The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Off_it said:

Fuck me, is this what it's come to - people arguing about whether the old fucker is asset stripping or not?

The font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia (I know) says this:

Asset stripping is a term used to refer to the practice of selling off a company's assets in order to improve returns for equity investors. With a lower level of assets, it is maintained, the business is rendered financially less stable or viable.

Certainly sounds like it to me. Reducing liabilities = improving returns for equity investors, and we only have one of those.

But either way, it matters not. There is quite clearly only one person to blame for the current 4+ year shitfest we are enduring and to suggest there is even a morsel of blame falling elsewhere, quite frankly, comes across as pie in the sky heatwave induced jibbering bollocks.

I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this

If it turns out that the Aussies made false bids in order to secure the club without having the funds in place that imo is nothing to do with the situation we have with RD but is well worthy of discussion debate and criticism

Despite all the semi-hysteria it seems to me that, at the moment at least, Duxchatelet is going out of his way to indulge the Aussie bid.

We had the ‘joint statement’ by the club and the Aussies issued on June 20th (6 weeks ago).

Firstly, the fact that it was a joint statement means that it will have been carefully worded and approved by both parties and their advisors.

It said that there were 3 areas that had taken time and/or still needed to be dealt with:

“the enormous amount of due diligence”
“the need to satisfy the regulatory complexities of a football takeover”
“the challenges of assembling an ownership group”

Lastly, the joint statement said “We will provide a further update when further developments are made”, from which I think we can reasonably assume that (at the moment at least) the potential puchase by the Aussies has not collapsed, otherwise there would have been a further agreed joint statement or, more likely, a statement by one or other of the parties; possibly the Aussies via GM/JamesSeed, even if it were just a short ‘sorry but it’s not going ahead’?

If Cawley’s report in the SLP is accurate it would seem that the Aussies’s are still seeking further investors. But Duchatelet (at the moment) doesn’t seem to have ended negotiations with them; which seems to indicate that they are still his ‘preferred bidders’; eitrher because they bid the most or they are the only show in town.

That may change at any time – particulaly as the last reported word from GM via JamesSeed on August 1st was that “the next few days may well be critical for the Aussies’ bid” - but it would seem to be where we are at the moment?

nth london addick said:

CAFCDAZ said:

nth london addick said:

I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses

Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs

It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow

It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post

asset stripping is asset stripping. if i told you i had a ferrari for 100k then decided to take all of the interior ans engine out before you turn up to buy, how can i ask for the same money if its basically a lump of metal with a flash horse badge?

We know how much his monthly losses are all he is doing is selling to cover the running costs it’s not asset stripping

He is the owner, it's his responsibility to cover the monthly losses. The fact is, if he removes saleable assets from the club, he cannot expect to receive the same price for the business as he expected a few months prior to removing those assets. Part of the valuation of a business is based on it's assets. If those assets are removed/sold, then the value decreases.

nth london addick said:

Scoham said:

nth london addick said:

ElfsborgAddick said:

ME14addick said:

nth london addick said:

CAFCDAZ said:

nth london addick said:

I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses

Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs

It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow

It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post

asset stripping is asset stripping. if i told you i had a ferrari for 100k then decided to take all of the interior ans engine out before you turn up to buy, how can i ask for the same money if its basically a lump of metal with a flash horse badge?

We know how much his monthly losses are all he is doing is selling to cover the running costs it’s not asset stripping

He could have reduced his running costs by selling at a reasonable price months ago. Now he is still running at a loss with a rapidly depreciating commodity

And this is where it is both baffling and worrying.

Baffling as surely Dushitelet does not want to lose the increasing millions he seemingly is.

Worrying that he seems to be able to afford to lose this money.

Sad times.

That’s always been the biggest fear I had he is rich enough to say screw you I don’t care

Like was said yesterday sell the club for 10 mil less or lose 10 mil over the season what’s the difference to him

If he waits another year couldn’t he end up losing £10m on running the club AND sell for £10m less?

Yep he could but he doesn’t seem to give two shits about that does he

And this is what doesn't make sense. If he had sold in January for a few million less than he wanted he would not have needed to cover the losses for the past 6-7 months. If the £1m a month figure is anywhere near accurate he could have taken £5m off the asking price and still been in pocket compared to now.

