Why do I believe it will happen? I fall for it every fecking time. I REALLY thought this was the time. Now it feels like someone has booted me in the guts. And it's January. The Tatters household is a right old joy to behold at the moment.
I’m sure my view will be in a minority but the Football Club / Valley split is only bad if the deal agreed is bad.
There are scenarios where it could be very helpful to an ambitious football club owner who would prefer to spend on getting the football club into the top flight as the priority. Thats where the big bucks are and buy the real estate on agreed terms further down the line. Of course that’s a good view and there are also bad scenarios but just assuming it’s 100% bad is not quite true.
Exactly.......the Devil is in the detail.
After all - there don't appear to be too many people saying that West Ham are getting legged over with a lease arrangement for the ground currently.
There are some people who think that, in all cases, a situation where the club and the ground are under different ownership is "worse" than the current situation. I don't agree.
Currently, the title of the ground is a convoluted. The ground is owned by Baton, which in turn is c.90% owned by Roland. But there is a charge on the property that is shared, unequally, between seven other investors (the "former directors"). So the club is, in all intents and purposes owned by Roland and the ground is "shared" between Roland and other investors.
There *could* be a situation where the club is owned, 100%, by a consortium of Aussies, whose aspiration is purely on the return they can generate by improving the team (ie by getting promoted to the highest possible level), while the ground is owned, 100%, by a consortium of American investors who are purely and exclusively interested in the capital appreciation that will naturally accrue from a large piece of London real estate, whilst having no intention to develop the site. This would free up the football club to concentrate solely on the football; and free up the real estate investor to make capital gains, notwithstanding the performance of the team.
If anyone thinks that is something that must be avoided at all costs, I have to disagree. Because it implies that there is a preference for the current owner to continue. If that happens, Charlton will cease to exist in a few years' time. We are in terminal decline, with an owner who has no desire to risk any more of his investment and seemingly no clue as to how to exit. Make no mistake about it: with Roland in charge, Charlton will cease to be.
So, does anyone really have a preference to see Charlton fold, rather than have two distinct, committed, professional consortia owning the parts of the club in which their aspirations expertise lie?
I will review my bid after the transfer window closes.
I've officially removed the Quality Street/Heroes/Roses offer made pre Christmas and am currently negotiating with Thorntons on their 2019 Easter Egg collection to add back into my revised bid.
Still looking for additional backers to help the Club get past the first week of my ownership, which is what I'm currently able to finance.
I have two unopened boxes of Matchmakers if that helps, will happily donate if it gets the deal over the line
I’m sure my view will be in a minority but the Football Club / Valley split is only bad if the deal agreed is bad.
There are scenarios where it could be very helpful to an ambitious football club owner who would prefer to spend on getting the football club into the top flight as the priority. Thats where the big bucks are and buy the real estate on agreed terms further down the line. Of course that’s a good view and there are also bad scenarios but just assuming it’s 100% bad is not quite true.
Exactly.......the Devil is in the detail.
After all - there don't appear to be too many people saying that West Ham are getting legged over with a lease arrangement for the ground currently.
True. I think it depends to a large degree on who exactly the Americans are too. If it's a sporting franchise looking for an investment in English football, perhaps with a seat on the Board etc, it may be ok. If it's an American finance organisation only interested in their investment return and with the ability to expel CAFC from the Valley/SL in the event of any default in repayment - then we could end up with a SISU like arrangement and look where that's left Coventry.
I will review my bid after the transfer window closes.
I've officially removed the Quality Street/Heroes/Roses offer made pre Christmas and am currently negotiating with Thorntons on their 2019 Easter Egg collection to add back into my revised bid.
Still looking for additional backers to help the Club get past the first week of my ownership, which is what I'm currently able to finance.
I have two unopened boxes of Matchmakers if that helps, will happily donate if it gets the deal over the line
Only if they are the Orange ones.
Still, very generous of you.
Have you heard from your contact at EFL yet mate?You said he was back at work this week?
I will review my bid after the transfer window closes.
I've officially removed the Quality Street/Heroes/Roses offer made pre Christmas and am currently negotiating with Thorntons on their 2019 Easter Egg collection to add back into my revised bid.
Still looking for additional backers to help the Club get past the first week of my ownership, which is what I'm currently able to finance.
You don't need to look any further than @horsfield9 .
There are some people who think that, in all cases, a situation where the club and the ground are under different ownership is "worse" than the current situation. I don't agree.
