Methven, Rodwell and Scott have to go NOW.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

kafka said:

Athletico Charlton said:

kafka said:

It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc. 

This seems an incredibly naive view.  If you lease an office and your landlord puts the rent up/is a shit/doesn't renew then you have literally hundreds of other offices to choose from.  Same with with shops.  Hence tenants often only want 3-5yr leases as they prefer the flexibility it gives them.

Leisure premises like restaurants and cinemas etc is one of the few areas where longer 20-25yr leases are the norm.  Why? Because business that occupy them spend a lot of money on their premises and want to amortise that over a lease.  We are a leisure industry business with an exceptionally bespoke requirement.

If your football ground lease expires then what? You rent elsewhere?  Or you fold? Or you spend hundreds of millions building a new stadium. Basically you are fucked.  It is just not comparable.  

West Ham have a 99 yr lease at absolutely give away terms. They are not comparable.

9 yrs left on the lease will put off most sensible investors.

Like I said, lease terms are important. Does anyone know the renewal rights? Does is sit inside or outside the Act?

As someone who knows precisely zero about this type of thing, how much of an issue is us getting a lease extension going to be?  

Depends upon how committed the Labour government will be to go anywhere near meeting its ambitious home/house building targets. Compulsory purchase of the housing stock in Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens for example (if they are privately owned) and add the Valley in and that’s a significant site by a railway station without the problem of how high they can build because of the views of the neighbours.

Our current predicament is a catastrophe for this ownership group.
Wasn't it Methven that recently said CAFC can't work as a league one club?
No doubt his strategy was to have the ground steadily filling up week after week as we mounted a charge. The commercial side on the up as local businesses looked to get back involved with a resurgent Charlton Athletic.
But what now?
The only opportunity he's really had to showcase any sort of meaningful event was the Wrexham game and he went all out for that.
But as yet another season falls into the abyss with ever dwindling attendances while the support base finds better things to do with their Saturdays, What stomach do this lot have for yet another rebrand? 

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

kafka said:

Athletico Charlton said:

kafka said:

It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc. 

This seems an incredibly naive view.  If you lease an office and your landlord puts the rent up/is a shit/doesn't renew then you have literally hundreds of other offices to choose from.  Same with with shops.  Hence tenants often only want 3-5yr leases as they prefer the flexibility it gives them.

Leisure premises like restaurants and cinemas etc is one of the few areas where longer 20-25yr leases are the norm.  Why? Because business that occupy them spend a lot of money on their premises and want to amortise that over a lease.  We are a leisure industry business with an exceptionally bespoke requirement.

If your football ground lease expires then what? You rent elsewhere?  Or you fold? Or you spend hundreds of millions building a new stadium. Basically you are fucked.  It is just not comparable.  

West Ham have a 99 yr lease at absolutely give away terms. They are not comparable.

9 yrs left on the lease will put off most sensible investors.

Like I said, lease terms are important. Does anyone know the renewal rights? Does is sit inside or outside the Act?

As someone who knows precisely zero about this type of thing, how much of an issue is us getting a lease extension going to be?  

All depends on what's written in the lease. Sangaard hired expensive lawyers, so you would think they did a proper job on protecting his interests (and the subsequent DD of the current owners). If it sits outside the protection of the Landlord & Tenants Act, then we are screwed. It's basic property law but with a leasehold business, the wording of the lease is everything. Anyone got a copy? It would take a 10 minute scan to see how screwed or not we are. 

As Kafka positions it is all in the terms of the Leasehold. On the basis of the nature of the Clear Ocean Capital - Staprix NV transaction and the Legal Firm acting for Sandgaard a failure to secure protection under the Landlord & Tenants Act would probably present as an oversight too far.

That said any tenancy can come with its problem and would be seen by some as a barrier to investment. Put simply the ownership of a Stadium presents as a guarantee to investors of the ability to trade/ operate without interference within facilities specifically designed for the nature of your trading operations.

The ownership of The Valley presents as a guarantee to investors of the ability to trade/ operate within facilities specifically designed for the nature of your trading operations within your historic market and primary catchment area.

It is precisely why Staprix NV had I believed internally positioned its valuation of said assets at the level of costs any new party would face in having to acquire the land and build a comparable facility within such a trading location. Those costs will only rise. To put it bluntly it is hostage pricing.

A hostage pricing valuation which will continue to ease the pain to the Staprix NV balance sheet which with the shareholding in Baton 2010 Limited and the ESI exit plan was probably closer to £70-80mn.

Staprix NV will have used best efforts to use the debt to write down corporate profits for tax purposes and will ultimately assumed it into the investment funding of the company against the corporate asset portfolio. The Duchatelet dynasty will no doubt continue to invest its significant liquidity surpluses in light of assumed continuing Melexis dividends. 

