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.
They might not have walked but they haven't taken over? They might have the money but they haven't taken over?
He has partly undermined the Aussie bid because he believes they don't have the finances. I don't necessarily share that view because I don't have enough information but so far all the evidence he needs is that the Aussies are not our owners.
If they had the funds and Roland wants to sell then that leaves very few reasons as to why it hasn't happened.
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.
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.
How can it be accurate? He said consistently the Aussie’s don’t have the funds but now we have two sources claiming the Aussies have passed the fit and proper EFL test. That means they do have the funds. Last night he changed his tune to ‘don’t have the funds or not willing to pay the price’.Remember his source is coming from the Roland camp. Would you trust Roland? All this Aussie bashing is mighty suspicious.
"undermine the Aussies"???? sorry mate they are doing it themselves. The only person who has herd fuck from Skippy and Co is you and its someone on the end on the phone saying fuck all.
If it was just a case of the Aussies not having the cash then they would have walked, and the club and the EFL both wouldnt have been satisfied they did have the money. Neither has a credible reason for lying about the Aussies having the cash
If it was just a case of them not wanting to spend the money the RD could have binned them off months ago and/or gone back to the supposed Saudi bid.
Therefore something else is going on. None of the actions and leaks from the club and the Aussies makes sense in the context of what we know, so there is something we don't know causing the current situation to drag on as it has.
My money is on some complications from the spivs reign causing problems that have left the takeover in limbo until resolved. RD is having trouble resolving them, but won't admit that, so is claiming EFL issues for the delay.
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.
Sorry @bobmunro but that is complete bollocks you can’t set UK losses off against Belgian profits.
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 ?
£7m is a lot to you and me (well, more than a lot ...) but to a Belgian billionaire it's an insignificant amount to spend punishing those who have ruined his empire-building dreams
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.
How can it be accurate? He said consistently the Aussie’s don’t have the funds but now we have two sources claiming the Aussies have passed the fit and proper EFL test. That means they do have the funds. Last night he changed his tune to ‘don’t have the funds or not willing to pay the price’.Remember his source is coming from the Roland camp. Would you trust Roland? All this Aussie bashing is mighty suspicious.
RD has the money to pass the fit and proper test also
You need to re read the posts go back to October when I first said
The Aussies don’t have the funds (they never then )
From December I said they don’t have the funds and are trying to get more
Me saying that they may not be willing to spend it is because the fee they agreed remember the agreed part it’s very important
They have not followed through on
I said there two reasons
They don’t have it
They don’t want to spend it
What other reasons are there if the the Club The Aussies the EFL all belive that it’s in place
It’s not directors loans that part hasn’t been addressed and is not being addressed
It’s because the Aussie bid has stalled they are unwilling to pay the amount they agreed
Was this a deliberate negotiation tactic or is it they thought they could raise the money and they can’t
The EFL can check the accounts that the consortium members have and that will show they have the required funds but that don’t mean they will use it or are willing to use 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.
So can you tell us any more about these Saudis? What is their business? have they shown interest in any other club? Why does a 3rd division club interest them, when they could buy a Championship club for a similar figure? If they really think CAFC is worth such a preposterous amount, why do they allow themselves to be outbid for the sake of half a million?
I appreciate that you may not know any of the answers and post what you hear in good faith. I just have a bit of trouble with the whole idea that this sale is like a (Dutch) auction of a single tangible entity - such ,as, wait for it - a house. As I was trying to say above, the headline price needs to deal with various tricky financail subplots, and each and any buyer will approach those subplots (former directors, player sales in the summer, sell ons, etc) in their own way. Sorry I just don't buy the idea that somebody was outbid by half a mill and slunk away, never to be heard of again.
Personally I think the Aussies have the funds but don't want to pay the price they agreed to - not ideal but ultimately it does come down to RD asking for too much - that is why I will be at the protest - he needs to be pressurised to drop the price and clear off
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, of course, being rational agree entirely with what you say.
Some business people, investors, call them what you will, are not necessarily sane though. Roland's behaviour would appear to allow us to categorise him in this group.