Currently, the title of the ground is a convoluted. The ground is owned by Baton, which in turn is c.90% owned by Roland. But there is a charge on the property that is shared, unequally, between seven other investors (the "former directors"). So the club is, in all intents and purposes owned by Roland and the ground is "shared" between Roland and other investors.
There *could* be a situation where the club is owned, 100%, by a consortium of Aussies, whose aspiration is purely on the return they can generate by improving the team (ie by getting promoted to the highest possible level), while the ground is owned, 100%, by a consortium of American investors who are purely and exclusively interested in the capital appreciation that will naturally accrue from a large piece of London real estate, whilst having no intention to develop the site. This would free up the football club to concentrate solely on the football; and free up the real estate investor to make capital gains, notwithstanding the performance of the team.
If anyone thinks that is something that must be avoided at all costs, I have to disagree. Because it implies that there is a preference for the current owner to continue. If that happens, Charlton will cease to exist in a few years' time. We are in terminal decline, with an owner who has no desire to risk any more of his investment and seemingly no clue as to how to exit. Make no mistake about it: with Roland in charge, Charlton will cease to be.
So, does anyone really have a preference to see Charlton fold, rather than have two distinct, committed, professional consortia owning the parts of the club in which their aspirations expertise lie?
I would disagree with that statement, it's more a state of L1 limbo really. Yes players have been sold, but enough have come in to keep us competitive in this league, we have never looked like doing a Leyton Orient, Stockport or Tranmere and plunge down the leagues.
I'd be really frustrated if we end this transfer window still owned by Roland. But that doesn't mean I'd be happy for us to be bought by anyone.
The former directors are irrelevant, a bank or other lender may have a charge over your house/factory, but it doesn't mean they own it.
There are some people who think that, in all cases, a situation where the club and the ground are under different ownership is "worse" than the current situation. I don't agree.
Currently, the title of the ground is a convoluted. The ground is owned by Baton, which in turn is c.90% owned by Roland. But there is a charge on the property that is shared, unequally, between seven other investors (the "former directors"). So the club is, in all intents and purposes owned by Roland and the ground is "shared" between Roland and other investors.
There *could* be a situation where the club is owned, 100%, by a consortium of Aussies, whose aspiration is purely on the return they can generate by improving the team (ie by getting promoted to the highest possible level), while the ground is owned, 100%, by a consortium of American investors who are purely and exclusively interested in the capital appreciation that will naturally accrue from a large piece of London real estate, whilst having no intention to develop the site. This would free up the football club to concentrate solely on the football; and free up the real estate investor to make capital gains, notwithstanding the performance of the team.
If anyone thinks that is something that must be avoided at all costs, I have to disagree. Because it implies that there is a preference for the current owner to continue. If that happens, Charlton will cease to exist in a few years' time. We are in terminal decline, with an owner who has no desire to risk any more of his investment and seemingly no clue as to how to exit. Make no mistake about it: with Roland in charge, Charlton will cease to be.
So, does anyone really have a preference to see Charlton fold, rather than have two distinct, committed, professional consortia owning the parts of the club in which their aspirations expertise lie?
I think there are 2 problems with this. Firstly, from a property investor's perspective, there is very limited capital appreciation potential in a piece of land which is only ever going to be used for sporting activity. In fact, land like that tends to be valued on a rental yield basis, which means the only real capital gain to be had would be in managing to increase rental income at a rate faster than anticipated when the land is purchased. This can only be to the detriment of the club.
Secondly, any investor looking for capital gains is going to want a way to actually realise these gains in the future. This means selling to another investor with as yet unknown motives.
I suppose we could have a situation where an investor buys the ground as a 'cash cow' investment whereby they are happy to simply take a percentage rental yield each year with no prospect of capital gain, but even then we're exposed to the risk of a further sale down the line.
I'm not saying that any splitting of the club and ground would necessarily be worse than the current situation, but I would be highly sceptical at best.
Hahaha, talks on going between americans and australian's to unlock money so a bid CAN be made.
Jesus christ, so they haven't even discussed whether they have enough money yet? I think this is the modern day equivalent of me and my mates scratching round our pockets/wallets at about 5am to see if we've got enough money for the guy who's about to drop off some more gear.
I've got a tenner, so has Paul, John's got a score, Dave how much have you got left?