He stands to lose even more money the longer this goes on. Duchatelet is not a stupid man, but why does he constantly seem to give the impression he is.

nth london addick said:

Scoham said:

nth london addick said:

ElfsborgAddick said:

ME14addick said:

nth london addick said:

CAFCDAZ said:

nth london addick said:

I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses

Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs

It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow

It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post

asset stripping is asset stripping. if i told you i had a ferrari for 100k then decided to take all of the interior ans engine out before you turn up to buy, how can i ask for the same money if its basically a lump of metal with a flash horse badge?

We know how much his monthly losses are all he is doing is selling to cover the running costs it’s not asset stripping

He could have reduced his running costs by selling at a reasonable price months ago. Now he is still running at a loss with a rapidly depreciating commodity

And this is where it is both baffling and worrying.

Baffling as surely Dushitelet does not want to lose the increasing millions he seemingly is.

Worrying that he seems to be able to afford to lose this money.

Sad times.

That’s always been the biggest fear I had he is rich enough to say screw you I don’t care

Like was said yesterday sell the club for 10 mil less or lose 10 mil over the season what’s the difference to him

If he waits another year couldn’t he end up losing £10m on running the club AND sell for £10m less?

Yep he could but he doesn’t seem to give two shits about that does he

I don't think that's true for a moment.

Rich men get rich by being careful with their money. And Rich men don't like losing money.

nth london addick said:

Off_it said:

Fuck me, is this what it's come to - people arguing about whether the old fucker is asset stripping or not?

The font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia (I know) says this:

Asset stripping is a term used to refer to the practice of selling off a company's assets in order to improve returns for equity investors. With a lower level of assets, it is maintained, the business is rendered financially less stable or viable.

Certainly sounds like it to me. Reducing liabilities = improving returns for equity investors, and we only have one of those.

But either way, it matters not. There is quite clearly only one person to blame for the current 4+ year shitfest we are enduring and to suggest there is even a morsel of blame falling elsewhere, quite frankly, comes across as pie in the sky heatwave induced jibbering bollocks.

I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this

If it turns out that the Aussies made false bids in order to secure the club without having the funds in place that imo is nothing to do with the situation we have with RD but is well worthy of discussion debate and criticism

WTF????

PragueAddick said:

nth london addick said:

Off_it said:

Fuck me, is this what it's come to - people arguing about whether the old fucker is asset stripping or not?

The font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia (I know) says this:

Asset stripping is a term used to refer to the practice of selling off a company's assets in order to improve returns for equity investors. With a lower level of assets, it is maintained, the business is rendered financially less stable or viable.

Certainly sounds like it to me. Reducing liabilities = improving returns for equity investors, and we only have one of those.

But either way, it matters not. There is quite clearly only one person to blame for the current 4+ year shitfest we are enduring and to suggest there is even a morsel of blame falling elsewhere, quite frankly, comes across as pie in the sky heatwave induced jibbering bollocks.

I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this

If it turns out that the Aussies made false bids in order to secure the club without having the funds in place that imo is nothing to do with the situation we have with RD but is well worthy of discussion debate and criticism

WTF????

They don’t have the money so why out bid people who do there are questions that need to be asked

And they have never had the money

nth london addick said:

Scoham said:

nth london addick said:

ElfsborgAddick said:

ME14addick said:

nth london addick said:

CAFCDAZ said:

nth london addick said:

I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses

Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs

It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow

It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post

asset stripping is asset stripping. if i told you i had a ferrari for 100k then decided to take all of the interior ans engine out before you turn up to buy, how can i ask for the same money if its basically a lump of metal with a flash horse badge?

We know how much his monthly losses are all he is doing is selling to cover the running costs it’s not asset stripping

He could have reduced his running costs by selling at a reasonable price months ago. Now he is still running at a loss with a rapidly depreciating commodity

And this is where it is both baffling and worrying.

Baffling as surely Dushitelet does not want to lose the increasing millions he seemingly is.

Worrying that he seems to be able to afford to lose this money.

Sad times.

That’s always been the biggest fear I had he is rich enough to say screw you I don’t care

Like was said yesterday sell the club for 10 mil less or lose 10 mil over the season what’s the difference to him

If he waits another year couldn’t he end up losing £10m on running the club AND sell for £10m less?

Yep he could but he doesn’t seem to give two shits about that does he

The clue is in his name.

nth london addick said:

PragueAddick said:

nth london addick said:

Off_it said:

Fuck me, is this what it's come to - people arguing about whether the old fucker is asset stripping or not?

The font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia (I know) says this:

Asset stripping is a term used to refer to the practice of selling off a company's assets in order to improve returns for equity investors. With a lower level of assets, it is maintained, the business is rendered financially less stable or viable.