So, as far as I am concerned, Charlton would be worth whatever some chartered surveyor says the land assets are worth, plus a (very) little bit for players, plus - and please don't laugh - some "goodwill" (which might include stuff like the perceived value of being a member of an exclusive group, the EFL, which brings certain rights). Minus whatever needs to be done to get the loans to ex-directors off the books and another tranche for whatever it would cost to bring the training ground to up a decent cat one standard, minus another tranche for whatever it would cost to make all of Roland's remaining minions redundant. I would also expect all the Staprix debt to be written off.
Now a quick back of the envelope jobbie means that I would not consider paying to Baton 2010 Ltd more than a pound a share for Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd. That would be a total of £150. And another penny a share for Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd. That would be £49,825.64. I'd round the total up to £50k as long as the paperwork included a signed director's resignation form for Mr Murray Obodynski.
HOWEVER, business people/investors are not always sane. Oftentimes, they are quite happy to pay well over the odds because of some perceived future value that might or might not materialise. They are gamblers in other words. Let's take Tesla as an example.
It's current share price is around US$323 giving it a market capitalisation (that is what the market sees as being its total value) of US$55bn. Yet this company has never made a single cent profit. In fact last year it lost US$710mn. It may be that its entry level model is just now not costing more to make than it sells for. Maybe.
But investors speculate on the future and hope that Tesla will take over the world. Of course, they see this as happening because there has been huge front-end investment in the project and, hey, it worked for Apple didn't it? (My own view is that this is unlikely. Other posher, more established brands, brands with kudos, are muscling in. What are you going to buy? A Tesla Model X or a Jaguar I-PACE and save yourself £40k if you choose the latter.)
Anyway, back to football. The rational for paying anything much at all for Charlton can only be if you have the investment/infrastructure to make a serious, very serious, attempt to get to the PL. And then onwards to the promised land of European football. Factor in virtually everyone in Australia wearing a Charlton home shirt and it all starts to make perfect sense.
So, you'd need more, much more, than the initial purchase price and even then it's still a gamble because of the long list of others taking forward the same strategy.
If it was me, I'd keep my money in my pocket because I'm naturally cautious.
Brentford is actually a very useful benchmark. One of the things you have missed when pondering their value is that they have a new stadium being built. It will be slightly smaller than the Valley but will be state of the art, and I expect it will have a higher % of expensive/corporate capacity which is an issue of the Valley.
But most importantly, Benham has built them up to a point where they are serious challengers for an FAPL place. The payday. Given that, any rational business would look at the Brentford vs RD Charlton value as being a non-brainer.
RD has destroyed value in CAFC as a business. Benham has some unorthodox ideas which I am not sure about, but he has unquestionably built up the value of Brentford as a business. Brentford, new stadium, on the brink of the FAPL. Like us 21 years ago today.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Predictions of an Aussie take-over have proven to be false, as NLA has said. Undermining them? That's a silly interpretation.
Here is my prediction....If we lose again today I predict the Aussies walk away or at least decide to wait and see. Who wants to pay £40M for a club that might be in League Two next season?
Anyway, back to football. The rational for paying anything much at all for Charlton can only be if you have the investment/infrastructure to make a serious, very serious, attempt to get to the PL. And then onwards to the promised land of European football. Factor in virtually everyone in Australia wearing a Charlton home shirt and it all starts to make perfect sense.
So, you'd need more, much more, than the initial purchase price and even then it's still a gamble because of the long list of others taking forward the same strategy.
If it was me, I'd keep my money in my pocket because I'm naturally cautious.
This 'dream of the promised land', to me, underlines the absurdity of the £40M asking price.
If we're talking 'match day experiences' and 'global footballing brands', or at least, if that's what you think the Australians or other potential buyers are talking, then Charlton has a long way to go... 50 years or more of continued success before we'd come anywhere near.
In terms of global marketing, clubs like Palace and West Ham are already a long way down the pecking order compared to the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs. They, themselves, have years to go before they come anywhere near. And that's just the London clubs.
The likes of Stoke, Southampton, Everton etc are light years away from being global brands, despite their longevity in the PL.
We'll never sign a star player and shift 50k shirts worldwide, never mind in Australia.
Despite 7 or 8 years in the PL Charlton never got close to being a global brand. We'll never get close to the global eutopia of clubs like L'pool and Utd, for whom their names are enshrined in English and global folklore, for sometimes tragic, and at other times euphoric reasons.
