Nothing to do with EFL addicted passed that info on weeks ago
It’s all down to money
I don’t believe they have the funds they agreed to pay that’s why they are delaying
It may be they have lowered the offer and RD is playing hard ball
Either way they either don’t have it or are unwilling to spend it
The other interested parties are miles away from getting close
Directors ain’t been paid off or even an agreement reached so it’s not about clear tittles
It’s just money money money money
Sorry to get on your case again, but as the Anti-Aussie- Influencer on here, you need to face some facts.
When Addickted "passed on that info" you chose to ignore it, even when we discussed it privately, because it blew a bloody great hole in your scenario. It meant that the EFL didn't agree with you that they don't have the funds. They submitted papers to show that they do, its part of the test.
You now at least have the grace to concede that as opposed to not having the money, it is equally likely that they simply don't want pay that ludicrous amount. I will leave it to you to ponder how very different those two scenarios are.
Nothing to do with EFL addicted passed that info on weeks ago
It’s all down to money
I don’t believe they have the funds they agreed to pay that’s why they are delaying
It may be they have lowered the offer and RD is playing hard ball
Either way they either don’t have it or are unwilling to spend it
The other interested parties are miles away from getting close
Directors ain’t been paid off or even an agreement reached so it’s not about clear tittles
It’s just money money money money
Sorry to get on your case again, but as the Anti-Aussie- Influencer on here, you need to face some facts.
When Addickted "passed on that info" you chose to ignore it, even when we discussed it privately, because it blew a bloody great hole in your scenario. It meant that the EFL didn't agree with you that they don't have the funds. They submitted papers to show that they do, its part of the test.
You now at least have the grace to concede that as opposed to not having the money, it is equally likely that they simply don't want pay that ludicrous amount. I will leave it to you to ponder how very different those two scenarios are.
No it never I never used the EFL as proof of my point
And Like it or not PA the aussies ain’t showing the colour of their money and that’s because they haven’t got it or refuse to spend it
The biggest shame here that is passing you by is that the Saudi’s had the offer in at the amour RD wanted and the Aussies went and out bid them
I trust the man on here implicitly who told us what the Saudi bid was
The Aussies not following through and letting this one slip gets my goat proper
However the directors loans had not been sorted so it’s not a clear title issue
The offer they made has not been followed through
There is a gap in their funding on the original offer I stick to what I was told and that’s they never had it in the first place
RD is to blame The value may be too high but because 2 bid to his value who’s to say the stupid cnut isn’t within his right to feel he got it spot on
The whole thing is a charade and no one coming out on top whilst we die slowly
Fuck RD Fuck Murray Fuck the Aussie bid Fuck EFL Fuck the Saudi bid for not coming back in
There’s a long long way to go before this is resolved
NLA, you’ve admitted your info comes from the Roland camp. What makes you so sure that their claim that the Aussies don’t have money is so correct? Could it just be that they are not willing to pay the ridiculous asking price? Now that we have two sources saying they passed the fit and proper EFL test that would very much suggest they do have the funds. Could it be your source (the Roland source) is possibly lying? Or a least have a agenda for spreading the rumour that they don’t hand the funds? He does have a habit of not telling the truth.
I'm not saying you don't ask valid questions, the RD camp haven't been known for their honesty. But I think we can all agree that Roland wants to sell and both parties have said a price has been agreed. So realistically how many different factors could be holding up the deal? Of all the theories I find NLA's the most believable.
Red Henry said the Saudis got the price down to 40.1m he didn’t say if they were prepared to pay that. I think this is much simpler than others are making out. Roland is asking too much money for the club, most parties have walked away, the Aussies are hanging around hoping Roland shifts. Roland is the problem not the different parties trying to buy the club.
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3). Its no massive deal but I’d rather people didn’t think I implied something that I didn’t. In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time, that’d be a pain. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective imho. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. You never told him that they were just opinions, or if you did I didn’t notice. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero. It’s not fair, and I think I’m going to cry.
If 1 is right it would be naughty but I wouldn't blame anybody for doing it. We have had previous interest from Saudis, Chinese and Scots, to name a few, they all stopped short of an official bid? The inflated asking price, maybe the Aussies thought that after DD etc Roly would see sense, fools, and there would be some downward negotiation.
Anyway I would love to be rich that losing a million a month is more palatable than having to agree to a lower selling price.
Isn’t the club wholly owned by Staprix and is in effect just one of its group of companies.
Isn’t there a tax benefit for Roland if one of his companies is losing money ? Is the monthly loss really something less once the final tax burden is taken into account ?
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
I’m on honeymoon in Aruba and still check this thread once or twice a day. I think it’s an addiction
Bahama. Ooh I wanna take you to Bermuda. Bahama. Come on pretty mama.
The only Beach Boys hit not written by Brian Wilson
Apart from Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1964), Do You Wanna Dance and Barbara Ann (1965), Sloop John B (1966), Bluebirds Over The Mountain (1968), I Can Hear Music (1969), Cottonfields (1970), Long Promised Road (1971), California Saga: California (1973), Rock and Roll Music (1975), Peggy Sue (1978), Lady Linda (1979), Come Go With Me (1981), Getcha Back and It's getting Late (1985), She Believes In Love Again and California Dreaming (1986), Wipe Out (1987), Still Cruisin' (1989), Problem Child (1989), Hot Fun in the Summertime (1992), I Can Hear Music (1966).
Thanks @Chizz . I clearly didnt make myself clear, when I said "hit", I meant a number one in the charts.
I’m on honeymoon in Aruba and still check this thread once or twice a day. I think it’s an addiction
Bahama. Ooh I wanna take you to Bermuda. Bahama. Come on pretty mama.
The only Beach Boys hit not written by Brian Wilson
Apart from Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1964), Do You Wanna Dance and Barbara Ann (1965), Sloop John B (1966), Bluebirds Over The Mountain (1968), I Can Hear Music (1969), Cottonfields (1970), Long Promised Road (1971), California Saga: California (1973), Rock and Roll Music (1975), Peggy Sue (1978), Lady Linda (1979), Come Go With Me (1981), Getcha Back and It's getting Late (1985), She Believes In Love Again and California Dreaming (1986), Wipe Out (1987), Still Cruisin' (1989), Problem Child (1989), Hot Fun in the Summertime (1992), I Can Hear Music (1966).
I’m on honeymoon in Aruba and still check this thread once or twice a day. I think it’s an addiction
Bahama. Ooh I wanna take you to Bermuda. Bahama. Come on pretty mama.
The only Beach Boys hit not written by Brian Wilson
Apart from Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1964), Do You Wanna Dance and Barbara Ann (1965), Sloop John B (1966), Bluebirds Over The Mountain (1968), I Can Hear Music (1969), Cottonfields (1970), Long Promised Road (1971), California Saga: California (1973), Rock and Roll Music (1975), Peggy Sue (1978), Lady Linda (1979), Come Go With Me (1981), Getcha Back and It's getting Late (1985), She Believes In Love Again and California Dreaming (1986), Wipe Out (1987), Still Cruisin' (1989), Problem Child (1989), Hot Fun in the Summertime (1992), I Can Hear Music (1966).
He did say hits. And quite a few of those are cover versions. Did Gagey mean songs written by the Beach Boys, but not BW?
Isn’t the club wholly owned by Staprix and is in effect just one of its group of companies.
Isn’t there a tax benefit for Roland if one of his companies is losing money ? Is the monthly loss really something less once the final tax burden is taken into account ?
I really don’t know.
The corporation tax rate in Belgium is around 30% so the losses at Charlton can, in theory, be offset against the Groups overall taxable earnings - i.e. a £10m annual loss at Charlton would reduce the CT by £3m - but it still costs the Staprix Group a net £7m.
I keep reading these assertions that a price was agreed of £40m. I cannot recall where this first came from and crucially why this was considered to be authoritative information.
Just to remind ourselves, £40m would be more than double what he paid 4 years ago. In that time he has taken the club down a division and seen the customer base eroded by 30-50% depending on the measure used. That would reduce the sale value of a normal business. RD has spent £1m on the pitch, and spent a relatively small amount at the training ground. As for the human assets, they have been totally devastated.
What else has happened in 4 years that might increase the sale value? Revenue in the FAPL has twisted up again. However as usual little of that has filtered down the leagues. The buyer needs first to take the club into the 2nd tier, and somehow navigate the financial maelstrom there, before he can even think about reaching profitability in the FAPL.
Property prices in London have risen, but land use on the property assets is so closely proscribed that it cannot possibly justify such an increase in price, especially when other metrics have fallen.
What does the market say? While media reports of sales are hardly reliable, can anyone point to a tier 3 club that has been sold for anywhere near £40m? I don't think so. Furthermore, I have never heard anything about these "Saudis" from anyone except people on CL. But I have spoken with the Blackpool ST secretary who has met two solid potential buyers of Blackpool who both told BST that they had looked at Charlton earlier - and walked away. During the first few months of 2018.
So can anyone with better knowledge of corporate finance than me, e.g @cafcfan spot anything that I have missed? Because if not, we are left with the following conclusion:
The idea that £40m is an offered price is fantasy. Pie in the effing sky. Unicorn talk. No sensible sane business person or group would entertain such a price because there is no rational business reason to pay it.
And that my friends is before we consider what the "sale price", whether its £40m or £4m actually means. What about changes in human asset values? (player sales, how sell ons are dealt with, etc). Remember his exit from Standard Liege. A new owner took over who apparently discovered too late that he had not anticipated certain things that RD thought he was entitled to before exiting.
Please by all means criticise the above, but please try to do so based on normal parameters of business valuation. Lets try to rise above the social media bollocks factory and be clear-eyed.
the Saudi’s showed their money enough to put in a firm offer they reached his number and got gazzumped by people that apart from buying a scarf and getting cheap cheers like wwe wrestlers have done nothing
They then walked away as they were at their number
Not a fake number by fake people
No. The Saudi's clearly didn't have the money to run the club or they simply weren't actually interested in the club.
I am fairly certain our latest bid received was not the same amount as the Aussies bid, however it was also accepted.
If the Saudi's had either the money or the interest, they'd own us by now.
Why they reached their limit and like in all auctions you know when to stop especially when the Aussies wouldn’t stop and seeing as they are only using Monopoly money why should they
Shame you can’t wake up and smell the coffee.
When they buy us I will drink coffee for the first time in years
But my coffee ban is well and truly safe
nla....you seem to be enjoying yourself making us all the more depressed. How much longer are you planning to go on finding countless ways of telling us exactly the same thing over and over again?
I don't think NLA enjoys it at all, I think he's just doing the same as others itk, by relaying what he's been told. The only problem is, people only seem to like good news (whether they know it to be wholly accurate or not) and what NLA is relaying, isn't necessarily what the majority of fans want to hear. The majority want to hear things like "It's gonna be a tough 2 weeks, but it'll be worth it in the end".
It seems to me that if you so much as question the Aussies in anyway, you get laughed at or jumped on.
Isn’t the club wholly owned by Staprix and is in effect just one of its group of companies.
Isn’t there a tax benefit for Roland if one of his companies is losing money ? Is the monthly loss really something less once the final tax burden is taken into account ?
I really don’t know.
The corporation tax rate in Belgium is around 30% so the losses at Charlton can, in theory, be offset against the Groups overall taxable earnings - i.e. a £10m annual loss at Charlton would reduce the CT by £3m - but it still costs the Staprix Group a net £7m.
Is this £7 million loss after taking into account player sales ?
I believe the £40m price tag was mentioned by @Redhenry many months ago. No idea if he is/was itk or whether he made it up. Its taken as gospel now though & like you, I would have thought anything above what he paid (c £18m inc debt) is a pisstake.
I’m on honeymoon in Aruba and still check this thread once or twice a day. I think it’s an addiction
Bahama. Ooh I wanna take you to Bermuda. Bahama. Come on pretty mama.