Certainly sounds like it to me. Reducing liabilities = improving returns for equity investors, and we only have one of those.

But either way, it matters not. There is quite clearly only one person to blame for the current 4+ year shitfest we are enduring and to suggest there is even a morsel of blame falling elsewhere, quite frankly, comes across as pie in the sky heatwave induced jibbering bollocks.

I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this

If it turns out that the Aussies made false bids in order to secure the club without having the funds in place that imo is nothing to do with the situation we have with RD but is well worthy of discussion debate and criticism

WTF????

They don’t have the money so why out bid people who do there are questions that need to be asked

And they have never had the money

So you say. Without ever having presented a shred of evidence or even a hint of what source you might have for this assertion. Not even in private. No answer to the proposition that no sane businessman "has the money" when that fuckwit is asking for money that has no rational business basis.

And then you write

"I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this "

I have a lot of respect for you, as you know, and I also know you have good contacts, but unless you can stand this shit up, you are not doing us any favours. We need to get this poison out of our club, rather than poison the ground for the new owners.

Roland Out Today.

nth london addick said:

PragueAddick said:

nth london addick said:

Off_it said:

Fuck me, is this what it's come to - people arguing about whether the old fucker is asset stripping or not?

The font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia (I know) says this:

Asset stripping is a term used to refer to the practice of selling off a company's assets in order to improve returns for equity investors. With a lower level of assets, it is maintained, the business is rendered financially less stable or viable.

Certainly sounds like it to me. Reducing liabilities = improving returns for equity investors, and we only have one of those.

But either way, it matters not. There is quite clearly only one person to blame for the current 4+ year shitfest we are enduring and to suggest there is even a morsel of blame falling elsewhere, quite frankly, comes across as pie in the sky heatwave induced jibbering bollocks.

I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this

If it turns out that the Aussies made false bids in order to secure the club without having the funds in place that imo is nothing to do with the situation we have with RD but is well worthy of discussion debate and criticism

WTF????

They don’t have the money so why out bid people who do there are questions that need to be asked

And they have never had the money

Not according to the Club who said in their statement that the Aussies had the funds. Do you have proof to the contrary?

Fanny Fanackapan said:

Missed It said:

nth london addick said:

CAFCDAZ said:

nth london addick said:

I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses

Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs

It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow

It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post

asset stripping is asset stripping. if i told you i had a ferrari for 100k then decided to take all of the interior ans engine out before you turn up to buy, how can i ask for the same money if its basically a lump of metal with a flash horse badge?

We know how much his monthly losses are all he is doing is selling to cover the running costs it’s not asset stripping

True, it's not exactly asset stripping. That would be selling assets to to trouser the cash. What he's doing is just as bad and unsustainable. Charlton is being made to eat itself just to keep going. He's selling assets just to meet running costs. There's no future in selling your TV and furniture to try and pay your monthly bills.

Maybe we could claim a new word in readiness for the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

" Douchtripping" ....Present participle of verb "douchtrip"

1...Act of removing ducktape used to repair shoes in order to delay necessary purchase (NB A custom uniquely used by
Belgian eccentrics)

2...Act of plundering, pillaging, ravaging, laying bare the emotions of loyal "customers" without any vestige of
conscience.

3...Act of stripping down, dismantling, demolishing, piece by piece a respected institution by someone with no previous
experience of the model.

4...Act of depriving good, honest persons of their pride in said institution by reducing it to a shell of its former self.

Finally, scholars have argued whether "douchtripping" may be used legitimately to describe the sale of assets for profit but agreement has now been reached to revisit the issue in the future when the examination of historical evidence will clarify the issue.

5...A portmanteau word comprised of the shortened version of the modern vernacular insult, douchebag, and the present participle of trip, as in 'Hey, did you see that douche-tripping'?

The man is a walking ego. Simple as that. He owns football clubs because he can. When they "Don't work" he leaves. Clearly, his understanding of Football/Value is zero, and this is what is ultimately holding things up. He has no concept of finance in football and thats why we may end up stuck with him. He's deluded.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Blucher said:

A very good article in The Independent - https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/charlton-athletic-takeover-latest-update-football-league-preview-league-one-a8475686.html

Hopefully, our guys will ensure that this finds it’s way into the Belgian press.

A truly shocking revelation about halving Joe Aribo’s contract offer:

“Now, the only sellable young player left is 22-year-old midfielder Joe Aribo. The club is not doing a good job of keeping him. Charlton offered Aribo a new contract at the start of the summer, changed their minds, and offered him half as much money instead. Other players have gone through the same process. Aribo has Duchatelet has relied in the past on selling academy players to stem Charlton’s losses: they got £3.5m for Joe Gomez in 2015, £8m that could rise to £11m for Ademola Lookman in 2017. Now, the only sellable young player left is 22-year-old midfielder Joe Aribo. The club is not doing a good job of keeping him. Charlton offered Aribo a new contract at the start of the summer, changed their minds, and offered him half as much money instead. Other players have gone through the same process. Aribo has just one year left now and if Charlton were offered close to £1m – Southampton and Derby County are interested – they would sell.“

I think we need to assemble on Blackheath Common next Saturday - Wat Tyler style - and march to the Valley with pitchforks and flaming torches.

If any championship scouts were watching that game yesterday, i feel pretty confident they'd think 1m was well worth the risk. Could well be a bargain in todays market.

I don't expect him to have a career at the very top level but i think a few clubs would see him as being worth a gamble.

If the contract offer thing is true (and with RD i'm quite sure it is) then who would blame him for fucking off. I won't be at all surprised if he's sold this week.

Some of the flicks and tricks from him yesterday made me think he was playing for a move and as you say, who could blame him.

nth london addick said:

PragueAddick said:

nth london addick said:

Off_it said:

Fuck me, is this what it's come to - people arguing about whether the old fucker is asset stripping or not?

The font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia (I know) says this:

Asset stripping is a term used to refer to the practice of selling off a company's assets in order to improve returns for equity investors. With a lower level of assets, it is maintained, the business is rendered financially less stable or viable.

Certainly sounds like it to me. Reducing liabilities = improving returns for equity investors, and we only have one of those.

But either way, it matters not. There is quite clearly only one person to blame for the current 4+ year shitfest we are enduring and to suggest there is even a morsel of blame falling elsewhere, quite frankly, comes across as pie in the sky heatwave induced jibbering bollocks.

I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this

If it turns out that the Aussies made false bids in order to secure the club without having the funds in place that imo is nothing to do with the situation we have with RD but is well worthy of discussion debate and criticism

WTF????

They don’t have the money so why out bid people who do there are questions that need to be asked

And they have never had the money

nla......your assertion has always struck me as slightly misleading.
What ‘exactly’ do you mean....... as in “don’t have the money?”
What you are saying (I guess), is that as a consortium set up they haven’t found the required amount of financing from enough backers to spread the costs.
I say this because Muir alone easily has the finance to come up with in order to fly solo if he so wished.....so what you should really be saying is that they(in the shape of Muir alone), do have the money but are simply not prepared to spend it on Goldfingers unrealistic asking price.
Your continually saying they (Muir) don’t have the money is therefore somewhat inaccurate........they most certainly DO have the money but are they prepared to stump up with it.......it would seem that for one reason or another they aren’t.
It’s a moot point I know, but for the sake of clarity you must understand that when you continue to say they don’t have the money it’s somewhat misleading.
Well it is to me anyway.

bazjonster said:

SoundAsa£ said:

nth london addick said:

PragueAddick said:

nth london addick said:

Off_it said:

Fuck me, is this what it's come to - people arguing about whether the old fucker is asset stripping or not?

The font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia (I know) says this:

Asset stripping is a term used to refer to the practice of selling off a company's assets in order to improve returns for equity investors. With a lower level of assets, it is maintained, the business is rendered financially less stable or viable.

Certainly sounds like it to me. Reducing liabilities = improving returns for equity investors, and we only have one of those.

But either way, it matters not. There is quite clearly only one person to blame for the current 4+ year shitfest we are enduring and to suggest there is even a morsel of blame falling elsewhere, quite frankly, comes across as pie in the sky heatwave induced jibbering bollocks.

I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested there is anyone to blame than RD for all of this

If it turns out that the Aussies made false bids in order to secure the club without having the funds in place that imo is nothing to do with the situation we have with RD but is well worthy of discussion debate and criticism

WTF????

They don’t have the money so why out bid people who do there are questions that need to be asked

And they have never had the money

Your continually saying they (Muir) don’t have the money is therefore somewhat inaccurate........they most certainly DO have the money but are they prepared to stump up with it.......it would seem that for one reason or another they aren’t.
It’s a mute point I know, but for the sake of clarity you must understand that when you continue to say they don’t have the money it’s somewhat misleading.

Think you mean 'moot' point mate as opposed to 'mute'.

This takeover has turned out to be a damp squid.