The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
If any deal involves the ground and the club as separate, there is still the "Greenwich Master Plan" to consider, both The Douchebag and The Spivs bought into it, it's still there, a search will show Greenwich Council's enthusiasm for a Stadium on the Peninsula!
https://853london.com/2012/02/16/council-eyes-40000-capacity-arena-for-greenwich-peninsula/0 -
Peninsula is back on the menu, ladies and gentlemen.16
-
Perhaps if you took more notice you'll see I've already replied to that particular comment.SoundAsa£ said:
Valley Gary in particular needs to take note IMHO!kentaddick said:Fair play to jim white, he's giving us info to the best of his knowledge and giving us national attention.
The fact people want to throw a barney on here is their own business, and, ultimately, a waste of their time and energy.0 -
Article by our very own InspectorSands in 2012.Longtimeaddicted said:If any deal involves the ground and the club as separate, there is still the "Greenwich Master Plan" to consider, both The Douchebag and The Spivs bought into it, it's still there, a search will show Greenwich Council's enthusiasm for a Stadium on the Peninsula!
https://853london.com/2012/02/16/council-eyes-40000-capacity-arena-for-greenwich-peninsula/
Keep up dear boy, unless your trolling.3 -
That golden era ended 11.5 years ago when we were relegated from the PL. Indeed it ended 12.5 years ago when Curbishley left. That's an eternity.Chizz said:
I stand by my assessment that we are in terminal decline under the current ownership. In fact, I don't see how it can be perceived in any other way. A few years ago, we were a well-respected, engaged football club, with passionate fans, committed owners and managed well, within the club's means. It's not many years ago that we had one of the best teams in the country - both men's and women's. The ground was full every week, the development set up was approaching best-in-class, we were able to choose between sponsors, the scouting network was able to find and sign international players from across Europe and Africa and, in short, we had plenty of which to be proud.killerandflash said:
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.Chizz said: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'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.
The club now is a husk. Underfunded, run down and operated on the thinnest of shoestrings. We are in the lowest Football League division we have ever been; and risk being there for longer than ever before. But more importantly than that, the person that has thrust us into this position is still in charge, has no idea as to how to extricate the club from the position it's in; or to extricate himself from the monumental error he's made.
The direction of travel of the club is downhill. And it will continue to be downhill until and unless the owner sells or the club becomes defunct. I hope and pray that the former takes place sooner than the latter. But wishing that we are not in terminal decline doesn't make it not true.
The point of my post was to highlight my view that changing ownership is vastly more important than whether the club and ground are owned by one party or two. The risk associated with the club being split from the ground is obvious and real. But the risk of the current owner still being in charge is much, much larger.
Since then it has been a catalogue of mismanagement, which started well before Roland. It was the double relegation which financially destroyed us. Yes the Powell era was a success on the pitch, but off the pitch it was a complete mess, which fell apart once Cash withheld the cash.
Yes I want Roland out, but not to anyone. I don't want to end up like Bolton, lurching from one financial crisis to another.
8 -
This times 10Chizz said:
I stand by my assessment that we are in terminal decline under the current ownership. In fact, I don't see how it can be perceived in any other way. A few years ago, we were a well-respected, engaged football club, with passionate fans, committed owners and managed well, within the club's means. It's not many years ago that we had one of the best teams in the country - both men's and women's. The ground was full every week, the development set up was approaching best-in-class, we were able to choose between sponsors, the scouting network was able to find and sign international players from across Europe and Africa and, in short, we had plenty of which to be proud.killerandflash said:
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.Chizz said: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'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.
The club now is a husk. Underfunded, run down and operated on the thinnest of shoestrings. We are in the lowest Football League division we have ever been; and risk being there for longer than ever before. But more importantly than that, the person that has thrust us into this position is still in charge, has no idea as to how to extricate the club from the position it's in; or to extricate himself from the monumental error he's made.
The direction of travel of the club is downhill. And it will continue to be downhill until and unless the owner sells or the club becomes defunct. I hope and pray that the former takes place sooner than the latter. But wishing that we are not in terminal decline doesn't make it not true.
The point of my post was to highlight my view that changing ownership is vastly more important than whether the club and ground are owned by one party or two. The risk associated with the club being split from the ground is obvious and real. But the risk of the current owner still being in charge is much, much larger.0 -
We could easily have scraped promotion last season come to think of it, the 4 teams in the playoffs were much of a muchness really.Covered End said:
We are not in terminal decline.Chizz said:
I stand by my assessment that we are in terminal decline under the current ownership. In fact, I don't see how it can be perceived in any other way. A few years ago, we were a well-respected, engaged football club, with passionate fans, committed owners and managed well, within the club's means. It's not many years ago that we had one of the best teams in the country - both men's and women's. The ground was full every week, the development set up was approaching best-in-class, we were able to choose between sponsors, the scouting network was able to find and sign international players from across Europe and Africa and, in short, we had plenty of which to be proud.killerandflash said:
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.Chizz said: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'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.
