”These things take time” ”Mr Duchatelet has every intention of selling” ”We’ve had new parties making enquiries since the last meeting” ”One party is very close but yet to show proof of funds”
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
If the assets are worth £33m, the loans £7m then new owners can still borrow up to £26m, and I believe the book value of the Valley & Sparrows Lane is over £40m.
Did you used to work for Northern Rock? 100% lending on a second charge against a football stadium! What could go wrong.
HI hits nail on head in his post.
All this teeth gnashing about clearing a charge being bad news is really odd. The ex-Directors loans are a contingent liability against the club. Any professional doing due diligence would advise their client to ensure they were clear before purchase, it is a sensible business practice and makes the club more saleable in future (exit strategy...).
Now given they do not accrue interest and are only payable on EPL status it may be that a purchaser would factor this into their price to RD (ie ‘your choice, we pay you £30m and you settle the debt OR we pay you £26m and we settle) but the issue is RD is mad as a box of frogs and whilst he is not prepared to fund a promotion push he wants his cake and to eat it so comes back with £30m AND you settle and everything sits in a hiatus. The contingent liability is not a benefit to the new owner unless it reduces upfront cash cost so why should they take it on.
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
Doesn’t make sense.
It does.
It doesn’t. First thing to remember is this is not a normal debt. It may never be paid. It is also interest free so it may not be financially prudent to repay it. Also, we are living in the 21st century. A world of incredibly complex financial and insurance instruments. If I was buying the club and my plan involved borrowing against the assets and I wanted to borrow the full value of the assets I Find it difficult to believe I could not easily and with not too much additional cost go to the debt market and get that loan with a tailored financial instrument that guaranteeid immediate repayment of the director loans on promotion to the Premier league.
Therin lies the problem. Who would loan against such unknowns without punitive fees ? If The Valley and training ground are worth lets say £27 million with £7 million already tied in that to preferential debtors. Whst could you actually loan against that figure ? £10 million ?Plus thise directors could block any attempts to make such a loan.
”These things take time” ”Mr Duchatelet has every intention of selling” ”We’ve had new parties making enquiries since the last meeting” ”One party is very close but yet to show proof of funds”
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
Doesn’t make sense.
It does.
It doesn’t. First thing to remember is this is not a normal debt. It may never be paid. It is also interest free so it may not be financially prudent to repay it. Also, we are living in the 21st century. A world of incredibly complex financial and insurance instruments. If I was buying the club and my plan involved borrowing against the assets and I wanted to borrow the full value of the assets I Find it difficult to believe I could not easily and with not too much additional cost go to the debt market and get that loan with a tailored financial instrument that guaranteeid immediate repayment of the director loans on promotion to the Premier league.
Therin lies the problem. Who would loan against such unknowns without punitive fees ? If The Valley and training ground are worth lets say £27 million with £7 million already tied in that to preferential debtors. Whst could you actually loan against that figure ? £10 million ?Plus thise directors could block any attempts to make such a loan.
You could loan £7m and pay the Directors off, then borrow what you wanted.
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
Doesn’t make sense.
It does.
It doesn’t. First thing to remember is this is not a normal debt. It may never be paid. It is also interest free so it may not be financially prudent to repay it. Also, we are living in the 21st century. A world of incredibly complex financial and insurance instruments. If I was buying the club and my plan involved borrowing against the assets and I wanted to borrow the full value of the assets I Find it difficult to believe I could not easily and with not too much additional cost go to the debt market and get that loan with a tailored financial instrument that guaranteeid immediate repayment of the director loans on promotion to the Premier league.
Therin lies the problem. Who would loan against such unknowns without punitive fees ? If The Valley and training ground are worth lets say £27 million with £7 million already tied in that to preferential debtors. Whst could you actually loan against that figure ? £10 million ?Plus thise directors could block any attempts to make such a loan.
You could loan £7m and pay the Directors off, then borrow what you wanted.
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
Doesn’t make sense.
It does.
It doesn’t. First thing to remember is this is not a normal debt. It may never be paid. It is also interest free so it may not be financially prudent to repay it. Also, we are living in the 21st century. A world of incredibly complex financial and insurance instruments. If I was buying the club and my plan involved borrowing against the assets and I wanted to borrow the full value of the assets I Find it difficult to believe I could not easily and with not too much additional cost go to the debt market and get that loan with a tailored financial instrument that guaranteeid immediate repayment of the director loans on promotion to the Premier league.
Therin lies the problem. Who would loan against such unknowns without punitive fees ? If The Valley and training ground are worth lets say £27 million with £7 million already tied in that to preferential debtors. Whst could you actually loan against that figure ? £10 million ?Plus thise directors could block any attempts to make such a loan.
You could loan £7m and pay the Directors off, then borrow what you wanted.
No, you could only borrow what someone would lend against the assets.
Ultimately if and when we are sold, the new ( or current) owner needs to fund the squad and build us up. No good just buying us and then not investing in us so the owners need a lot more then 40 million, couple of billion to tempt Messi and co.
I have reliable information that RD was still quoting a much higher price to new potential bidders who came forward after Wembley. In the case I know of, they were quoted the property-based structure that someone mentioned a while ago, i.e. Club for £1, Valley for £50m, training ground for a figure somewhere above £5m. Of course it is perfectly possible that the lower figures quoted re the Aussies is still accurate since they have been "negotiating" so long. I don't know what has happened re the bid I mention here. I fear that the silence means that they were put off by the price they were quoted, and who would blame them. It's a pity, because I was told the ID of the buyer, and found the person quite interesting. If anyone wants to confront LdT with my assertion, on my behalf, I would be very happy if they did so.
