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.
I'm not saying that any splitting of the club and ground would necessarily be better or worse than the current situation. But I am saying that the club leasing the Valley from a benign property owner would be vastly preferable to the continuing harm of the current ownership.
My preference is that the club and ground remain in the ownership of one party, but not the current one. The least desirable outcome, however, is for the current owner to continue to wreak his destructive and avoidable catastrophic proprietorship.
so according to White, they have had talks to unlock the money so a bid can be made....FFS...so what if they say 25 mil and The Rat says 50 mil.....then they walk away.....?
Its wank, utter wank.
Maybe
Remember this is coming from the broker.
So, imagine the broker approaches Duchatelet, agrees a price with him and then puts together the consortium to buy the club.
So, broker already knows the price, her job (for which she is very well paid, no doubt) is to put the two sides together.
She? Who’s the broker?
Sexist! Brokers can be male or female or non-gender specific
so according to White, they have had talks to unlock the money so a bid can be made....FFS...so what if they say 25 mil and The Rat says 50 mil.....then they walk away.....?
Its wank, utter wank.
Maybe
Remember this is coming from the broker.
So, imagine the broker approaches Duchatelet, agrees a price with him and then puts together the consortium to buy the club.
So, broker already knows the price, her job (for which she is very well paid, no doubt) is to put the two sides together.
The sale price was allegedly agreed a long long time ago & LDT has never moved from this assertion.
Slightly worrying that these Aussies have been potential buyers for so long without being able to stump up the money ! Roland will be smiling that he offset some of his losses due to JW inaccurate quotes last week, I for one was hoodwinked in to turning up last Saturday.
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.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that they are American. Money makes them tick They, I guarantee, will not care one iota about Charlton Athetics Soccer Club.
If we could negotiate a deal with a British landlord I don't think its would be all bad, after all Its worked fine a dandy for West Ham. Perhaps we should get Boris and a Tory pier on board to lend their expertise.
Millwall (spit!) have a very good owner who keeps that shitty club going year on year.
He's American.
The septics are a diverse and varied nation, they are not all the same, just like any nation.
Very true they do have an American owner who does what he can for them and so does Fulham but both, I think, own the whole club ground included. I could be wrong. Splitting the club and renting it back worries me greatly. It was a long hard fight to return to the Valley and I don't like the idea of fighting for our ground again with a landlord with no affinity to our club,(assuming the landlord only wants to be a property owner), just so we can have a change of owners. That said Roly has no love of our club and will sell to who he wants if someone is mad enough to meet his expectations, we don't have much of a say in it. We've certainly had better times.
I also agree with the diverse bit, they really are a diverse nation.
so according to White, they have had talks to unlock the money so a bid can be made....FFS...so what if they say 25 mil and The Rat says 50 mil.....then they walk away.....?
Its wank, utter wank.
Maybe
Remember this is coming from the broker.
So, imagine the broker approaches Duchatelet, agrees a price with him and then puts together the consortium to buy the club.
So, broker already knows the price, her job (for which she is very well paid, no doubt) is to put the two sides together.
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.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that they are American. Money makes them tick They, I guarantee, will not care one iota about Charlton Athetics Soccer Club.
If we could negotiate a deal with a British landlord I don't think its would be all bad, after all Its worked fine a dandy for West Ham. Perhaps we should get Boris and a Tory pier on board to lend their expertise.
Millwall (spit!) have a very good owner who keeps that shitty club going year on year.
He's American.
The septics are a diverse and varied nation, they are not all the same, just like any nation.
Very true they do have an American owner who does what he can for them and so does Fulham but both, I think, own the whole club ground included. I could be wrong. Splitting the club and renting it back worries me greatly. It was a long hard fight to return to the Valley and I don't like the idea of fighting for our ground again with a landlord with no affinity to our club,(assuming the landlord only wants to be a property owner), just so we can have a change of owners. That said Roly has no love of our club and will sell to who he wants if someone is mad enough to meet his expectations, we don't have much of a say in it. We've certainly had better times.
I also agree with the diverse bit, they really are a diverse nation.
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.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that they are American. Money makes them tick They, I guarantee, will not care one iota about Charlton Athetics Soccer Club.
If we could negotiate a deal with a British landlord I don't think its would be all bad, after all Its worked fine a dandy for West Ham. Perhaps we should get Boris and a Tory pier on board to lend their expertise.
Millwall (spit!) have a very good owner who keeps that shitty club going year on year.
He's American.
The septics are a diverse and varied nation, they are not all the same, just like any nation.
Berylson is an exception, he appears to have become emotionally involved at Millwall. However, most of the other American owners ,thinking Glazers, Kroenke,Henry, have attempted to take out more than they have put in (or zero as in Glazers case - what an incredible piece of business that was).
so according to White, they have had talks to unlock the money so a bid can be made....FFS...so what if they say 25 mil and The Rat says 50 mil.....then they walk away.....?
Its wank, utter wank.
Maybe
Remember this is coming from the broker.