Whilst any team getting to the PL automatically becomes one of the 20 richest clubs in Europe, the likes of Brighton, Huddersfield and, one day I hope, Charlton, will never compete with the Top 6, never mind Barca or Real.
So on brand value alone I would say that Charlton is worth virtually zero.
Brentford is actually a very useful benchmark. One of the things you have missed when pondering their value is that they have a new stadium being built. It will be slightly smaller than the Valley but will be state of the art, and I expect it will have a higher % of expensive/corporate capacity which is an issue of the Valley.
But most importantly, Benham has built them up to a point where they are serious challengers for an FAPL place. The payday. Given that, any rational business would look at the Brentford vs RD Charlton value as being a non-brainer.
RD has destroyed value in CAFC as a business. Benham has some unorthodox ideas which I am not sure about, but he has unquestionably built up the value of Brentford as a business. Brentford, new stadium, on the brink of the FAPL. Like us 21 years ago today.
Thanks, I didn't know they were building a new stadium. That makes sense. I know they just failed to get to the play-offs a couple of years ago and they seem to have tailed off a bit since but, yes, an interesting comparison with us.
It can't be easy for them either competing in spitting distance to Chelsea, Fulham and QPR: as with most non PL clubs, it's a case of attracting future generations of fans... something RD seems to have singularly failed to appreciate.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation for the Aussies changing their bid price be down to the Directors' debt? They might have simply said, we have adjusted our price downwards (i.e minus the reported 7£M) due to the discovery of additional debt that has yet to be settled?
The Shitweasel will obviously have a problem with that as he sees that debt as worth less, hence his derisory offer to said ex-Directors. So, we have a stalemate - RD can't (or wont) get the ex-Directors to reach a settlement for their debt and the Aussies won't pay the agreed price unless that debt is settled first (as they see it, they would be paying an extra 7£M for the club, which is already ridiculously overvalued by the Shitweasel). Hence, stalemate.
Roland’s Lawyer is talking rubbish, if the Directors Loans are not an issue, why did he approach them all with a ridiculous low bid offer that was rebuffed? ,apart from Murray who apparently excepted. If they were to be rolled over by a buyer then there was no need to try and buy them back cheap. I still believe that Roland did a deal with one or two parties assuming those loans were irrelevant to the deal , or he could do a cheap deal to pay them off. It is also strange as I have mentioned before that until that point the Australians had never spoken to Ex Directors while others did sound them out. I also still believe any smart investor would want those loans gone , to have a clear debt position and whether paying now or later not wanting to pay an extra £7mn on the value. Until Roland starts asking for a bid at leat £10mn lower and has sorted out those First Charges no deal will get done, regardless if Aussies have funds or not.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation for the Aussies changing their bid price be down to the Directors' debt? They might have simply said, we have adjusted our price downwards (i.e minus the reported 7£M) due to the discovery of additional debt that has yet to be settled?
The Shitweasel will obviously have a problem with that as he sees that debt as worth less, hence his derisory offer to said ex-Directors. So, we have a stalemate - RD can't (or wont) get the ex-Directors to reach a settlement for their debt and the Aussies won't pay the agreed price unless that debt is settled first (as they see it, they would be paying an extra 7£M for the club, which is already ridiculously overvalued by the Shitweasel). Hence, stalemate.
What do you lot think?
Well LdT said at the FF that ex Director loans were not an issue. Lies, spin or the truth. Take your pick.
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?
Kokomo was both a hit and not a cover.
Kokomo was the first song mentioned in the thread.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation for the Aussies changing their bid price be down to the Directors' debt? They might have simply said, we have adjusted our price downwards (i.e minus the reported 7£M) due to the discovery of additional debt that has yet to be settled?
The Shitweasel will obviously have a problem with that as he sees that debt as worth less, hence his derisory offer to said ex-Directors. So, we have a stalemate - RD can't (or wont) get the ex-Directors to reach a settlement for their debt and the Aussies won't pay the agreed price unless that debt is settled first (as they see it, they would be paying an extra 7£M for the club, which is already ridiculously overvalued by the Shitweasel). Hence, stalemate.
What do you lot think?
