Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
Totally agree, as much as I can't stand RD, I think you're be the the devil you know. As some have been saying for quite a while now
Next stage is; The documents are waiting/are with the football league. Which will then be batted around for a few more weeks with the league saying they haven't seen them and the club saying oh yes you have and the silent buyers leaking that a deal is close to completion and that they have completed all relevant documents and agreed a price. While simultaneously two bit hacks on two bit news programmes and two bit newspapers release vague messages, pretending they have the ear of the purchasers or the inside mole at the club. They might as well look at pine cones, they would be just as accurate as has been proved by their past predictions.
The Aussies/whoever didn't want to stump up the cash in the past or didn't have the cash in the past, nothing much has changed from last season when we were play off material to this year when we are play off material once more. That's about as much as most really know or can conclude from what has not happened.
As I said about 60 pages back and 6 days ago. Only my speculation about the next stage looks like wishful thinking now.
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
My understanding was that ACV was about preventing or at least giving the public time to oppose a change of use ie a pub being turned into flats rather than the pub changing landlord.
The ACV was for five years and so would have now expired in November 2018. Have the Supporters' Trust renewed it?
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.
Only a hypothesis, but in effect the Aussies buy Baton - the club and the assets - with US backing which is secured with a new charge over the assets. The land isn’t going anywhere and as we know is a good long-term bet, even though it’s not prime development land or anything like.
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
Just to clear one thing up - Has it been discussed if this new Aussie involvement has got anything at all to do with the old one? Sorry, but I've been skipping 60 odd pages at a time on this thread.
Amazing to see all the ITK folk backtrack all at once following JW's comments today. No one knows anything, as has been proved time and time again. Aussies, Usmanov, Red Bull and US investors, has anyone actually matched the over inflated price tag yet? Have they f...
Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal. FFS!
I don’t, I’m afraid. The prediction made to me is that they will back away from getting involved.
So are you saying the Americans have just decided to back out of it all at this late stage?
The speculation is that the Americans would be landlords and the Aussies would have the day to day running of the club. That's why i speculated if that had ever worked in Pro football and been successful.
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.
Only a hypothesis, but in effect the Aussies buy Baton - the club and the assets - with US backing which is secured with a new charge over the assets. The land isn’t going anywhere and as we know is a good long-term bet, even though it’s not prime development land or anything like.
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
Was it the Aussies or Americans who were introduced as the new owners?
Well as I see it, this next 3 days are defining, Monday or Tuesday - as JW said, we should of been taken over, if not, then Wednesday's fans forum should tell us something, either the same old 5 interested bullchite again, or something more Interesting. Interesting week.
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.
Only a hypothesis, but in effect the Aussies buy Baton - the club and the assets - with US backing which is secured with a new charge over the assets. The land isn’t going anywhere and as we know is a good long-term bet, even though it’s not prime development land or anything like.
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
How likely is a Coventry and Ricoh situation if the Americans owned the assets eventually and decide to kick us out?
Theoretically if this split assets thing goes forwards and I mean theoretically for obvious reasons as it would depend on several years of success but if we enjoyed several years of success, make it back to the prem and have a healthy stay, let's say the aussies wanted to expand the ground how would that work in this scenario?
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.
Only a hypothesis, but in effect the Aussies buy Baton - the club and the assets - with US backing which is secured with a new charge over the assets. The land isn’t going anywhere and as we know is a good long-term bet, even though it’s not prime development land or anything like.
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
How likely is a Coventry and Ricoh situation if the Americans owned the assets eventually and decide to kick us out?
That depends on the structure - the ex-directors have charges but they can’t kick the club out. The problem for anyone holding the asset is even if the club went bust it’s a long road to realise any value.
So two untested dimensions of ACV - loans secured against an ACV property, and a 'reverse ACV' where the asset of the club is sold and the freehold of the ground retained. Neither I would imagine were anticipated as part of the legislation, but both could represent a change in the 'ownership status'. Hard to see how they could be, but I'm no lawyer.
So two untested dimensions of ACV - loans secured against an ACV property, and a 'reverse ACV' where the asset of the club is sold and the freehold of the ground retained. Neither I would imagine were anticipated as part of the legislation, but both could represent a change in the 'ownership status'. Hard to see how they could be, but I'm no lawyer.
Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
My understanding was that ACV was about preventing or at least giving the public time to oppose a change of use ie a pub being turned into flats rather than the pub changing landlord.
The ACV was for five years and so would have now expired in November 2018. Have the Supporters' Trust renewed it?
The ACV on The Valley expired on October 10th. CAST submitted on the same day an application for it to be re-listed (You can't apply until the status has actually expired). RB Greenwich should have reached a decision within eight weeks but, apart from a couple of clarification questions, we haven't heard from them formally yet. We are chasing it up.
It does seem bizarre that any Asset of Community Value is unprotected during the period in which the new application is considered. However, although ACV status does provide some protection it is largely symbolic and would not come into force if Charlton Athletic Holdings (or Baton) was sold by one party to another.
Why are we still taking about the ground? Didn't that plan depend on the now-withdrawn Americans?
Despite the dozens of posts on this I am still unclear. Have the Americans withdrawn from the purchase process ? You would assume that if that’s the case then the takeover is off with the Australian Consortium not having the money.
looking forward to the minutes from Wednesday's Fans Forum meeting. I gather LVT will say there are now six interested parties, five have done DD, one isn't going to bother as they are minted and don't care, all six have made offers to RD but none accepted, the EFL test has yet to be passed by anyone, the Aussie/USA/New Zealand/Papua New Guinea consortium is still trying to raise cash but are hopeful now that a mate in Barbados wants in, in the last three hours he had had another approach (Red Bull) and he is now extremely confident that a deal will be concluded sometime in the future. Jim White should be attending the meeting and his arrival is imminent.
Comments
Only my speculation about the next stage looks like wishful thinking now.
The ACV was for five years and so would have now expired in November 2018. Have the Supporters' Trust renewed it?
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.
That's why i speculated if that had ever worked in Pro football and been successful.
How can the fog keep getting thicker.
But we are now so far into the realms of speculation it's not worth thinking about yet, if ever.
It does seem bizarre that any Asset of Community Value is unprotected during the period in which the new application is considered. However, although ACV status does provide some protection it is largely symbolic and would not come into force if Charlton Athletic Holdings (or Baton) was sold by one party to another.
Furthermore. Is there a meeting this evening ?