Apparently a fee had been agreed to sell club but not the training ground as RM wants at least his money back hense why i post like bbc link from 4 years ago
The club had to say something as they were slated for not doing so last time
I very much doubt that was the reason they went public.
Me too. And if this Belgian deal was progressed to a stage no further than the Harris one had been,ie before DD,then why did the club release that statement on the OS? Surely they must have been aware of the possibility of the deal falling through at the same stage?
Suspect they went public following previous criticism that they made no comments to us fans.
I think we have all learned by now the last thing they would worry about is criticism from fans.
The very very rare instances anything has been issued by the club in terms of ownership, it has been very carefully worded and released for a specific reason. If it simply wanted this deal to just continue and complete then nothing would have been said, particularly as nothing had leaked out publicly about the Belgium interest.
It was released because either they wanted to scare other interested parties into upping their game quickly, or chivvy this one along by putting pressure on the Belgium to see it other the line. The ongoing rumours of other interested party / parties would suggest the former.
As said before, my view is our current owners are chancers who will take the estate agent approach of doing everything they can to drive up / hold up a price, and i wouldn't be surprised if on more than one occassion it has backfired on them. Massive game-playing in place IMO.
Apparently a fee had been agreed to sell club but not the training ground as RM wants at least his money back hense why i post like bbc link from 4 years ago
Find that hard to believe. RBS have a mortgage on the Valley and Training ground for the money lent to build the North Stand. Currently at £4m. It would all be part of the one price for the club as the Club owns the training ground and Valley and the Bank have a charge on it.
Apparently a fee had been agreed to sell club but not the training ground as RM wants at least his money back hense why i post like bbc link from 4 years ago
Find that hard to believe. RBS have a mortgage on the Valley and Training ground for the money lent to build the North Stand. Currently at £4m. It would all be part of the one price for the club as the Club owns the training ground and Valley and the Bank have a charge on it.
But the club doesnt own it, RM does? Would that make a difference?
I can't believe that all is on the os after 4 days is just that poxy one paragraph on the "take over". Even if they just updated it to "talks are on going" or something. It shows a distinct lack of respect to the fans IMO
Maybe Roland doesn't want anymore conjecture during negotiations? What's more important? A takeover or the fans being informed?
This is a BUSINESS transaction after all, and all sorts of negotiations could be going on in the background.
Everybody should take a chill pill, and let the people involved get on with their jobs, and make sure that what comes out of it is right for ALL parties.
This would be the same people that have done their jobs so well over the last three years that we are currently a football club essentially without a football pitch fit to be called a football pitch.
or that have done enough over the last three years to ensure not only that we still have a football club, but that we aren't still playing the likes of Shrewsbury and Stevenage, have a legend as manager and still have our best players.
I trust them to get the right result.
Oh, so you're a fan of the current owners. Why didn't you mention it before.
I blame Airman BrownACV Richard Murray. We're running out of people to blame for failed takeovers. At this rate it won't be long before someone blames the current owners.
Apparently a fee had been agreed to sell club but not the training ground as RM wants at least his money back hense why i post like bbc link from 4 years ago
Find that hard to believe. RBS have a mortgage on the Valley and Training ground for the money lent to build the North Stand. Currently at £4m. It would all be part of the one price for the club as the Club owns the training ground and Valley and the Bank have a charge on it.
But the club doesnt own it, RM does? Would that make a difference?
Don't think so. Valley and Sparrows Lane belong to the Club.
I can't believe that all is on the os after 4 days is just that poxy one paragraph on the "take over". Even if they just updated it to "talks are on going" or something. It shows a distinct lack of respect to the fans IMO
Maybe Roland doesn't want anymore conjecture during negotiations? What's more important? A takeover or the fans being informed?
This is a BUSINESS transaction after all, and all sorts of negotiations could be going on in the background.
Everybody should take a chill pill, and let the people involved get on with their jobs, and make sure that what comes out of it is right for ALL parties.
This would be the same people that have done their jobs so well over the last three years that we are currently a football club essentially without a football pitch fit to be called a football pitch.
or that have done enough over the last three years to ensure not only that we still have a football club, but that we aren't still playing the likes of Shrewsbury and Stevenage, have a legend as manager and still have our best players.