So, imagine the broker approaches Duchatelet, agrees a price with him and then puts together the consortium to buy the club.
So, broker already knows the price, her job (for which she is very well paid, no doubt) is to put the two sides together.
The sale price was allegedly agreed a long long time ago & LDT has never moved from this assertion.
I think Roland's asking price might have been agreed. I'm not so sure that doesn't change whenever Roland changes his pants.
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
It has been widely reported that the Aussies don’t have large financial resources available to them and therefore cannot afford to pay Roland’s £40m valuation.
That ridiculous figure comes from a commercial valuation of the underlying land at The Valley and Sparrows Lane. Since the Aussies can’t afford £40m, it appears that they are enlisting American financial investors to fund (and therefore have ownership of) those physical assets, whilst the Aussies run the club from a commercial perspective.
This has massive downside risk for us fans. The financial investors are likely to charge commercial interest on their loan of c.10%, giving the Aussies an annual bill of c £4m just to use The Valley and Training Ground. In the medium term, without a very significant investment in players, the most likely scenario is that the club are a mid to lower Championship side and the Aussies will run out of money within 3 to 4 seasons. If that happens, we then have a football club effectively owned by financial investors with zero interest in owning a football club who just want to liquidate their land asset or sell it on for significantly more than they paid for it. Think what has happened to Coventry City for a parallel situation where they don’t own the ground.
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.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that they are American. Money makes them tick They, I guarantee, will not care one iota about Charlton Athetics Soccer Club.
If we could negotiate a deal with a British landlord I don't think its would be all bad, after all Its worked fine a dandy for West Ham. Perhaps we should get Boris and a Tory pier on board to lend their expertise.
Millwall (spit!) have a very good owner who keeps that shitty club going year on year.
He's American.
The septics are a diverse and varied nation, they are not all the same, just like any nation.
Berylson is an exception, he appears to have become emotionally involved at Millwall. However, most of the other American owners ,thinking Glazers, Kroenke,Henry, have attempted to take out more than they have put in (or zero as in Glazers case - what an incredible piece of business that was).
So 25% of US owners are OK.
The guys at Palace also seem to be contributing positively so maybe it's 40%
and if we count the Orient owner it becomes 50%
So maybe Berylson isn't an exception, maybe some yanks are OK, others aren't (especially if running Champions League clubs)
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.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that they are American. Money makes them tick They, I guarantee, will not care one iota about Charlton Athetics Soccer Club.
If we could negotiate a deal with a British landlord I don't think its would be all bad, after all Its worked fine a dandy for West Ham. Perhaps we should get Boris and a Tory pier on board to lend their expertise.
Millwall (spit!) have a very good owner who keeps that shitty club going year on year.
He's American.
The septics are a diverse and varied nation, they are not all the same, just like any nation.
Berylson is an exception, he appears to have become emotionally involved at Millwall. However, most of the other American owners ,thinking Glazers, Kroenke,Henry, have attempted to take out more than they have put in (or zero as in Glazers case - what an incredible piece of business that was).
So 25% of US owners are OK.
The guys at Palace also seem to be contributing positively so maybe it's 40%
and if we count the Orient owner it becomes 50%
So maybe Berylson isn't an exception, maybe some yanks are OK, others aren't (especially if running Champions League clubs)
Utd have also spent a fortune on players, it's not like the glaziers are bleeding them dry!
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.
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.
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.
We are not in terminal decline. The club is struggling, but it is does have a chance to improve. We are 4th and could get promoted this season.
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.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that they are American. Money makes them tick They, I guarantee, will not care one iota about Charlton Athetics Soccer Club.
If we could negotiate a deal with a British landlord I don't think its would be all bad, after all Its worked fine a dandy for West Ham. Perhaps we should get Boris and a Tory pier on board to lend their expertise.
Millwall (spit!) have a very good owner who keeps that shitty club going year on year.
He's American.
The septics are a diverse and varied nation, they are not all the same, just like any nation.
Berylson is an exception, he appears to have become emotionally involved at Millwall. However, most of the other American owners ,thinking Glazers, Kroenke,Henry, have attempted to take out more than they have put in (or zero as in Glazers case - what an incredible piece of business that was).
one assumes the way any deal would be structured is by a loan from the Yanks secured on the physical assets to a co owned by the Aussies, with additional terms based on success? Rather than an ownership split although, the impact if it went wrong would be similar just as it would if you mortgaged the assets to a bank.
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.
It might work if you're in the Premier League and revenue generation from TV, Sponsorship and Tickets gave you an operating profit or break even financial year.
The problem is that we're losing circa £8m a year and that will increase if we are to improve the squad. How long this consortium sustain that? If selling the Club's biggest asset before they've even arrived is an indicator, my guess is not very long.
IF we sell the Valley to get the takeover through, I can genuinely foresee a situation where in 3-4 years time, if we're not in the Premier League and with no assets to borrow against, we'll be in severe financial difficulties.