Well LdT said at the FF that ex Director loans were not an issue. Lies, spin or the truth. Take your pick.
You decide but as I said above, why bid for them if you don’t have to? Unless buyer doesn’t have all the funds yet so why bid up until you are completing deal? So not an issue if you are going to repay when you have to? Or more Lies?
Wouldn't the simplest explanation for the Aussies changing their bid price be down to the Directors' debt? They might have simply said, we have adjusted our price downwards (i.e minus the reported 7£M) due to the discovery of additional debt that has yet to be settled?
The Shitweasel will obviously have a problem with that as he sees that debt as worth less, hence his derisory offer to said ex-Directors. So, we have a stalemate - RD can't (or wont) get the ex-Directors to reach a settlement for their debt and the Aussies won't pay the agreed price unless that debt is settled first (as they see it, they would be paying an extra 7£M for the club, which is already ridiculously overvalued by the Shitweasel). Hence, stalemate.
What do you lot think?
Well LdT said at the FF that ex Director loans were not an issue. Lies, spin or the truth. Take your pick.
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.
OK, I will have another go..!
Barbara Ann (number one in Norway), Sloop John B (Holland, Norway and Sweden) and Cottonfields (Australia, Norway and Sweden).
And other sings like The Little Old Lady From Passadena and Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me, with Elton John (which both hit number 1 in Canada).
Wouldn't the simplest explanation for the Aussies changing their bid price be down to the Directors' debt? They might have simply said, we have adjusted our price downwards (i.e minus the reported 7£M) due to the discovery of additional debt that has yet to be settled?
The Shitweasel will obviously have a problem with that as he sees that debt as worth less, hence his derisory offer to said ex-Directors. So, we have a stalemate - RD can't (or wont) get the ex-Directors to reach a settlement for their debt and the Aussies won't pay the agreed price unless that debt is settled first (as they see it, they would be paying an extra 7£M for the club, which is already ridiculously overvalued by the Shitweasel). Hence, stalemate.
What do you lot think?
Well LdT said at the FF that ex Director loans were not an issue. Lies, spin or the truth. Take your pick.
Well since my suspicion that he was lying about the EFL has been confirmed (despite my suspicions being pooh-poohed not just on here, but by my CAST colleagues who attended the FF and appeared somewhat beguiled by him), you can guess which option I'm picking.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation for the Aussies changing their bid price be down to the Directors' debt? They might have simply said, we have adjusted our price downwards (i.e minus the reported 7£M) due to the discovery of additional debt that has yet to be settled?
The Shitweasel will obviously have a problem with that as he sees that debt as worth less, hence his derisory offer to said ex-Directors. So, we have a stalemate - RD can't (or wont) get the ex-Directors to reach a settlement for their debt and the Aussies won't pay the agreed price unless that debt is settled first (as they see it, they would be paying an extra 7£M for the club, which is already ridiculously overvalued by the Shitweasel). Hence, stalemate.
What do you lot think?
Well LdT said at the FF that ex Director loans were not an issue. Lies, spin or the truth. Take your pick.
Well since my suspicion that he was lying about the EFL has been confirmed (despite my suspicions being pooh-poohed not just on here, but by my CAST colleagues who attended the FF and appeared somewhat beguiled by him), you can guess which option I'm picking.
Confirmed, or suggested? Maybe I've been something, which is easy to do with all these mega-threads running at the same time.
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.
How can it be accurate? He said consistently the Aussie’s don’t have the funds but now we have two sources claiming the Aussies have passed the fit and proper EFL test. That means they do have the funds. Last night he changed his tune to ‘don’t have the funds or not willing to pay the price’.Remember his source is coming from the Roland camp. Would you trust Roland? All this Aussie bashing is mighty suspicious.
RD has the money to pass the fit and proper test also
You need to re read the posts go back to October when I first said
The Aussies don’t have the funds (they never then )
From December I said they don’t have the funds and are trying to get more
Me saying that they may not be willing to spend it is because the fee they agreed remember the agreed part it’s very important
They have not followed through on
I said there two reasons
They don’t have it
They don’t want to spend it
What other reasons are there if the the Club The Aussies the EFL all belive that it’s in place
It’s not directors loans that part hasn’t been addressed and is not being addressed
It’s because the Aussie bid has stalled they are unwilling to pay the amount they agreed
Was this a deliberate negotiation tactic or is it they thought they could raise the money and they can’t
The EFL can check the accounts that the consortium members have and that will show they have the required funds but that don’t mean they will use it or are willing to use it
Hooray, NLA finally admits they do have they funds.