The only Beach Boys hit not written by Brian Wilson
Apart from Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1964), Do You Wanna Dance and Barbara Ann (1965), Sloop John B (1966), Bluebirds Over The Mountain (1968), I Can Hear Music (1969), Cottonfields (1970), Long Promised Road (1971), California Saga: California (1973), Rock and Roll Music (1975), Peggy Sue (1978), Lady Linda (1979), Come Go With Me (1981), Getcha Back and It's getting Late (1985), She Believes In Love Again and California Dreaming (1986), Wipe Out (1987), Still Cruisin' (1989), Problem Child (1989), Hot Fun in the Summertime (1992), I Can Hear Music (1966).
I’m on honeymoon in Aruba and still check this thread once or twice a day. I think it’s an addiction
Bahama. Ooh I wanna take you to Bermuda. Bahama. Come on pretty mama.
The only Beach Boys hit not written by Brian Wilson
Apart from Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1964), Do You Wanna Dance and Barbara Ann (1965), Sloop John B (1966), Bluebirds Over The Mountain (1968), I Can Hear Music (1969), Cottonfields (1970), Long Promised Road (1971), California Saga: California (1973), Rock and Roll Music (1975), Peggy Sue (1978), Lady Linda (1979), Come Go With Me (1981), Getcha Back and It's getting Late (1985), She Believes In Love Again and California Dreaming (1986), Wipe Out (1987), Still Cruisin' (1989), Problem Child (1989), Hot Fun in the Summertime (1992), I Can Hear Music (1966).
He did say hits. And quite a few of those are cover versions. Did Gagey mean songs written by the Beach Boys, but not BW?
And more importantly to me, I believed GM when he told me.
But a couple of the consortium thought Roland's price was too high. So we wait until another buyer comes along, or he lowers his price, or both. (My speculation here of course).
If your speculation is correct - it raises serious concerns.
We all know that a price of £40mn (or whatever) is a ridiculous over-valuation. But it seems that's what the Australians agreed to pay. (I'd suggest a more realistic price with ALL the Staprix debt written off and an acknowledgement of all the outstanding training ground work would be either something around £5-10mn with the status quo remaining on the ex-directors loans or £8-15mn with clean title.)
NONETHELESS, if £40mn is what the Australians agreed....well, a gentleman's word is his bond and all that....it does not bode well that they are might now be haggling as you suggest. The only conclusion one can reach is that this puts them firmly in one of three categories or possibly a mix of all three:
Option one - spivs - no better than Roland's predecessors; Option two - untrustworthy; or Option three - a bit dim.
We've recent and painful experience of all of those and I don't want to revisit them thanks very much.
Setting aside how obnoxious we perceive Roland to be for a minute, if any of us were him, would we not now to be telling the Aussies to swivel on it and start looking for a sale elsewhere with some more honourable counterparties?
That he apparently hasn't done that surely indicates that it's squeaky bum time for him. But I'm no longer feeling optimistic about what the Roland-free future holds.
The highlighted parts of your post are the big unanswered questions for me.
If the Aussies are anything like what you and others are suggesting then Duchatelet's bum must be well and truly squeaky in terms of selling the club, as not only is he continuing to negotiate with people who you suggest are either chancers or incompetents but, through his representative, it seems he's been prepared to 'misrepresent' the delay in completing the deal as "the Australian consortium have a deal fully agreed and just need to submit final papers to the EFL".
I keep reading these assertions that a price was agreed of £40m. I cannot recall where this first came from and crucially why this was considered to be authoritative information.
Just to remind ourselves, £40m would be more than double what he paid 4 years ago. In that time he has taken the club down a division and seen the customer base eroded by 30-50% depending on the measure used. That would reduce the sale value of a normal business. RD has spent £1m on the pitch, and spent a relatively small amount at the training ground. As for the human assets, they have been totally devastated.
What else has happened in 4 years that might increase the sale value? Revenue in the FAPL has twisted up again. However as usual little of that has filtered down the leagues. The buyer needs first to take the club into the 2nd tier, and somehow navigate the financial maelstrom there, before he can even think about reaching profitability in the FAPL.
Property prices in London have risen, but land use on the property assets is so closely proscribed that it cannot possibly justify such an increase in price, especially when other metrics have fallen.
What does the market say? While media reports of sales are hardly reliable, can anyone point to a tier 3 club that has been sold for anywhere near £40m? I don't think so. Furthermore, I have never heard anything about these "Saudis" from anyone except people on CL. But I have spoken with the Blackpool ST secretary who has met two solid potential buyers of Blackpool who both told BST that they had looked at Charlton earlier - and walked away. During the first few months of 2018.
So can anyone with better knowledge of corporate finance than me, e.g @cafcfan spot anything that I have missed? Because if not, we are left with the following conclusion:
The idea that £40m is an offered price is fantasy. Pie in the effing sky. Unicorn talk. No sensible sane business person or group would entertain such a price because there is no rational business reason to pay it.
And that my friends is before we consider what the "sale price", whether its £40m or £4m actually means. What about changes in human asset values? (player sales, how sell ons are dealt with, etc). Remember his exit from Standard Liege. A new owner took over who apparently discovered too late that he had not anticipated certain things that RD thought he was entitled to before exiting.
Please by all means criticise the above, but please try to do so based on normal parameters of business valuation. Lets try to rise above the social media bollocks factory and be clear-eyed.
I’m on honeymoon in Aruba and still check this thread once or twice a day. I think it’s an addiction
Bahama. Ooh I wanna take you to Bermuda. Bahama. Come on pretty mama.
The only Beach Boys hit not written by Brian Wilson
Apart from Why Do Fools Fall In Love (1964), Do You Wanna Dance and Barbara Ann (1965), Sloop John B (1966), Bluebirds Over The Mountain (1968), I Can Hear Music (1969), Cottonfields (1970), Long Promised Road (1971), California Saga: California (1973), Rock and Roll Music (1975), Peggy Sue (1978), Lady Linda (1979), Come Go With Me (1981), Getcha Back and It's getting Late (1985), She Believes In Love Again and California Dreaming (1986), Wipe Out (1987), Still Cruisin' (1989), Problem Child (1989), Hot Fun in the Summertime (1992), I Can Hear Music (1966).
Read this as Gertcha and thought, surely they didn't do that. Actually, I'd love to hear it.
I believe the £40m price tag was mentioned by @Redhenry many months ago. No idea if he is/was itk or whether he made it up. Its taken as gospel now though & like you, I would have thought anything above what he paid (c £18m inc debt) is a pisstake.
Last Saudi bid I heard was 40.5m which matched the Aussies at the time.
Reading all the posters that are questioning whether they want the Aussies now because they’re being, or have always been, devious:
I 100% believe that they did NOT set out to bid high, with the intention of later on reducing their bid. I’d be shocked if that was the case.
I’m quite sure GM expected the purchase to be done and dusted the week after our meeting. He wouldn’t have be so sure if he was planning to low ball Roland.
Whether they screwed up after that I don’t know. Whether new consortium members were needed I don’t know. I don’t know when, or even if, they decided his price was too high.
the Saudi’s showed their money enough to put in a firm offer they reached his number and got gazzumped by people that apart from buying a scarf and getting cheap cheers like wwe wrestlers have done nothing
They then walked away as they were at their number
Not a fake number by fake people
No. The Saudi's clearly didn't have the money to run the club or they simply weren't actually interested in the club.
I am fairly certain our latest bid received was not the same amount as the Aussies bid, however it was also accepted.
If the Saudi's had either the money or the interest, they'd own us by now.
Why they reached their limit and like in all auctions you know when to stop especially when the Aussies wouldn’t stop and seeing as they are only using Monopoly money why should they
Shame you can’t wake up and smell the coffee.
When they buy us I will drink coffee for the first time in years
But my coffee ban is well and truly safe
nla....you seem to be enjoying yourself making us all the more depressed. How much longer are you planning to go on finding countless ways of telling us exactly the same thing over and over again?
I don't think NLA enjoys it at all, I think he's just doing the same as others itk, by relaying what he's been told. The only problem is, people only seem to like good news (whether they know it to be wholly accurate or not) and what NLA is relaying, isn't necessarily what the majority of fans want to hear. The majority want to hear things like "It's gonna be a tough 2 weeks, but it'll be worth it in the end".
It seems to me that if you so much as question the Aussies in anyway, you get laughed at or jumped on.
My money is on NLA.
I don't know NLA personally, or James Seed or Airman or Doucher or Red Henry or Colin or anyone ITK. I just read the posts and NLA has stuck to his guns even when his posts have been pilloried. He has also been the most accurate, and this version of events ties in with what is transpiring at CAFC. So it'll do for me.
I keep reading these assertions that a price was agreed of £40m. I cannot recall where this first came from and crucially why this was considered to be authoritative information.
Just to remind ourselves, £40m would be more than double what he paid 4 years ago. In that time he has taken the club down a division and seen the customer base eroded by 30-50% depending on the measure used. That would reduce the sale value of a normal business. RD has spent £1m on the pitch, and spent a relatively small amount at the training ground. As for the human assets, they have been totally devastated.
What else has happened in 4 years that might increase the sale value? Revenue in the FAPL has twisted up again. However as usual little of that has filtered down the leagues. The buyer needs first to take the club into the 2nd tier, and somehow navigate the financial maelstrom there, before he can even think about reaching profitability in the FAPL.
Property prices in London have risen, but land use on the property assets is so closely proscribed that it cannot possibly justify such an increase in price, especially when other metrics have fallen.
What does the market say? While media reports of sales are hardly reliable, can anyone point to a tier 3 club that has been sold for anywhere near £40m? I don't think so. Furthermore, I have never heard anything about these "Saudis" from anyone except people on CL. But I have spoken with the Blackpool ST secretary who has met two solid potential buyers of Blackpool who both told BST that they had looked at Charlton earlier - and walked away. During the first few months of 2018.
So can anyone with better knowledge of corporate finance than me, e.g @cafcfan spot anything that I have missed? Because if not, we are left with the following conclusion:
The idea that £40m is an offered price is fantasy. Pie in the effing sky. Unicorn talk. No sensible sane business person or group would entertain such a price because there is no rational business reason to pay it.
And that my friends is before we consider what the "sale price", whether its £40m or £4m actually means. What about changes in human asset values? (player sales, how sell ons are dealt with, etc). Remember his exit from Standard Liege. A new owner took over who apparently discovered too late that he had not anticipated certain things that RD thought he was entitled to before exiting.
Please by all means criticise the above, but please try to do so based on normal parameters of business valuation. Lets try to rise above the social media bollocks factory and be clear-eyed.
I don't think there's much, if anything, in your post that I'd disagree with. The £40M figure is, clearly, pie in the sky and, as you say, there's a huge gulf between what RD might want and what potential buyers are prepared to pay.
The following link is perhaps worth reading (although it starts with the PL clubs): clearly there are many factors involved in determining a final price, including proximity to London, land values (real or potential), brand value and, most importantly, debt.
An example cited is Mansfield, which was sold for £1, on condition that the purchaser took on 50% of the erstwhile owner's debt.
Certainly RD's apparent strategy seems to go against the grain of normal corporate takeovers where failing businesses are concerned (and Charlton is certainly a failing business). There are many recent examples on the high street of businesses being sold for a token £1 + debt consolidation, with new owners consequently streamlining costs, closing stores and restructuring the business (and, in some cases I suppose you could call that asset stripping).
RD seems to be doing all of that before he's sold the business, but still wants top dollar for the club.
I'm convinced that, when he bought the club in 2014 (and without carrying out proper DD), he believed there were opportunites for redevelopment along the lines of what he's done at St Truiden. Once he'd realized that he didn't have clear title, because of former Director's loans, and that redevelopment was, in all practical terms, impossible, then he quickly lost interest in the club.
I don't know if anything came of the Chinese interest (and since new laws there preventing foreign investment there must be less competition around, and clubs should, theoretically, be cheaper). However, their interest in buying half the shares for £25-30M, thereby valuing the club at £60M, seems equally 'pie in the sky' to me. They may be in the Championship but their ground (10k odd capacity) is nowhere near PL ready, and they have huge operating losses.
So, if some think Brentford are worth £60M, you can't blame Roland, I suppose, for trying to sell us for £40M.
the Saudi’s showed their money enough to put in a firm offer they reached his number and got gazzumped by people that apart from buying a scarf and getting cheap cheers like wwe wrestlers have done nothing
They then walked away as they were at their number
Not a fake number by fake people
No. The Saudi's clearly didn't have the money to run the club or they simply weren't actually interested in the club.
I am fairly certain our latest bid received was not the same amount as the Aussies bid, however it was also accepted.
If the Saudi's had either the money or the interest, they'd own us by now.
Why they reached their limit and like in all auctions you know when to stop especially when the Aussies wouldn’t stop and seeing as they are only using Monopoly money why should they
Shame you can’t wake up and smell the coffee.
When they buy us I will drink coffee for the first time in years
But my coffee ban is well and truly safe
nla....you seem to be enjoying yourself making us all the more depressed. How much longer are you planning to go on finding countless ways of telling us exactly the same thing over and over again?
I don't think NLA enjoys it at all, I think he's just doing the same as others itk, by relaying what he's been told. The only problem is, people only seem to like good news (whether they know it to be wholly accurate or not) and what NLA is relaying, isn't necessarily what the majority of fans want to hear. The majority want to hear things like "It's gonna be a tough 2 weeks, but it'll be worth it in the end".
It seems to me that if you so much as question the Aussies in anyway, you get laughed at or jumped on.
My money is on NLA.
I don't know NLA personally, or James Seed or Airman or Doucher or Red Henry or Colin or anyone ITK. I just read the posts and NLA has stuck to his guns even when his posts have been pilloried. He has also been the most accurate, and this version of events ties in with what is transpiring at CAFC. So it'll do for me.
He’s repeatedly said the Aussies have walked when they haven’t. He’s repeatedly said ‘they’ve never had the dosh’, with no evidence, although he’s now backtracking by saying they may have the dosh but don’t want to pay an inflated price. He’s taken info from the Roland side at face value. He’s done everything he can to undermine the Aussies.
I’m not sure what else he’s said or done, but that ain’t good in my book.
At the end of the day, no-one on here knows all the details, only what they have been told by a "source". Which is the best source? who knows, but if only people could put on here what they have been told and let us read it, without the "I know more than you do", regular arguments. I do not care which ITK is right, I would just like to read any information passed on by their source and pick out the bits I like. Hopefully, one day it will happen and somebody or group will buy the club out, we will probably never know all the details, so let us just pass on any bits and wait. We are all Charlton supporters, let us not forget that
Comments
This applies to 2) and 3). Its no massive deal but I’d rather people didn’t think I implied something that I didn’t.
In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time, that’d be a pain.
The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective imho. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. You never told him that they were just opinions, or if you did I didn’t notice.
‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’
‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’.
‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero. It’s not fair, and I think I’m going to cry.
(Just my opinion mate)
Anyway I would love to be rich that losing a million a month is more palatable than having to agree to a lower selling price.
Isn’t there a tax benefit for Roland if one of his companies is losing money ? Is the monthly loss really something less once the final tax burden is taken into account ?
I really don’t know.
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
Just to remind ourselves, £40m would be more than double what he paid 4 years ago. In that time he has taken the club down a division and seen the customer base eroded by 30-50% depending on the measure used. That would reduce the sale value of a normal business. RD has spent £1m on the pitch, and spent a relatively small amount at the training ground. As for the human assets, they have been totally devastated.
What else has happened in 4 years that might increase the sale value? Revenue in the FAPL has twisted up again. However as usual little of that has filtered down the leagues. The buyer needs first to take the club into the 2nd tier, and somehow navigate the financial maelstrom there, before he can even think about reaching profitability in the FAPL.
Property prices in London have risen, but land use on the property assets is so closely proscribed that it cannot possibly justify such an increase in price, especially when other metrics have fallen.
What does the market say? While media reports of sales are hardly reliable, can anyone point to a tier 3 club that has been sold for anywhere near £40m? I don't think so. Furthermore, I have never heard anything about these "Saudis" from anyone except people on CL. But I have spoken with the Blackpool ST secretary who has met two solid potential buyers of Blackpool who both told BST that they had looked at Charlton earlier - and walked away. During the first few months of 2018.
So can anyone with better knowledge of corporate finance than me, e.g @cafcfan spot anything that I have missed? Because if not, we are left with the following conclusion:
The idea that £40m is an offered price is fantasy. Pie in the effing sky. Unicorn talk. No sensible sane business person or group would entertain such a price because there is no rational business reason to pay it.
And that my friends is before we consider what the "sale price", whether its £40m or £4m actually means. What about changes in human asset values? (player sales, how sell ons are dealt with, etc). Remember his exit from Standard Liege. A new owner took over who apparently discovered too late that he had not anticipated certain things that RD thought he was entitled to before exiting.
Please by all means criticise the above, but please try to do so based on normal parameters of business valuation. Lets try to rise above the social media bollocks factory and be clear-eyed.
What a f****** farce.
This was back in Feb as an indication on price
Potential buyers came to look, and quickly walked away.
If the Aussies are anything like what you and others are suggesting then Duchatelet's bum must be well and truly squeaky in terms of selling the club, as not only is he continuing to negotiate with people who you suggest are either chancers or incompetents but, through his representative, it seems he's been prepared to 'misrepresent' the delay in completing the deal as "the Australian consortium have a deal fully agreed and just need to submit final papers to the EFL".
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5b7dc1d66a6ea/club-answer-fans-forum-takeover-questions
I 100% believe that they did NOT set out to bid high, with the intention of later on reducing their bid. I’d be shocked if that was the case.
I’m quite sure GM expected the purchase to be done and dusted the week after our meeting. He wouldn’t have be so sure if he was planning to low ball Roland.
Whether they screwed up after that I don’t know. Whether new consortium members were needed I don’t know.
I don’t know when, or even if, they decided his price was too high.
But they didn’t walk. Not yet anyway.
The following link is perhaps worth reading (although it starts with the PL clubs): clearly there are many factors involved in determining a final price, including proximity to London, land values (real or potential), brand value and, most importantly, debt.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-would-it-cost-to-take-over-an-english-football-club
An example cited is Mansfield, which was sold for £1, on condition that the purchaser took on 50% of the erstwhile owner's debt.
Certainly RD's apparent strategy seems to go against the grain of normal corporate takeovers where failing businesses are concerned (and Charlton is certainly a failing business). There are many recent examples on the high street of businesses being sold for a token £1 + debt consolidation, with new owners consequently streamlining costs, closing stores and restructuring the business (and, in some cases I suppose you could call that asset stripping).
RD seems to be doing all of that before he's sold the business, but still wants top dollar for the club.
I'm convinced that, when he bought the club in 2014 (and without carrying out proper DD), he believed there were opportunites for redevelopment along the lines of what he's done at St Truiden. Once he'd realized that he didn't have clear title, because of former Director's loans, and that redevelopment was, in all practical terms, impossible, then he quickly lost interest in the club.
Just an aside on the price though, take a look at this article from the FT from last year concerning Brentford: https://www.ft.com/content/369a7a94-2030-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9
I don't know if anything came of the Chinese interest (and since new laws there preventing foreign investment there must be less competition around, and clubs should, theoretically, be cheaper). However, their interest in buying half the shares for £25-30M, thereby valuing the club at £60M, seems equally 'pie in the sky' to me. They may be in the Championship but their ground (10k odd capacity) is nowhere near PL ready, and they have huge operating losses.
So, if some think Brentford are worth £60M, you can't blame Roland, I suppose, for trying to sell us for £40M.
He’s repeatedly said ‘they’ve never had the dosh’, with no evidence, although he’s now backtracking by saying they may have the dosh but don’t want to pay an inflated price.
He’s taken info from the Roland side at face value.
He’s done everything he can to undermine the Aussies.
I’m not sure what else he’s said or done, but that ain’t good in my book.