I trust them to get the right result.
Oh, so you're a fan of the current owners. Why didn't you mention it before.
Sorry forgot this was an anti-board forum.
its taken a while but atleast you get it now pal 8)
I think it's fairly clear the Josh Harris takeover was expected to go through at the end of November. I'm confident that was the background to the incident with the wages. As such I'd expect the playing side and therefore Prothero, who has told us in the programme it's his job to keep lists, to have target signings for January, subject to budget and his holiday arrangements.
It's frustrating waiting to see whether a takeover will happen, particularly given what may unfold if it doesn't. However if you look at the sale as a commercial transaction, what's been happening is a predictable result of the owners not selling or perhaps not being able to sell sooner.
Our owners' negotiating position is getting weaker by the month. Any buyer will know this and will use the DD process to drive the price down by identifying negatives that they will claim weren't factored into their baseline offer. The only leverage the owners have got to shore up the price is by trying to get get other potential buyers involved to create a bit of competition. Or at least the appearance of it.
Personally, although I'm a ST holder I've lost interest in the whole takeover saga. If we sell we sell. If we don't, we don't. At least we'll know in the next couple of weeks whether any takeover will be completed to enable the squad to be freshened up.
It's frustrating waiting to see whether a takeover will happen, particularly given what may unfold if it doesn't. However if you look at the sale as a commercial transaction, what's been happening is a predictable result of the owners not selling or perhaps not being able to sell sooner.
Our owners' negotiating position is getting weaker by the month. Any buyer will know this and will use the DD process to drive the price down by identifying negatives that they will claim weren't factored into their baseline offer. The only leverage the owners have got to shore up the price is by trying to get get other potential buyers involved to create a bit of competition. Or at least the appearance of it.
Personally, although I'm a ST holder I've lost interest in the whole takeover saga. If we sell we sell. If we don't, we don't. At least we'll know in the next couple of weeks whether any takeover will be completed to enable the squad to be freshened up.
this but also if we don't then I hope that the squad have more guts for a fight than many on here who seem to bottle it when the going gets tough by demanding more but offering little back in support
I don't understand all this cloak and dagger stuff, okay in normal business this might be the case, but with a football club I'd say it's essential to be as transparent as possible. After all 99% of their business comes from the fans. I ain't talking about every little detail or even names at this point, but just basic one liners. As for flapping, this could make or break Charlton Athletic, so yes I am a little bit eager for a glint of infirmation meself
The problem is, Rob, as supporters, of course we are all crying out for information.
But, as has been pointed out, neither the present owners, or ANY potential new owners, are NOT supporters. So, to them, all it is is a business transaction.
In which case, they're probably treating like they were negotiating the selling of the local corner shop, and keeping their cards very close to their respective chests.
Funny you should say that, cause I had a corner shop up Grove Park once upon a time. And therefore, I once took part in the sale of one, gotta say it was pretty cut throat too, geezer knocked me for a few grand right on completion, so I'd say, seller beware!
Nice to see a bit of levity on this thread, rather than all the wrist slitting!
The problem is not necessarily the purchaser. For the sale to go through there has to be a majority in favour and if Jiminez and Slater (Cash) are at loggerheads there is every chance our Belgian suitor is going to get p***ed-off!
It a game of poker. Cash wants to get some or all of his investment back. There may be guaranteed returns for Cash which cannot be met at current offer levels so he may have to take a haircut. Others have a more benign stake but need to ensure they are protected in any sale. The buyers will be trying to get it as cheaply as possible. Twas ever thus.
Apparently a fee had been agreed to sell club but not the training ground as RM wants at least his money back hense why i post like bbc link from 4 years ago
Find that hard to believe. RBS have a mortgage on the Valley and Training ground for the money lent to build the North Stand. Currently at £4m. It would all be part of the one price for the club as the Club owns the training ground and Valley and the Bank have a charge on it.
But the club doesnt own it, RM does? Would that make a difference?
If RM or one of his companies owns the training ground then the RBS will be reliant on third party security (could either be a direct charge over the land or the land is charged in support of RM's personal guarantee) behind the North Stand loan to the 'football club'. Therefore RM will need to be involved in any discussions with RBS regarding a restructuring of the loan unless of course the loan is repaid by the new owners, when 'RMs' security would be released. He could then either sell or lease the training ground to the new owners.
Although those sales were formally approved by shareholders at a General Meeting, to my recollection none of the transactions ever actually happened. Therefore the training ground is still owned by the club.
Cash has clearly decided he wants out of the venture so I doubt he would want to drag it out. TJ clearly wants some kind of return, even if it is less than he might have planned for. From what we know of the financing it is all a bit messy - with loans to this person or that payable on promotion - this person owns this and that person owns that! I would expect all of that to fill a potential buyer with caution. And lots of potential for misunderstandings which threaten deals.
I would have expected a message from the club by now though if the deal was really dead or at least the removal of the takeover message from 3 days ago, which is still on the official site.
Although those sales were formally approved by shareholders at a General Meeting, to my recollection none of the transactions ever actually happened. Therefore the training ground is still owned by the club.
Correct.
The Club owns the Valley and the training ground not Richard Murray.
Although those sales were formally approved by shareholders at a General Meeting, to my recollection none of the transactions ever actually happened. Therefore the training ground is still owned by the club.
Correct.
The Club owns the Valley and the training ground not Richard Murray.
In that case that's one less complication for AdamAddick to worry about.
If what has been reported by Angeldust is correct, it is a small hitch that has turned into a deal breaker. So something would have come out that wasn't immediately clear and presumuably it has a significant cost implication. If there are no other interested parties, you wouldn't dismiss this as a ploy to get the price down as if you are serious enough to get to this point, you must want to buy the club. Maybe it is now in TJs hands to lower the price to save the deal.
Although those sales were formally approved by shareholders at a General Meeting, to my recollection none of the transactions ever actually happened. Therefore the training ground is still owned by the club.
Correct.
The Club owns the Valley and the training ground not Richard Murray.
Thanks guys I thought I remembered this but hey I'm 55 this year and my memory isn't so hot :-)
Although those sales were formally approved by shareholders at a General Meeting, to my recollection none of the transactions ever actually happened. Therefore the training ground is still owned by the club.
This is what the due diligence document said about the training ground: "The Group also holds eight freeholds and one leasehold property in relation to the training ground. These are carried at £5.8m in the [2012] accounts."
It is reported elsewhere that the TG is valued on the basis of its current use. I assume that the TG is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited (like the stadium). What is odd to me is that while CAFC Ltd pays a nominal rent (or rather owes it) for The Valley, it does not appear to do so for the training ground.
Comments
Airman BrownACVRichard Murray. We're running out of people to blame for failed takeovers. At this rate it won't be long before someone blames the current owners.its taken a while but atleast you get it now pal 8)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stm
Our owners' negotiating position is getting weaker by the month. Any buyer will know this and will use the DD process to drive the price down by identifying negatives that they will claim weren't factored into their baseline offer. The only leverage the owners have got to shore up the price is by trying to get get other potential buyers involved to create a bit of competition. Or at least the appearance of it.
Personally, although I'm a ST holder I've lost interest in the whole takeover saga. If we sell we sell. If we don't, we don't. At least we'll know in the next couple of weeks whether any takeover will be completed to enable the squad to be freshened up.
this but also if we don't then I hope that the squad have more guts for a fight than many on here who seem to bottle it when the going gets tough by demanding more but offering little back in support
That's 2009. IIRC that sale didn't go through but in any case we've had two changes of ownership since then. Baton 2010 and the current T/O in 2011
I would have expected a message from the club by now though if the deal was really dead or at least the removal of the takeover message from 3 days ago, which is still on the official site.
The Club owns the Valley and the training ground not Richard Murray.
Nothing on the OS, or Twitter, Neither can i read anywhere else that this deal is dead ..
Just wait.
It is reported elsewhere that the TG is valued on the basis of its current use. I assume that the TG is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited (like the stadium). What is odd to me is that while CAFC Ltd pays a nominal rent (or rather owes it) for The Valley, it does not appear to do so for the training ground.