Comments
They might have the money but they haven't taken over?
He has partly undermined the Aussie bid because he believes they don't have the finances. I don't necessarily share that view because I don't have enough information but so far all the evidence he needs is that the Aussies are not our owners.
If they had the funds and Roland wants to sell then that leaves very few reasons as to why it hasn't happened.
offlineto Makros!I haven’t said they have walked away I said the deal is dead and the Aussies don’t have the money
He's played us all.
If it was just a case of the Aussies not having the cash then they would have walked, and the club and the EFL both wouldnt have been satisfied they did have the money. Neither has a credible reason for lying about the Aussies having the cash
If it was just a case of them not wanting to spend the money the RD could have binned them off months ago and/or gone back to the supposed Saudi bid.
Therefore something else is going on. None of the actions and leaks from the club and the Aussies makes sense in the context of what we know, so there is something we don't know causing the current situation to drag on as it has.
My money is on some complications from the spivs reign causing problems that have left the takeover in limbo until resolved. RD is having trouble resolving them, but won't admit that, so is claiming EFL issues for the delay.
You need to re read the posts go back to October when I first said
The Aussies don’t have the funds (they never then )
From December I said they don’t have the funds and are trying to get more
Me saying that they may not be willing to spend it is because the fee they agreed remember the agreed part it’s very important
They have not followed through on
I said there two reasons
They don’t have it
They don’t want to spend it
What other reasons are there if the the Club The Aussies the EFL all belive that it’s in place
It’s not directors loans that part hasn’t been addressed and is not being addressed
It’s because the Aussie bid has stalled they are unwilling to pay the amount they agreed
Was this a deliberate negotiation tactic or is it they thought they could raise the money and they can’t
The EFL can check the accounts that the consortium members have and that will show they have the required funds but that don’t mean they will use it or are willing to use it
I appreciate that you may not know any of the answers and post what you hear in good faith. I just have a bit of trouble with the whole idea that this sale is like a (Dutch) auction of a single tangible entity - such ,as, wait for it - a house. As I was trying to say above, the headline price needs to deal with various tricky financail subplots, and each and any buyer will approach those subplots (former directors, player sales in the summer, sell ons, etc) in their own way. Sorry I just don't buy the idea that somebody was outbid by half a mill and slunk away, never to be heard of again.
Some business people, investors, call them what you will, are not necessarily sane though. Roland's behaviour would appear to allow us to categorise him in this group.
So, as far as I am concerned, Charlton would be worth whatever some chartered surveyor says the land assets are worth, plus a (very) little bit for players, plus - and please don't laugh - some "goodwill" (which might include stuff like the perceived value of being a member of an exclusive group, the EFL, which brings certain rights). Minus whatever needs to be done to get the loans to ex-directors off the books and another tranche for whatever it would cost to bring the training ground to up a decent cat one standard, minus another tranche for whatever it would cost to make all of Roland's remaining minions redundant. I would also expect all the Staprix debt to be written off.
Now a quick back of the envelope jobbie means that I would not consider paying to Baton 2010 Ltd more than a pound a share for Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd. That would be a total of £150. And another penny a share for Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd. That would be £49,825.64. I'd round the total up to £50k as long as the paperwork included a signed director's resignation form for Mr Murray Obodynski.
HOWEVER, business people/investors are not always sane. Oftentimes, they are quite happy to pay well over the odds because of some perceived future value that might or might not materialise. They are gamblers in other words. Let's take Tesla as an example.
It's current share price is around US$323 giving it a market capitalisation (that is what the market sees as being its total value) of US$55bn. Yet this company has never made a single cent profit. In fact last year it lost US$710mn. It may be that its entry level model is just now not costing more to make than it sells for. Maybe.
But investors speculate on the future and hope that Tesla will take over the world. Of course, they see this as happening because there has been huge front-end investment in the project and, hey, it worked for Apple didn't it? (My own view is that this is unlikely. Other posher, more established brands, brands with kudos, are muscling in. What are you going to buy? A Tesla Model X or a Jaguar I-PACE and save yourself £40k if you choose the latter.)
Anyway, back to football. The rational for paying anything much at all for Charlton can only be if you have the investment/infrastructure to make a serious, very serious, attempt to get to the PL. And then onwards to the promised land of European football. Factor in virtually everyone in Australia wearing a Charlton home shirt and it all starts to make perfect sense.
So, you'd need more, much more, than the initial purchase price and even then it's still a gamble because of the long list of others taking forward the same strategy.
If it was me, I'd keep my money in my pocket because I'm naturally cautious.
Brentford is actually a very useful benchmark. One of the things you have missed when pondering their value is that they have a new stadium being built. It will be slightly smaller than the Valley but will be state of the art, and I expect it will have a higher % of expensive/corporate capacity which is an issue of the Valley.
But most importantly, Benham has built them up to a point where they are serious challengers for an FAPL place. The payday. Given that, any rational business would look at the Brentford vs RD Charlton value as being a non-brainer.
RD has destroyed value in CAFC as a business. Benham has some unorthodox ideas which I am not sure about, but he has unquestionably built up the value of Brentford as a business. Brentford, new stadium, on the brink of the FAPL. Like us 21 years ago today.
If we're talking 'match day experiences' and 'global footballing brands', or at least, if that's what you think the Australians or other potential buyers are talking, then Charlton has a long way to go... 50 years or more of continued success before we'd come anywhere near.
In terms of global marketing, clubs like Palace and West Ham are already a long way down the pecking order compared to the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs. They, themselves, have years to go before they come anywhere near. And that's just the London clubs.
The likes of Stoke, Southampton, Everton etc are light years away from being global brands, despite their longevity in the PL.
We'll never sign a star player and shift 50k shirts worldwide, never mind in Australia.
Despite 7 or 8 years in the PL Charlton never got close to being a global brand. We'll never get close to the global eutopia of clubs like L'pool and Utd, for whom their names are enshrined in English and global folklore, for sometimes tragic, and at other times euphoric reasons.
Whilst any team getting to the PL automatically becomes one of the 20 richest clubs in Europe, the likes of Brighton, Huddersfield and, one day I hope, Charlton, will never compete with the Top 6, never mind Barca or Real.
So on brand value alone I would say that Charlton is worth virtually zero.
It can't be easy for them either competing in spitting distance to Chelsea, Fulham and QPR: as with most non PL clubs, it's a case of attracting future generations of fans... something RD seems to have singularly failed to appreciate.
The Shitweasel will obviously have a problem with that as he sees that debt as worth less, hence his derisory offer to said ex-Directors. So, we have a stalemate - RD can't (or wont) get the ex-Directors to reach a settlement for their debt and the Aussies won't pay the agreed price unless that debt is settled first (as they see it, they would be paying an extra 7£M for the club, which is already ridiculously overvalued by the Shitweasel). Hence, stalemate.
What do you lot think?
,apart from Murray who apparently excepted.
If they were to be rolled over by a buyer then there was no need to try and buy them back cheap.
I still believe that Roland did a deal with one or two parties assuming those loans were irrelevant to the deal , or he could do a cheap deal to pay them off.
It is also strange as I have mentioned before that until that point the Australians had never spoken to Ex Directors while others did sound them out.
I also still believe any smart investor would want those loans gone , to have a clear debt position and whether paying now or later not wanting to pay an extra £7mn on the value.
Until Roland starts asking for a bid at leat £10mn lower and has sorted out those First Charges no deal will get done, regardless if Aussies have funds or not.
Unless buyer doesn’t have all the funds yet so why bid up until you are completing deal?
So not an issue if you are going to repay when you have to?
Or more Lies?
Barbara Ann (number one in Norway), Sloop John B (Holland, Norway and Sweden) and Cottonfields (Australia, Norway and Sweden).
And other sings like The Little Old Lady From Passadena and Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me, with Elton John (which both hit number 1 in Canada).
1. Roland's ownership of Charlton has been a complete failure
2. Roland's attempt to sell Charlton has been a complete failure
3. Roland needs to fuck off
Phew!