There *could* be a situation where the club is owned, 100%, by a consortium of Aussies, whose aspiration is purely on the return they can generate by improving the team (ie by getting promoted to the highest possible level), while the ground is owned, 100%, by a consortium of American investors who are purely and exclusively interested in the capital appreciation that will naturally accrue from a large piece of London real estate, whilst having no intention to develop the site. This would free up the football club to concentrate solely on the football; and free up the real estate investor to make capital gains, notwithstanding the performance of the team.
The main problems with that being that there's nothing to stop the Americans (or whoever) selling it to someone who does want to redevelop the site, and (perhaps a more likely scenario) there's nothing to stop the owners of the ground (the Americans or a subsequent owner) deciding that they'd like change the terms of the lease when it's up for renewal and increase the rent or take a bigger cut of revenue.
Numerous pubs have been forced to close as a result of landlords realising that they can make much more money turning the building into flats or leasing it to Tesco/Sainsburys. The old lease expires, pub can't afford the new terms, 6 months later it's Tesco Express on the ground floor with 6 flats on the upper floors.
You could argue that they couldn't put the rents up excessively because there isn't an alternative tenant for a football stadium, but you then become entirely dependent on Greenwich Council's Planning Department not allowing someone permission to knock it down and build something else there.
There are some people who think that, in all cases, a situation where the club and the ground are under different ownership is "worse" than the current situation. I don't agree.
Currently, the title of the ground is a convoluted. The ground is owned by Baton, which in turn is c.90% owned by Roland. But there is a charge on the property that is shared, unequally, between seven other investors (the "former directors"). So the club is, in all intents and purposes owned by Roland and the ground is "shared" between Roland and other investors.
There *could* be a situation where the club is owned, 100%, by a consortium of Aussies, whose aspiration is purely on the return they can generate by improving the team (ie by getting promoted to the highest possible level), while the ground is owned, 100%, by a consortium of American investors who are purely and exclusively interested in the capital appreciation that will naturally accrue from a large piece of London real estate, whilst having no intention to develop the site. This would free up the football club to concentrate solely on the football; and free up the real estate investor to make capital gains, notwithstanding the performance of the team.
If anyone thinks that is something that must be avoided at all costs, I have to disagree. Because it implies that there is a preference for the current owner to continue. If that happens, Charlton will cease to exist in a few years' time. We are in terminal decline, with an owner who has no desire to risk any more of his investment and seemingly no clue as to how to exit. Make no mistake about it: with Roland in charge, Charlton will cease to be.
So, does anyone really have a preference to see Charlton fold, rather than have two distinct, committed, professional consortia owning the parts of the club in which their aspirations expertise lie?
I would disagree with that statement, it's more a state of L1 limbo really. Yes players have been sold, but enough have come in to keep us competitive in this league, we have never looked like doing a Leyton Orient, Stockport or Tranmere and plunge down the leagues.
I'd be really frustrated if we end this transfer window still owned by Roland. But that doesn't mean I'd be happy for us to be bought by anyone.
The former directors are irrelevant, a bank or other lender may have a charge over your house/factory, but it doesn't mean they own it.
But if he still owns us at the end of the season, when most of the current squad are out of contract we could well find ourselves going the same way as the teams that you mention.
There there everyone, hush now, Daddy’s going to sing you all to sleep and when you all wake in the morning, you’ll realise it’s just been a terrible dream, that’s all.
There are some people who think that, in all cases, a situation where the club and the ground are under different ownership is "worse" than the current situation. I don't agree.
Currently, the title of the ground is a convoluted. The ground is owned by Baton, which in turn is c.90% owned by Roland. But there is a charge on the property that is shared, unequally, between seven other investors (the "former directors"). So the club is, in all intents and purposes owned by Roland and the ground is "shared" between Roland and other investors.
There *could* be a situation where the club is owned, 100%, by a consortium of Aussies, whose aspiration is purely on the return they can generate by improving the team (ie by getting promoted to the highest possible level), while the ground is owned, 100%, by a consortium of American investors who are purely and exclusively interested in the capital appreciation that will naturally accrue from a large piece of London real estate, whilst having no intention to develop the site. This would free up the football club to concentrate solely on the football; and free up the real estate investor to make capital gains, notwithstanding the performance of the team.
If anyone thinks that is something that must be avoided at all costs, I have to disagree. Because it implies that there is a preference for the current owner to continue. If that happens, Charlton will cease to exist in a few years' time. We are in terminal decline, with an owner who has no desire to risk any more of his investment and seemingly no clue as to how to exit. Make no mistake about it: with Roland in charge, Charlton will cease to be.
So, does anyone really have a preference to see Charlton fold, rather than have two distinct, committed, professional consortia owning the parts of the club in which their aspirations expertise lie?
A lot of best case scenarios and guess work here, but the evidence is out there that, very few, if any football clubs have a track record of long term success without owning their stadium and those you can name could be put against a list 5-10 times larger by those who have been unsuccessful.
Listening to White first hand on the above is both positive and worrying.
My take, and it's just how I'm reading it not ITK, is that:
They have the money. They are deciding whether to "unlock it" ie put it on the table. That is positive.
The talks weren't between the buyer and seller but between two groups of buyers. That is worrying as buyers still working things out..
Duchatelet is aware of the situation. No sure if that is good or bad as it's not clear if the price has been agreed or not. My worry is the irrational Roland factor can kick in at any time and the price doubles or requires the owners to provide a pint of unicorn's blood.
Comments
We think the takeover will be completed in February. (Last year)
Assume he did infact mean February 2019.
There's been no bid, no money has been unlocked and we could still complete this week.
Righto.
To unbookmark click on the star again.
After all - there don't appear to be too many people saying that West Ham are getting legged over with a lease arrangement for the ground currently.
Currently, the title of the ground is a convoluted. The ground is owned by Baton, which in turn is c.90% owned by Roland. But there is a charge on the property that is shared, unequally, between seven other investors (the "former directors"). So the club is, in all intents and purposes owned by Roland and the ground is "shared" between Roland and other investors.
There *could* be a situation where the club is owned, 100%, by a consortium of Aussies, whose aspiration is purely on the return they can generate by improving the team (ie by getting promoted to the highest possible level), while the ground is owned, 100%, by a consortium of American investors who are purely and exclusively interested in the capital appreciation that will naturally accrue from a large piece of London real estate, whilst having no intention to develop the site. This would free up the football club to concentrate solely on the football; and free up the real estate investor to make capital gains, notwithstanding the performance of the team.
If anyone thinks that is something that must be avoided at all costs, I have to disagree. Because it implies that there is a preference for the current owner to continue. If that happens, Charlton will cease to exist in a few years' time. We are in terminal decline, with an owner who has no desire to risk any more of his investment and seemingly no clue as to how to exit. Make no mistake about it: with Roland in charge, Charlton will cease to be.
So, does anyone really have a preference to see Charlton fold, rather than have two distinct, committed, professional consortia owning the parts of the club in which their aspirations expertise lie?
Still, very generous of you.
I'd be really frustrated if we end this transfer window still owned by Roland. But that doesn't mean I'd be happy for us to be bought by anyone.
The former directors are irrelevant, a bank or other lender may have a charge over your house/factory, but it doesn't mean they own it.
Secondly, any investor looking for capital gains is going to want a way to actually realise these gains in the future. This means selling to another investor with as yet unknown motives.
I suppose we could have a situation where an investor buys the ground as a 'cash cow' investment whereby they are happy to simply take a percentage rental yield each year with no prospect of capital gain, but even then we're exposed to the risk of a further sale down the line.
I'm not saying that any splitting of the club and ground would necessarily be worse than the current situation, but I would be highly sceptical at best.
I've got a tenner, so has Paul, John's got a score, Dave how much have you got left?
Numerous pubs have been forced to close as a result of landlords realising that they can make much more money turning the building into flats or leasing it to Tesco/Sainsburys. The old lease expires, pub can't afford the new terms, 6 months later it's Tesco Express on the ground floor with 6 flats on the upper floors.
You could argue that they couldn't put the rents up excessively because there isn't an alternative tenant for a football stadium, but you then become entirely dependent on Greenwich Council's Planning Department not allowing someone permission to knock it down and build something else there.
My take, and it's just how I'm reading it not ITK, is that:
They have the money. They are deciding whether to "unlock it" ie put it on the table. That is positive.
The talks weren't between the buyer and seller but between two groups of buyers. That is worrying as buyers still working things out..
Duchatelet is aware of the situation. No sure if that is good or bad as it's not clear if the price has been agreed or not. My worry is the irrational Roland factor can kick in at any time and the price doubles or requires the owners to provide a pint of unicorn's blood.
#teamWIOTOS
Can someone please tell me what to make of that.