I have reliable information that RD was still quoting a much higher price to new potential bidders who came forward after Wembley. In the case I know of, they were quoted the property-based structure that someone mentioned a while ago, i.e. Club for £1, Valley for £50m, training ground for a figure somewhere above £5m. Of course it is perfectly possible that the lower figures quoted re the Aussies is still accurate since they have been "negotiating" so long. I don't know what has happened re the bid I mention here. I fear that the silence means that they were put off by the price they were quoted, and who would blame them. It's a pity, because I was told the ID of the buyer, and found the person quite interesting. If anyone wants to confront LdT with my assertion, on my behalf, I would be very happy if they did so.
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
Doesn’t make sense.
It does.
It doesn’t. First thing to remember is this is not a normal debt. It may never be paid. It is also interest free so it may not be financially prudent to repay it. Also, we are living in the 21st century. A world of incredibly complex financial and insurance instruments. If I was buying the club and my plan involved borrowing against the assets and I wanted to borrow the full value of the assets I Find it difficult to believe I could not easily and with not too much additional cost go to the debt market and get that loan with a tailored financial instrument that guaranteeid immediate repayment of the director loans on promotion to the Premier league.
Therin lies the problem. Who would loan against such unknowns without punitive fees ? If The Valley and training ground are worth lets say £27 million with £7 million already tied in that to preferential debtors. Whst could you actually loan against that figure ? £10 million ?Plus thise directors could block any attempts to make such a loan.
You could loan £7m and pay the Directors off, then borrow what you wanted.
No, you could only borrow what someone would lend against the assets.
That's assuming commercial lending, if it was "friendly" similar to the ex directors you could borrow much more.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
Doesn’t make sense.
Does to me. Debt isn't as secured without clean title.
Which also affects the interest that lenders would charge on any loan secured on it.
I have a deep aversion to fish puns so only skim this thread occasionally. I may have missed something so please ignore this post if I am raising an issue that has already been dealt with.
Fact: we have some director loans totalling £7 million. These loans have been raised against the ground and training ground.
Fact: these loans only become payable on promotion to the Premier League.
Fact: on promotion to the Premiership Charlton will immediately receive approximately £100 million and guaranteed £90 million for the following three years in parachute payments if we are relegated after one season.
Is it still being claimed that the £7 million in loans is holding up a sale?
It is suggested that new owners who might want to raise finance on the assets might not be able to without clean title.
Doesn’t make sense.
It does.
It doesn’t. First thing to remember is this is not a normal debt. It may never be paid. It is also interest free so it may not be financially prudent to repay it. Also, we are living in the 21st century. A world of incredibly complex financial and insurance instruments. If I was buying the club and my plan involved borrowing against the assets and I wanted to borrow the full value of the assets I Find it difficult to believe I could not easily and with not too much additional cost go to the debt market and get that loan with a tailored financial instrument that guaranteeid immediate repayment of the director loans on promotion to the Premier league.
Therin lies the problem. Who would loan against such unknowns without punitive fees ? If The Valley and training ground are worth lets say £27 million with £7 million already tied in that to preferential debtors. Whst could you actually loan against that figure ? £10 million ?Plus thise directors could block any attempts to make such a loan.
You could loan £7m and pay the Directors off, then borrow what you wanted.
No, you could only borrow what someone would lend against the assets.
No shit Sherlock. Do you really think I was suggesting that someone would lend you £200m on security of £23m?
The scenario was up to £10m but was asking about Directors blocking. A Bank would be happier to lend £17m to net you £10m if they were then to have a 1st charge.
Personally I think a new owner would be unchuffed to be paying interest on £17m instead of £10m.
Shows why football's fucked. Club potentially won't be able to get a loan because most of the assets are already secured against the loan you're trying to clear. Its like taking out a mortgage to help pay the mortgage repayments.
Remember Alan Sugar saying, after he left the Spurs, that it's gonna take a couple of bigish clubs to wiped off the face if the earth before something is done to regulate it....
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
Comments
”These things take time”
”Mr Duchatelet has every intention of selling”
”We’ve had new parties making enquiries since the last meeting”
”One party is very close but yet to show proof of funds”
Is still going ahead..
HI hits nail on head in his post.
All this teeth gnashing about clearing a charge being bad news is really odd. The ex-Directors loans are a contingent liability against the club. Any professional doing due diligence would advise their client to ensure they were clear before purchase, it is a sensible business practice and makes the club more saleable in future (exit strategy...).
Now given they do not accrue interest and are only payable on EPL status it may be that a purchaser would factor this into their price to RD (ie ‘your choice, we pay you £30m and you settle the debt OR we pay you £26m and we settle) but the issue is RD is mad as a box of frogs and whilst he is not prepared to fund a promotion push he wants his cake and to eat it so comes back with £30m AND you settle and everything sits in a hiatus. The contingent liability is not a benefit to the new owner unless it reduces upfront cash cost so why should they take it on.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue).
Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
The scenario was up to £10m but was asking about Directors blocking. A Bank would be happier to lend £17m to net you £10m if they were then to have a 1st charge.
Personally I think a new owner would be unchuffed to be paying interest on £17m instead of £10m.
Remember Alan Sugar saying, after he left the Spurs, that it's gonna take a couple of bigish clubs to wiped off the face if the earth before something is done to regulate it....
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club.
A house analogy if I may.
They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !