Maybe the people that come on here want to find out what is or might be happening; might want to share their understanding or prediction are to the outcome; or are genuinely curious as to what the effect of a significant investment in Charlton would be on the playing strength of the squad, future plans, catering, ticket pricing and ambitions of the club.
Why do you post on here? I check every day to see if its been sold. When it Roland finally sells I will buy a season ticket. I would imagine there are hundreds like me. I have been a supporter since the mid 50's and really miss the match day experience. Bauer was right when he said due to Roland the club lacks ambition.
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.
Whether ex directors loans are cleared or not i very much doubt a UK bank would lend to a Championship loss making club against a football stadium given security would be difficult to realise, repetitional damage of doing so and high likelihood of having to enforce at some stage. As i recall, when we last had bank debt, even a £800k overdraft it was mentioned on here that Richard Murray had to given a Personal Guarantee to secure it. Any lending secured by football clubs assets would be more likely to come from a very expensive secondary lender (even then i am not sure there would be many beating the door down), or the investors into the consortium taking some security for their equity injection.
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.
The land is worth about £23m. I’m not an expert but I would have thought anyone incoming will have trouble borrowing anywhere near that against it.
What removing the ex-directors’ loans would allow, however, is Roland to secure debt that he leaves on the books as a first charge against the assets, while selling the club and the land.
Don’t forget that LDT has said that one of the “agreed” deals includes a further payment to RD on promotion to the Premier League. In that scenario it’s very likely he would look to secure that debt - the fact the fixed assets wouldn’t necessarily cover it doesn’t mean this can’t be done. The valuation would, however, prevent a new loan that exceeded the value of the assets.
It’s just a theory but no one is borrowing huge sums against the assets because any lender would establish what they are worth.
Or is it Roland who wants clear title so he can put a charge on the ground and training ground. As Airman says LDT has stated that some bids involve further payments. Perhaps Roland wants £30m when and if Charlton get to the EPL, then he get all his money back (or his children do). Is this why the Aussies are the preferred bidder, they are the only party that’s agreed to his deal.
On the Director Loans, I thought that whilst they don’t need to be paid back until we are in the premier league, interest is due on them while we are in the championship.
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 !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
On the Director Loans, I thought that whilst they don’t need to be paid back until we are in the premier league, interest is due on them while we are in the championship.
The last set of accounts states simply that they are interest free and that repayments only commence [odd choice of words] upon promotion to the Premier League.
But those accounts dont state the discounted value of the loan properly, so I don't trust anything much in that cobbled note.
It does make you wonder why Aribo hasn’t yet been announced?
He’s still under contract at Charlton for a few more days..
Never stopped anyone before.
Whilst player under contract a selling club can ask buying club not to formally announce deal until contract finished. Allows them to potentially get other deals over the line to offset the loss.
On the Director Loans, I thought that whilst they don’t need to be paid back until we are in the premier league, interest is due on them while we are in the championship.
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.
Whether ex directors loans are cleared or not i very much doubt a UK bank would lend to a Championship loss making club against a football stadium given security would be difficult to realise, repetitional damage of doing so and high likelihood of having to enforce at some stage. As i recall, when we last had bank debt, even a £800k overdraft it was mentioned on here that Richard Murray had to given a Personal Guarantee to secure it. Any lending secured by football clubs assets would be more likely to come from a very expensive secondary lender (even then i am not sure there would be many beating the door down), or the investors into the consortium taking some security for their equity injection.
One would assume that, and if they did the charge would be on everything that moves and everything that doesn’t, which makes the claim that they are a stumbling block surprising.
The Derby owner has been very imaginative on a use though.
I conclude that the problem with them is as to how you treat them in negotiations. I would want the full amount off the price if I was buying. Selling I would claim they were irrelevant.
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 !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
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 !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
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 !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?
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 !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?
They obviously ain't minted and in my honest opinion they ain't gonna buy us.
Comments
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they?
Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
announce deal until contract finished. Allows them to potentially get other deals over the line to offset the loss.
The Derby owner has been very imaginative on a use though.
I conclude that the problem with them is as to how you treat them in negotiations. I would want the full amount off the price if I was buying. Selling I would claim they were irrelevant.
#WouldYa?
OF BLOODY COURSE YOU WOULD.
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit.
PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.