Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
It's Official. Our Fans do matter to Roland!
Comments
-
Airman Brown said:
He has to put in cash because the outgoings of the business massively exceed its income. The shortfall is the amount he has to put in. If the club receives extra revenue the shortfall is less.letthegoodtimesroll said:
It doesn’t come out if his pocket, or his oersonal bank account. My understanding, but correct me if I’m wrong, is it’s on a balance sheet and p&l of a company he owns wholly or partly. What impact is it having on that company ? I haven’t looked but I guess it’s not a negative one, it could be neutral or it could actual be a positive impact, basically as an investment that is supported by underlying assets, one of which is land in London. My, again, not to be taken as entirely reliable guess is he may have a long way to go yet before funding Charlton actually becomes a problem.Airman Brown said:
It reduces his losses. It means he has to put in less to pay the bills. So in effect it goes directly to him.letthegoodtimesroll said:.
Clearly from the figures shown the money isn’t going into RDs pocket and a lot more people can now go to the Valley safe in the knowledge their money won’t be going into RDs pocket either.PeterGage said:
Genuine question...How do you support the team and not the regime without putting money into RDs pocket?Jon2461 said:Some season ticket holders go because they love the club they have supported since kids.I am not a season ticket holder but love the club as much as I did when I first went in 1972.
Let's not split the fan base when its most needed.
Support the team not the regime.
None of that has anything to do with the underlying value of the land, in particular, which is unaffected.
But doesn’t the more cash he puts in mean the bigger his investment is on paper. He could also probably revalue the land to suit. He won’t then be showing a loss unless he sells and can’t realise what’s on the company’s books which might explain some of the comments in the takeover thread, of meet his price or no sale. All a load of bollox speculation by me of course and no doubt way off the mark.1 -
This is the same old argument that the bigger the debt is the more the business is worth. It’s a fantasy because the business is only worth what someone will pay and that doesn’t go up with the debt. In the meantime, he has to put in more and more cash, that is real money, which he won’t be getting back.letthegoodtimesroll said:Airman Brown said:
He has to put in cash because the outgoings of the business massively exceed its income. The shortfall is the amount he has to put in. If the club receives extra revenue the shortfall is less.letthegoodtimesroll said:
It doesn’t come out if his pocket, or his oersonal bank account. My understanding, but correct me if I’m wrong, is it’s on a balance sheet and p&l of a company he owns wholly or partly. What impact is it having on that company ? I haven’t looked but I guess it’s not a negative one, it could be neutral or it could actual be a positive impact, basically as an investment that is supported by underlying assets, one of which is land in London. My, again, not to be taken as entirely reliable guess is he may have a long way to go yet before funding Charlton actually becomes a problem.Airman Brown said:
It reduces his losses. It means he has to put in less to pay the bills. So in effect it goes directly to him.letthegoodtimesroll said:.
Clearly from the figures shown the money isn’t going into RDs pocket and a lot more people can now go to the Valley safe in the knowledge their money won’t be going into RDs pocket either.PeterGage said:
Genuine question...How do you support the team and not the regime without putting money into RDs pocket?Jon2461 said:Some season ticket holders go because they love the club they have supported since kids.I am not a season ticket holder but love the club as much as I did when I first went in 1972.
Let's not split the fan base when its most needed.
Support the team not the regime.
None of that has anything to do with the underlying value of the land, in particular, which is unaffected.
But doesn’t the more cash he puts in mean the bigger his investment is on paper. He could also probably revalue the land to suit. He won’t then be showing a loss unless he sells and can’t realise what’s on the company’s books which might explain some of the comments in the takeover thread, of meet his price or no sale. All a load of bollox speculation by me of course and no doubt way off the mark.
3 -
Is RD compelled to cover the losses every week,can he just say,bollocks to this i am off and not give a toss what happens,Just a thought.0
-
At his age he can’t take it with him so it could all be about not taking a loss in his lifetime on what is a failed project, if the network was the project and it doesn’t seem to have succeeded.Airman Brown said:
This is the same old argument that the bigger the debt is the more the business is worth. It’s a fantasy because the business is only worth what someone will pay and that doesn’t go up with the debt. In the meantime, he has to put in more and more cash, that is real money, which he won’t be getting back.letthegoodtimesroll said:Airman Brown said:
He has to put in cash because the outgoings of the business massively exceed its income. The shortfall is the amount he has to put in. If the club receives extra revenue the shortfall is less.letthegoodtimesroll said:
It doesn’t come out if his pocket, or his oersonal bank account. My understanding, but correct me if I’m wrong, is it’s on a balance sheet and p&l of a company he owns wholly or partly. What impact is it having on that company ? I haven’t looked but I guess it’s not a negative one, it could be neutral or it could actual be a positive impact, basically as an investment that is supported by underlying assets, one of which is land in London. My, again, not to be taken as entirely reliable guess is he may have a long way to go yet before funding Charlton actually becomes a problem.Airman Brown said:
It reduces his losses. It means he has to put in less to pay the bills. So in effect it goes directly to him.letthegoodtimesroll said:.
Clearly from the figures shown the money isn’t going into RDs pocket and a lot more people can now go to the Valley safe in the knowledge their money won’t be going into RDs pocket either.PeterGage said:
Genuine question...How do you support the team and not the regime without putting money into RDs pocket?Jon2461 said:Some season ticket holders go because they love the club they have supported since kids.I am not a season ticket holder but love the club as much as I did when I first went in 1972.
Let's not split the fan base when its most needed.
Support the team not the regime.
None of that has anything to do with the underlying value of the land, in particular, which is unaffected.
But doesn’t the more cash he puts in mean the bigger his investment is on paper. He could also probably revalue the land to suit. He won’t then be showing a loss unless he sells and can’t realise what’s on the company’s books which might explain some of the comments in the takeover thread, of meet his price or no sale. All a load of bollox speculation by me of course and no doubt way off the mark.0 -
Then he gets sued by creditors and loses control of the company, including the Staprix debt.thickandthin63 said:Is RD compelled to cover the losses every week,can he just say,bollocks to this i am off and not give a toss what happens,Just a thought.
1 -
Any potential buyer looking at the % of the clubs income that goes on staff costs ( 145% ) must run a mile when they see the £40 million asking price.1