And what sort of cowboys do you end up with who buy football clubs without clean title to the stadium?
Mark Goldberg, Simon Jordan, Tony Jiminez, Kevin Cash, Roland Duchatelet. There's a few names to make you shudder.
so according to White, they have had talks to unlock the money so a bid can be made....FFS...so what if they say 25 mil and The Rat says 50 mil.....then they walk away.....?
Its wank, utter wank.
Maybe
Remember this is coming from the broker.
So, imagine the broker approaches Duchatelet, agrees a price with him and then puts together the consortium to buy the club.
So, broker already knows the price, her job (for which she is very well paid, no doubt) is to put the two sides together.
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.
You say that, but this season is absolutely key for us to be sold as we've got expiring contracts on almost all our key players. At the moment we're due to lose Phillips, Bauer (already leaving), Aribo, JFC, Lapslie, Marshall, Fosu, Reeves, Clarke, Igor, Reeco, Ajose, Grant and even Williams. That is insane. The longer these out of contract sagas go on the more you tend to see the players have other stuff lined up, so we could lose a team's worth of decent players by June. Granted we could renew some of these deals, and some of these names we would willingly let go anyway, but from what we've heard everyone who has been offered a deal has been offered reduced terms and the place is a nuthouse, so why as a player would you stay? If we lose a substantial number of first teamers you can bet that Roland won't be fixing the gaps in a squad that's already too small. It's also a hell of a lot harder and more expensive to source 10 suitable new players than to renew 10 contracts. I think given the contract situation our current condition is terminal and will be coming to a head in July
so according to White, they have had talks to unlock the money so a bid can be made....FFS...so what if they say 25 mil and The Rat says 50 mil.....then they walk away.....?
Its wank, utter wank.
Maybe
Remember this is coming from the broker.
So, imagine the broker approaches Duchatelet, agrees a price with him and then puts together the consortium to buy the club.
So, broker already knows the price, her job (for which she is very well paid, no doubt) is to put the two sides together.
The sale price was allegedly agreed a long long time ago & LDT has never moved from this assertion.
I think Roland's asking price might have been agreed. I'm not so sure that doesn't change whenever Roland changes his pants.
Yuk, I'm never going to be able to erase that mental image
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.
The biggest problem with this is the fact that they are American. Money makes them tick They, I guarantee, will not care one iota about Charlton Athetics Soccer Club.
If we could negotiate a deal with a British landlord I don't think its would be all bad, after all Its worked fine a dandy for West Ham. Perhaps we should get Boris and a Tory pier on board to lend their expertise.
Millwall (spit!) have a very good owner who keeps that shitty club going year on year.
He's American.
The septics are a diverse and varied nation, they are not all the same, just like any nation.
Very true they do have an American owner who does what he can for them and so does Fulham but both, I think, own the whole club ground included. I could be wrong. Splitting the club and renting it back worries me greatly. It was a long hard fight to return to the Valley and I don't like the idea of fighting for our ground again with a landlord with no affinity to our club,(assuming the landlord only wants to be a property owner), just so we can have a change of owners. That said Roly has no love of our club and will sell to who he wants if someone is mad enough to meet his expectations, we don't have much of a say in it. We've certainly had better times.
I also agree with the diverse bit, they really are a diverse nation.
Comments
My preference is that the club and ground remain in the ownership of one party, but not the current one. The least desirable outcome, however, is for the current owner to continue to wreak his destructive and avoidable catastrophic proprietorship.
Splitting the club and renting it back worries me greatly. It was a long hard fight to return to the Valley and I don't like the idea of fighting for our ground again with a landlord with no affinity to our club,(assuming the landlord only wants to be a property owner), just so we can have a change of owners. That said Roly has no love of our club and will sell to who he wants if someone is mad enough to meet his expectations, we don't have much of a say in it. We've certainly had better times.
I also agree with the diverse bit, they really are a diverse nation.
A meaningless ramble, until facts are known.
The guys at Palace also seem to be contributing positively so maybe it's 40%
and if we count the Orient owner it becomes 50%
So maybe Berylson isn't an exception, maybe some yanks are OK, others aren't (especially if running Champions League clubs)
It's the only truth we'll ever likely to get, until then all this speculation is utterly futile and pointless.
Goodbye, I'm off to put a bullet through my head.
The club is struggling, but it is does have a chance to improve.
We are 4th and could get promoted this season.
The problem is that we're losing circa £8m a year and that will increase if we are to improve the squad. How long this consortium sustain that? If selling the Club's biggest asset before they've even arrived is an indicator, my guess is not very long.
IF we sell the Valley to get the takeover through, I can genuinely foresee a situation where in 3-4 years time, if we're not in the Premier League and with no assets to borrow against, we'll be in severe financial difficulties.
And what sort of cowboys do you end up with who buy football clubs without clean title to the stadium?
Mark Goldberg, Simon Jordan, Tony Jiminez, Kevin Cash, Roland Duchatelet. There's a few names to make you shudder.
getting close