[quote][cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Depends on shareholding doesn't it? Once a new owner has 90% they can just get the share back at a minimum price?[/quote]
Legally they have to offer to buy the remaining shares at the same price they paid for the rest of their stake.
disagree. They are talking which is good and hopefully sometging that can continue.
Not sure about saying the board dont want the forum either. They didnt have to accept the idea, waggott and white didnt have to spend time working on it, murray and chappell didnt have to meet with them or agree to do the Q & A. So its not perfect but that is an opportunity to build on.
Sorry if this theory has been floated elsewhere but it is possible that the reason that the takeover talks are so protracted and, to quote RM & DC, “extremely complex” is that what is being discussed, among other things, is a separation of the ownership of the Club and The Valley?
As Henry observed, there have been some unusual phrases used in the statements from the Club: for example, saying in response to the FF on the subject of an ST that “the existing conditions referred to will change if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment” and, in its statement on 17th July, talking about the takeover in terms of “an acquisition of some of the assets and liabilities of Charlton Athletic plc”.
The basic argument between the board (in fact, we are talking only about those who are the larger current shareholders and who are also creditors of the club via convertible bonds and loans) and the “consortium” is not likely to be about share value. RM has already prepared shareholders for a total write-off by highlighting the amount that the directors are writing off. The sticking point is likely to have been about what % of the convertible bonds and other loans made by the leading directors to the Club would be repaid as a result of the acquisition. It is quite possible (many might say understandable) that at least some of the creditor-directors have taken an intractable position on how much they want back.
So why are the talks seemingly still ongoing? It’s anyone’s guess what the mechanics of a compromise deal might be (other than it would no doubt have a lot of bells and whistles) but it seems possible that it could have the broad effect of the current directors who are lenders & holders of the convertible bond exchanging them (plus or minus some cash to balance valuations) for ownership of The Valley, with the consortium becoming the new owner of the Club with the benefit of a long-term lease to play at The Valley.
I haven’t the feintest idea if this is actually what is on the table but it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if it turned out like this. After all, in the course of looking for new owners, some of the current directors have acquired the Training Ground and are leasing it back to the Club. Why not The Valley aswell? It doesn’t need any major capital expenditure that might complicate matters.
Some might regard such an outcome as good news as it would substantially reduce the net amount paid by the consortium for the club enabling more investment in the squad. The ground would be owned by long-term “friends of the Club”.
On the other hand, Charlton fans might have cause to say, in the immortal words of a famous baseball player, “it’s like déjà vu all over again”.
You could well be right Peanuts but any such arrangement would surely be unattractive to the buyer. Obviously they'd pay a lot less but I think the ownership of the valley would be one of our real selling points.
If there was such an arrangement, as I think you're alluding, the liklehood of relocation is higher at some indeterminate time in the future.
[cite]Posted By: nottsaddick[/cite]You could well be right Peanuts but any such arrangement would surely be unattractive to the buyer. Obviously they'd pay a lot less but I think the ownership of the valley would be one of our real selling points.
If there was such an arrangement, as I think you're alluding, the liklehood of relocation is higher at some indeterminate time in the future.
Agreed (we should know that owning your own ground is highly preferable) but (a) we don't know anything about the potential buyers or their finances (b) its not unusual for clubs not to own their ground and (c) we're in a dire financial position, not so much because the directors necessarily need to raise cash personally but, as a collection of large but minority shareholders, none of them has the clout to buy out the others or the appetite to throw good money after bad to maintain the status quo. Indeed, with the security on both sides of a long lease, they may easily persuade themselves that the additional finance that would be available for the squad would make the prospects of both parties (owners and landlords) more attractive.
Who knows what's going on? Something complex seemingly. I am just saying we should not rule out something as major as this - what would the reaction of Charlton fans be however if it were to happen like this?
Of course I may just be following the time-honoured tradition of this board by figuring that 2 + 2 = 5
As the American police would say "we're not ruling anything out or anything in".
As ever Peanuts a rational hypothesis. If we accept for the sake of argument that is is correct then the issues becomes on what terms will the Valley be leased and what conditions placed on its use and future sale, first buy options, calculation of buy back price, level of rent, full maintenance lease?, how, if at all will the Valley be further development and options for moving away from the Valley.
BTW I like Deja Vu but I still think Neil's solo stuff is better.
[cite]Posted By: carly burn[/cite]Time to start demanding what the hell is going on.Woefully short of bodies ,and time rapidly running out to get any.They can't keep running forever.
I can tell you what is going on their is no money available due to the fact that a possible takeover is occurring, done.
I realise we want some information and it's deeply frustrating but I just wonder what benefit will be derived from the FF asking the same questions they asked last time. It was left that they would communicate when they are able, they haven't communicated, thus they are not able so to do. I do not believe that they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It's just taking a long time. My guess is that there probably have been hitches given the comments about transfers of Gray being held up etc. Those hitches could well be major ones and have needed a lot of effort to overcome. We may be within a gnats c*ck of a deal or a flies wing away from the whole thing being dropped. I am as certain as I can be (without any inside knowledge) that they are doing everything they can to reach a deal.
How could anyone from the Fans Forum know anymore than you or I?
All they can do is ask the questions and you know as well as I do what the score is at the moment....Give them a break, they are pushing and prodding, but right now there isnt an answer.
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]bit OTT again carly.
We are a very very soft touch.
For what? Being pissed off at the length of time is one thing, we're all feeling that. What realistically can they do? Ask the same questions for which the answer has already been given, - "we'll tell you when we can".
What on earth do you think they are trying to avoid by saying nowt?
[cite]Posted By: RedZed333[/cite]Didn't a FF member drop a huge hint in the paper the other day about news being imminent....?
Geoff Billingsley's comments in NewsShopper were very much that - Geoff's personal views and nothing to do with his position as one of the Fans' Forum representatives. He passed on in good faith some information he gained at the weekend of the Hartlepool match, but which has subsequently proved to be less than accurate. The other members of the Fans' Forum were unaware of the basis for Geoff's opinion, and maybe he was ill-advised to make such a bullish statement public, but that was his choice. We have no problem with that, but it shouldn't be assumed that we are any more 'in the know' than the rest of you. If there was more to tell, we would - be assured of that.
As Tel says, the club have undertaken to give us more news as soon as it is available. While the Fans' Forum will continue to press for updates, the fact remains that, when there is nothing new to say, then nothing gets said.
We have been speaking to Steve Waggott this week about arranging our next meeting with the club and had hoped for something on 27th Aug. However, Steve's advice is that we need to push this back to early September "when the directors are back from their holidays".
I confess that this statement hardly left me with the warm glow that take-over talks are progressing at a furious pace on a daily basis, but maybe these things are all done via 'text on the beach' rather than around the boardroom table.
Cheers Dave. Bit unfortunate that. I had assumed that Geoff was making these comments in his capacity as an FF member. Would have prefered that the distinction was made clearer at the time. So they come back from their holidays and then catch up on the gold courses and then....................? Is there no end to this?
Directors on their holidays, until atleast the end of the August........therefore surley nothing can be concluded until everyone is sitting around the table, all board members accept the offer should one be offered, so all these stories we are reading,about this week, last week or another week has now to be taken with a pinch of salt, the worrieing thing is that if the current board as well as new owners would want to build on the start we have had, and do the deal before the transfer deadline day and bring in some fresh faces to strengthen the squad, it would appear that one of the parties is dragging their heels
It should be pretty easy to work out if they are actually on holiday as SW suggests, or that SW is giving the FF the run around again and the FF are rolling over and taking it - again.
When there was some criticism of the FF a couple of weeks back I put it down to some individuals on this site who had previously been involved with the club wanting a bit of 'glory' back.
But, when some pillock from the FF goes shooting his mouth off to the local press so irresponsibly I'm now thinking the critics were right.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]why BFR do you have a hatred of the Fans Forum?[/quote]
I'm asking a question...SW says that a meeting can't take place because several board members are on their holidays. Now we have plenty of people with connections to the club who can quietly check that out and so from that we can determine if SW is stringing the FF along.
Besides that as I've previously suggested while it's a nice thing for the club to do it is flawed, At least with the Supporters' Director we got to choose the Director, here the members are being chosen by the Board. Secondly, if the SD who was sitting on the Board found it difficult to achieve anything, how is the FF going to be any different? All I've seen so far is a lot of words, but precious meaningful action. To date two FF members have resigned, albeit for different reasons, but one seemed to be for the reasons I suggest, that the club are not taking it seriously. They don't even seem to be presenting a united front - this guy who writes in the Newsshopper has at least twice, including this week, suggested that the T/O is imminent, that again doesn't give the FF much credibility. I don't "hate" the FF, far from it as a means of communication it is important, just that it needs a broader remit, without us the fans choosing the members and with a narrow remit I think the club will find it easy to ignore, as they appear to be doing. Maybe in your binary world that's hate, in mine it's about having a clear direction and purpose which the FF currently lacks.
Comments
Board: 'No it's not'
Fan's Forum: 'oh'
Nothing's changed and there is no news.
Legally they have to offer to buy the remaining shares at the same price they paid for the rest of their stake.
Board: 'No it's not'
Fan's Forum: 'oh'
Nothing's changed and there is no news.[/quote]
We shouldn't knock them for asking, but the Club's response was predictable.
Not sure about saying the board dont want the forum either. They didnt have to accept the idea, waggott and white didnt have to spend time working on it, murray and chappell didnt have to meet with them or agree to do the Q & A. So its not perfect but that is an opportunity to build on.
As Henry observed, there have been some unusual phrases used in the statements from the Club: for example, saying in response to the FF on the subject of an ST that “the existing conditions referred to will change if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment” and, in its statement on 17th July, talking about the takeover in terms of “an acquisition of some of the assets and liabilities of Charlton Athletic plc”.
The basic argument between the board (in fact, we are talking only about those who are the larger current shareholders and who are also creditors of the club via convertible bonds and loans) and the “consortium” is not likely to be about share value. RM has already prepared shareholders for a total write-off by highlighting the amount that the directors are writing off. The sticking point is likely to have been about what % of the convertible bonds and other loans made by the leading directors to the Club would be repaid as a result of the acquisition. It is quite possible (many might say understandable) that at least some of the creditor-directors have taken an intractable position on how much they want back.
So why are the talks seemingly still ongoing? It’s anyone’s guess what the mechanics of a compromise deal might be (other than it would no doubt have a lot of bells and whistles) but it seems possible that it could have the broad effect of the current directors who are lenders & holders of the convertible bond exchanging them (plus or minus some cash to balance valuations) for ownership of The Valley, with the consortium becoming the new owner of the Club with the benefit of a long-term lease to play at The Valley.
I haven’t the feintest idea if this is actually what is on the table but it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if it turned out like this. After all, in the course of looking for new owners, some of the current directors have acquired the Training Ground and are leasing it back to the Club. Why not The Valley aswell? It doesn’t need any major capital expenditure that might complicate matters.
Some might regard such an outcome as good news as it would substantially reduce the net amount paid by the consortium for the club enabling more investment in the squad. The ground would be owned by long-term “friends of the Club”.
On the other hand, Charlton fans might have cause to say, in the immortal words of a famous baseball player, “it’s like déjà vu all over again”.
If there was such an arrangement, as I think you're alluding, the liklehood of relocation is higher at some indeterminate time in the future.
Agreed (we should know that owning your own ground is highly preferable) but (a) we don't know anything about the potential buyers or their finances (b) its not unusual for clubs not to own their ground and (c) we're in a dire financial position, not so much because the directors necessarily need to raise cash personally but, as a collection of large but minority shareholders, none of them has the clout to buy out the others or the appetite to throw good money after bad to maintain the status quo. Indeed, with the security on both sides of a long lease, they may easily persuade themselves that the additional finance that would be available for the squad would make the prospects of both parties (owners and landlords) more attractive.
Who knows what's going on? Something complex seemingly. I am just saying we should not rule out something as major as this - what would the reaction of Charlton fans be however if it were to happen like this?
Of course I may just be following the time-honoured tradition of this board by figuring that 2 + 2 = 5
As ever Peanuts a rational hypothesis. If we accept for the sake of argument that is is correct then the issues becomes on what terms will the Valley be leased and what conditions placed on its use and future sale, first buy options, calculation of buy back price, level of rent, full maintenance lease?, how, if at all will the Valley be further development and options for moving away from the Valley.
BTW I like Deja Vu but I still think Neil's solo stuff is better.
Great.
I realise we want some information and it's deeply frustrating but I just wonder what benefit will be derived from the FF asking the same questions they asked last time. It was left that they would communicate when they are able, they haven't communicated, thus they are not able so to do. I do not believe that they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It's just taking a long time. My guess is that there probably have been hitches given the comments about transfers of Gray being held up etc. Those hitches could well be major ones and have needed a lot of effort to overcome. We may be within a gnats c*ck of a deal or a flies wing away from the whole thing being dropped. I am as certain as I can be (without any inside knowledge) that they are doing everything they can to reach a deal.
yeah... shows what the FF knows. ;0)
All they can do is ask the questions and you know as well as I do what the score is at the moment....Give them a break, they are pushing and prodding, but right now there isnt an answer.
We are a very very soft touch.
For what? Being pissed off at the length of time is one thing, we're all feeling that. What realistically can they do? Ask the same questions for which the answer has already been given, - "we'll tell you when we can".
What on earth do you think they are trying to avoid by saying nowt?
Geoff Billingsley's comments in NewsShopper were very much that - Geoff's personal views and nothing to do with his position as one of the Fans' Forum representatives. He passed on in good faith some information he gained at the weekend of the Hartlepool match, but which has subsequently proved to be less than accurate. The other members of the Fans' Forum were unaware of the basis for Geoff's opinion, and maybe he was ill-advised to make such a bullish statement public, but that was his choice. We have no problem with that, but it shouldn't be assumed that we are any more 'in the know' than the rest of you. If there was more to tell, we would - be assured of that.
As Tel says, the club have undertaken to give us more news as soon as it is available. While the Fans' Forum will continue to press for updates, the fact remains that, when there is nothing new to say, then nothing gets said.
We have been speaking to Steve Waggott this week about arranging our next meeting with the club and had hoped for something on 27th Aug. However, Steve's advice is that we need to push this back to early September "when the directors are back from their holidays".
I confess that this statement hardly left me with the warm glow that take-over talks are progressing at a furious pace on a daily basis, but maybe these things are all done via 'text on the beach' rather than around the boardroom table.
It should be pretty easy to work out if they are actually on holiday as SW suggests, or that SW is giving the FF the run around again and the FF are rolling over and taking it - again.
But, when some pillock from the FF goes shooting his mouth off to the local press so irresponsibly I'm now thinking the critics were right.
I'm asking a question...SW says that a meeting can't take place because several board members are on their holidays. Now we have plenty of people with connections to the club who can quietly check that out and so from that we can determine if SW is stringing the FF along.
Besides that as I've previously suggested while it's a nice thing for the club to do it is flawed, At least with the Supporters' Director we got to choose the Director, here the members are being chosen by the Board. Secondly, if the SD who was sitting on the Board found it difficult to achieve anything, how is the FF going to be any different? All I've seen so far is a lot of words, but precious meaningful action. To date two FF members have resigned, albeit for different reasons, but one seemed to be for the reasons I suggest, that the club are not taking it seriously. They don't even seem to be presenting a united front - this guy who writes in the Newsshopper has at least twice, including this week, suggested that the T/O is imminent, that again doesn't give the FF much credibility. I don't "hate" the FF, far from it as a means of communication it is important, just that it needs a broader remit, without us the fans choosing the members and with a narrow remit I think the club will find it easy to ignore, as they appear to be doing. Maybe in your binary world that's hate, in mine it's about having a clear direction and purpose which the FF currently lacks.