The club now is a husk. Underfunded, run down and operated on the thinnest of shoestrings. We are in the lowest Football League division we have ever been; and risk being there for longer than ever before. But more importantly than that, the person that has thrust us into this position is still in charge, has no idea as to how to extricate the club from the position it's in; or to extricate himself from the monumental error he's made.
The direction of travel of the club is downhill. And it will continue to be downhill until and unless the owner sells or the club becomes defunct. I hope and pray that the former takes place sooner than the latter. But wishing that we are not in terminal decline doesn't make it not true.
The point of my post was to highlight my view that changing ownership is vastly more important than whether the club and ground are owned by one party or two. The risk associated with the club being split from the ground is obvious and real. But the risk of the current owner still being in charge is much, much larger.
The club is struggling, but it is does have a chance to improve.
We are 4th and could get promoted this season.3 -
Washed down with Red Bull.Callumcafc said:Peninsula is back on the menu, ladies and gentlemen.
0 -
Glad to have you back @JamesSeed , and to read your good news.JamesSeed said:Aussies out!
My last post on here was on page 1244 and I’m not sure what’s changed since then :-(
Part of the reason for my return is that I wanted to send you all a message about prostate cancer:
https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/3416267#Comment_3416267
When you say the Aussies are out, do you mean they are out out? Or did you mean that in a "Roland Out!" kinda way?
If they are out of the picture, hopefully this leads Roland to revise his asking price, and other buyers are found ASAP.
Couldn't agree more with the terminal decline comments. It may not happen instantly, but we will continue to slide under RD's ownership, and relegation to League 2 and beyond beckons.1 -
Worried about 2 parties being involved IMO those deals always end in tears!0
- Sponsored links:
-
What about maintenance and repairs, is that down to the landlord? Remember Glikstein wouldn't sort the east terrace when Hulyer owned the football club.bobmunro said:Let's look at a hypothetical example of how a separate Valley/Club deal might work.
Total takeover cost £30 million - made up of £15 million real estate and £15 million good will, EFL licence, squad value etc...
Americans pay £15 mill for the real estate and Aussies buy the rest. Americans charge a rent of £600k per year for a secure 99 year term thereby getting a 4% return, but retain ownership of the ground. Escape clause from the lease with an option for the Aussies to buy the freehold for say £20 million at any point in the future. Americans play no part whatsoever in running the club.
Ignore the actual figures above but that might work.1 -
That’s the whole point of negotiations. It could be as good or as bad as you can imagine and anything in between.Ferryman said:
What about maintenance and repairs, is that down to the landlord? Remember Glikstein wouldn't sort the east terrace when Hulyer owned the football club.bobmunro said:Let's look at a hypothetical example of how a separate Valley/Club deal might work.
Total takeover cost £30 million - made up of £15 million real estate and £15 million good will, EFL licence, squad value etc...
Americans pay £15 mill for the real estate and Aussies buy the rest. Americans charge a rent of £600k per year for a secure 99 year term thereby getting a 4% return, but retain ownership of the ground. Escape clause from the lease with an option for the Aussies to buy the freehold for say £20 million at any point in the future. Americans play no part whatsoever in running the club.
Ignore the actual figures above but that might work.
1 -
Gordon Bennett - it was only an example.Ferryman said:
What about maintenance and repairs, is that down to the landlord? Remember Glikstein wouldn't sort the east terrace when Hulyer owned the football club.bobmunro said:Let's look at a hypothetical example of how a separate Valley/Club deal might work.
Total takeover cost £30 million - made up of £15 million real estate and £15 million good will, EFL licence, squad value etc...
Americans pay £15 mill for the real estate and Aussies buy the rest. Americans charge a rent of £600k per year for a secure 99 year term thereby getting a 4% return, but retain ownership of the ground. Escape clause from the lease with an option for the Aussies to buy the freehold for say £20 million at any point in the future. Americans play no part whatsoever in running the club.
Ignore the actual figures above but that might work.
Now if the Americans/Aussies pay me handsomely I'll structure a deal beneficial tomeboth!!0 -
Sorry, I was wrong. On Friday I posted that JW was speaking bollox & he was being played by RD. Having just listened to that 1.40 min snippet I concur he is just plain talking bollox. Conference call from the US & Oz.......it could only happen to us. Rather have Mike Ashley if I'm honest.
"Unlocking the money" in investment terms is more likely to mean dis-investing already held assetts or waiting for certain fixed rate bonds to become available. This could mean weeks or even months.
