the Aussies knew about and saw the significance of the debentures from the start of DD, not just now.
The problem is, imho, that Roland told the Aussies he'd deal with the old directors and the £7m but so far he still hasn't.
Rest assured that if the bite size has not been updated there is F all new about an actual sale.
No idea if there is any truth to this, it's just a rumour.