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Rothko said:

yeah all that, but good luck with the politics of getting that through City Hall or when it gets to Ministers, with the housing minister being the local MP at the moment 

Not sure this lot give a shit about who they upset tbh; and the housing minister will need to show a pain of pain in the constituency they’re in if they are going to put a significant squeeze on every other MP’s constituency to deliver new homes.

besides, how many of the local electorate are Charlton fans ? I doubt it’s that many these days.

Quite a few, also the politics of it will be terrible, the Mayor be it Sadiq or whoever wins for Labour next time round won't say yes. 

Will the new football regulator have powers in this area? I haven't read enough but you'd expect any form of governance bill would protect stadia

Airman Brown said:

To be clear, the lease sits outside the Act - there is no right of renewal. This is explicit in its terms.

We need to bear in mind that while the lease was amended at the time Clear Ocean Capital acquired CAFC Limited, it is still ESI’s lease.

Sandgaard’s acquisition was fundamentally foolhardy, even if it was done with the best of intentions. His assumptions about the business were hopelessly optimistic, just like those of his predecessors and successors. He wouldn’t have been deterred by the fact the lease sat outside the Act, even when his lawyers explained it to him. It doesn’t require the lawyers to have made an oversight - just Sandgaard to be naive, which he certainly was.

Thank you for the clarity. Hugely disappointing though it is. 

Grapevine49 said:

Airman Brown said:

To be clear, the lease sits outside the Act - there is no right of renewal. This is explicit in its terms.

We need to bear in mind that while the lease was amended at the time Clear Ocean Capital acquired CAFC Limited, it is still ESI’s lease.

Sandgaard’s acquisition was fundamentally foolhardy, even if it was done with the best of intentions. His assumptions about the business were hopelessly optimistic, just like those of his predecessors and successors. He wouldn’t have been deterred by the fact the lease sat outside the Act, even when his lawyers explained it to him. It doesn’t require the lawyers to have made an oversight - just Sandgaard to be naive, which he certainly was.

Thank you for the clarity. Hugely disappointing though it is. 

This is from the original lease. There is nothing which changes it in the variation. 
For those unclear what it means:
“The right to renewal is outlined in Section 24 of the Act, it establishes the right of business tenants to apply for a new tenancy upon the expiry of their existing lease. This provision grants tenants to security of tenure, ensuring they have the opportunity to continue their occupancy of the premises for ongoing business operations. However, if these sections are being excluded by a lease, the tenant will not have security of tenure and will therefore lose the automatic right to renew the lease at the end of the term. Tenants may face the risk of losing the premises if the landlord decides not to renew the lease or offers less favourable terms upon renewal.”

Luton Town rejects with an inability to run or pass creatively should not be on the list.

fenaddick said:

killerandflash said:

fenaddick said:

killerandflash said:

For all his faults, the responsibility for the dreadful football on display doesn't rest with Methven, as he's not responsible for the bizarre formations, crude 1980s Wimbledon tactics and signing Nathan Jones' old boys.

He sort of is though. NJ will have had to present the style of play he wants to make and the type of players he would bring in during his interview(s)

Methven isn't responsible for the playing side, that's Scott and Rodwell.

And even with the latter 2, it's not as if Jones said he was going to deliver ineffective hoofball in his interview.

We have much better players than Crawley. But badly coached and managed. 

I just don't believe he doesn't get involved in the football side at all.

I agree that NJ probably didn't quite say this was his plan. The reality is probably somewhere between what we've both said

Ive attended afew U21 matches, CM was there each time

KingKinsella said:

fenaddick said:

killerandflash said:

fenaddick said:

killerandflash said:

For all his faults, the responsibility for the dreadful football on display doesn't rest with Methven, as he's not responsible for the bizarre formations, crude 1980s Wimbledon tactics and signing Nathan Jones' old boys.

He sort of is though. NJ will have had to present the style of play he wants to make and the type of players he would bring in during his interview(s)

Methven isn't responsible for the playing side, that's Scott and Rodwell.

And even with the latter 2, it's not as if Jones said he was going to deliver ineffective hoofball in his interview.

We have much better players than Crawley. But badly coached and managed. 

I just don't believe he doesn't get involved in the football side at all.

I agree that NJ probably didn't quite say this was his plan. The reality is probably somewhere between what we've both said

Ive attended afew U21 matches, CM was there each time

Good, that means he’s taking an interest. I don’t have a problem with any staff watching any of our teams play. That should be encouraged. The issue is if he’s making granular decisions about football

RonnieMoore said:

ElfsborgAddick said:

Without any ITK knowledge whatsoever, I have said all along that we'll end up leaving The Valley.

This was the end game for Dushitelet, I hope I am wrong.

Your wrong.…… talks have taken place and its top of the agenda for the new owners but there no
rush as we have an excellent agreement in place  and still 9/10 years left on the lease... 

Now that Airman has clarified the renewal clauses, I don't see how the Agreement can be described as excellent, other than from Duchelet's pov. It's a ticking time bomb. 

I’m wondering if we are more  vulnerable to new owners with ulterior motives if the club owns the valley. More than happy to be corrected.