The Aussies have been around for almost 12 months & they still don't have enough money to buy the club, let alone fund it for their magical 5 year "plan". Tell them to do one & come back when they are sensible.3 -
I wonder if a separation could be challenUboat said:
James Seed strolls back into thread.
Eastenders drums. Roll credits.
I'll take 1 day if its still available..
welcome back @JamesSeed !
2 -
Isn’t proving funds for 5 years part of the efl fit and proper persons test?golfaddick said:Sorry, I was wrong. On Friday I posted that JW was speaking bollox & he was being played by RD. Having just listened to that 1.40 min snippet I concur he is just plain talking bollox. Conference call from the US & Oz.......it could only happen to us. Rather have Mike Ashley if I'm honest.
"Unlocking the money" in investment terms is more likely to mean dis-investing already held assetts or waiting for certain fixed rate bonds to become available. This could mean weeks or even months.
The Aussies have been around for almost 12 months & they still don't have enough money to buy the club, let alone fund it for their magical 5 year "plan". Tell them to do one & come back when they are sensible.0 -
So rewinding a bit. It was stated that the new owners were introduced to staff between Xmas and new year, who made introductions and to who and what has actually changed since?. Also I'm sure I remember someone saying there were no issues regarding the funding for the deal, so what the fuck changed since then or was all this bullshit??5
-
2 years I think0
-
I think the meet and greet at the training ground on a Sunday as championed by Airman may have been with 'POTENTIAL new owners'. Not 'THE new owners.'
Chinese whispers play a f****** huge part in a lot that goes on here.4 -
Oh. The ride is to raise funds for prostate cancer though.Covered End said:
Wrong thread for prostate cancer.JamesSeed said:Aussies out!
My last post on here was on page 1244 and I’m not sure what’s changed since then :-(
Part of the reason for my return is that I wanted to send you all a message about prostate cancer:
https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/3416267#Comment_34162670 - Sponsored links:
-
James Seed wakes up in the shower. The last year has just been a dream, and the February 2018 takeover deadline is still on.Uboat said:James Seed strolls back into thread.
Eastenders drums. Roll credits.14 -
I just don't get how this tallies with the 'being introduced as the new owners at the training ground' when they've not even submitted there offer.1
-
As I said. Potential new owners.J BLOCK said:I just don't get how this tallies with the 'being introduced as the new owners at the training ground' when they've not even submitted there offer.
There's a huge difference.1 -
I think a lot of the posts suggesting no price has been agreed, no bid on the table and not having the money are wide of the mark. FWIW I think something is going down and it’s reaching a conclusion. That’s not the same as reaching a positive conclusion because too much can go wrong at any point especially when dealing with someone like Duchatelet. I do think the two “buying” parties involved are getting their ducks in a row and it will either work out or not in the next week or so.3
-
If the rumours of Americans potentially looking to purchase the Valley and training facilities are true then I assume they would have to pay off the existing Director loans in order to achieve this?
Can't see this being part of the deal to be honest.0 -
It will happen in the next two weeks, I seem to have heard that before somewhereShootersHillGuru said:I think a lot of the posts suggesting no price has been agreed, no bid on the table and not having the money are wide of the mark. FWIW I think something is going down and it’s reaching a conclusion. That’s not the same as reaching a positive conclusion because too much can go wrong at any point especially when dealing with someone like Duchatelet. I do think the two “buying” parties involved are getting their ducks in a row and it will either work out or not in the next week or so.
0 -
Difference being I said it will be resolved. That can be either positive or negativeross1 said:
It will happen in the next two weeks, I seem to have heard that before somewhereShootersHillGuru said:I think a lot of the posts suggesting no price has been agreed, no bid on the table and not having the money are wide of the mark. FWIW I think something is going down and it’s reaching a conclusion. That’s not the same as reaching a positive conclusion because too much can go wrong at any point especially when dealing with someone like Duchatelet. I do think the two “buying” parties involved are getting their ducks in a row and it will either work out or not in the next week or so.
0 -
Page 1905 looking good3
-
Thats nothing, some Aussie bloke turned up at the Valley last season, said he was the new owner and got a free scarf from the club shop....we've not seen him since, bloody chancer.CheshireAddick said:So rewinding a bit. It was stated that the new owners were introduced to staff between Xmas and new year, who made introductions and to who and what has actually changed since?. Also I'm sure I remember someone saying there were no issues regarding the funding for the deal, so what the fuck changed since then or was all this bullshit??
7 -
No. I'm referring to the posts people have made when they say they referred to them as the new owners, not potential.carly burn said:
As I said. Potential new owners.J BLOCK said:I just don't get how this tallies with the 'being introduced as the new owners at the training ground' when they've not even submitted there offer.
There's a huge difference.0
