1956, Jimmy Seed is asked to resign ( sacked ) as Charlton .
Blimey, football’s a harsh business. Two days ago I read that he’s steered CAFC to FA Cup glory and today I learn that he’s been sacked! Would serve us right if ,today or tomorrow, news breaks of us being relegated.
I think you're right. I can see a long spell out of the top flight and even a relegation to Division 3. But, at least we're safe at The Valley. No-one can take that away from us. Can they?
What does Roland do when he's wrong? He finds someone or something else to blame.
I wouldn't get too distracted by his claims around the championship's FFP rules being the problem
If that were the case, why weren't we bought when we were in League One?
Why did he let on that it would be easier for us to be bought when were in the Championship?
Why was the narrative that we'd be more attractive in the higher league? If, in fact, it makes us far less attractive? This is just the same circle of behaviour we've always seen. He doesn't believe he could possibly be the problem, the real problem must lie somewhere else.
Unfortunately, this time, he raised a valid point about rules being a bit off, so the distraction is working a bit more than it normally would. But a distraction it still is.
If one accepts that Roland genuinely believed that being in division 1 is economically better than the Championship, why did he increase his asking price when we got promoted?
The logical thing to do would be to get rid asap. Even reduce the price to avoid the extra running costs.
What I cannot reconcile is how someone so obviously stupid got to make so much money.
I think we need to protest some how, but while we wait for anyone to think of something that will be effective, I am going to make a small gesture and get a ball rolling.
I have a season ticket, but I am boycotting the first home game unless we are sold. I will also boycott the first televised home game.
Probably all pointless, but it is what it is.
Therein lies the problem as things stand with 10,000 already having given Duchatelet several million pounds in advance sales this season. I am afraid our next big protest opportunity will only come in the close season of 2020 when the appetite to renew will be considerably smaller after a year of struggle and humbling losses as we are outclassed this season due to our small and weak squad. If we could manage a serious season ticket boycott (we don't necessarily need to stop going altogether) I am convinced Duchatelet would take notice and have to consider cutting his losses and selling-up far more seriously than he has done to date.
I am merely making a protest, it is not about the money for me - I have already spent it!
Agreed. He believes his view is absolutely rationale from the standpoint of a business model and the rest of the world has gone mad. He is probably right but anyone buying a football club should go into it expecting they will likely lose money unless they are in the Premier League.
The problem is, he wants out but appears to expect any potential buyer to pay for the ongoing errors made on his watch in terms of management rotations, poor player acquisitions, handling of outgoing player valuations and as he moved up the learning curve on English football economics. As has been said, he had the option to get out as soon as he realised the EFL had moved the goalposts as regards FFP. However, if he can keep the club on life support by breaking even, despite relegations back to League 1 or even 2, at least it isn’t costing him money.
Whilst I concede having a reasonable level of current operating costs to outline to potential buyers is good, they will have their view on their appetite for annual losses over the near term. They are however more likely to be interested in a reasonable upfront purchase price and what might be considered reasonable for a Championship club is unlikely to be considered reasonable the further down the leagues the club goes.
Promotion back to the Championship was probably his best chance of extricating himself with a reasonable price to defray some of his investment and it looks like he is closing the window on that.
It may not make any difference in terms of changing his stubbornness but I think in the Fans Forum, CAST communications, interaction with the press etc there has to be continued emphasis on his quotes above and the fact that he has no footballing ambition for the club and that he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he is holding out for a price that covers his aggregate losses for the past 5 years. It would be good if any of the buyers who have walked away would reveal the exact price they had offered.
I don't totally agree with this as it may be considered too commercially sensitive and may not be the real problem as a price seems to get agreed. However, it would be interesting to know what he uses to increase the price. Eg does he throw in a percentage of the sale price of any youngsters in the academy ?
Yes, commercially sensitive, with NDAs still Potentially binding if a deal not finally agreed.
This is the bit I don't understand.
You approach RD to buy the Club, part of the negoatiations is to agree a NDA.
You pull out of the deal due to the irrational behaviour of the seller, so surely the NDA becomes null and void. The seller cannot prevent you from telling the World about your approach, offer and reasons for withdrawing.
Does Mrs RD have to sign a NDA when they're discussing what to have for dinner tonight?
Your guess is as good as mine. I was really just hypothesising that buyers may have been asked to sign an NDA that is binding regardless of whether or not a deal is concluded. You would think some snippets would leak but not really so far.
I don't think that he has felt this at Charlton. He may increasingly have concluded that it's more than 2% but he does not feel it, because we are physically remote.
Which is why protests will only work in his backyard, anything at The Valley will further split the fanbase.
Sadly I think the desire to protest has gone, the fact ROT got little to no support really sums things up.
ROT has more than 100 members, I believe (I am one). I regret that it did not get more support from CARD, but at the same time I understand there were legitimate doubts within CARD about the tactical feasibility of standing in the election campaign in Belgium, let alone "supporting' it in the way a new Valley Party could be supported by everybody.
It got good publicity in Belgium, it rattled him, and we have learnt some lessons from it. Those directly involved also made useful contacts in S-T. There is plenty to build on there.
Question, would RD stating that any buyer had walked away due to the running costs and this not being the case, not be in breach of the NDA they signed? Just curious as if I was a potential buyer, surely you would leak the real reason out to increase pressure on him to sell?
RD believes NDAs don’t apply to him, only to the buyer. He refused to meet PV’s investor because the latter wouldn’t agree to that.
Here's the truth about Roland's claim that every Championship owner is "expected" to make an operating loss of £15m, updated to the last financial period for which the information is available, as researched by the @swissramble.
Not sure why you needed to repost that again @PragueAddickbut I don't think you can pick and choose quotes from Roland to suit arguments. Its been proven he's bonkers and many feel tells lies, half truths and twists on situations, so i wouldn't equally accept a quote that suits your agenda as being factually correct.
Equally, your view is influenced by what you are told by the Standard Socios, who will naturally not downplay their involvement.
When Roland eventually does sell the club on, those who have been active in protesting in Belgium will say it is down to their actions, those active in protesting in the UK will say its down to them. Jim White will say it was the pressure he put on Roland, Dreisen will say it was on his recomendation etc...We've been protesting in the UK for 4 years and in Belgium for 3 1/2 years. As further time goes on while there is no sale, no slashing of demands (let alone desperation to exit), the less and less credibility any of those claims will hold.
Of course they add to the backdrop and create publicity and difficulty to him, but my key point is that absolutely none of that publicity or difficulty has led to him attempting to escalate his exit in any way over the last couple of years (even less so if the rumours of raising the price are true). i don't understand why that view is perceived as contraversial.
So we can all bang the drum and engage in 'we will fight them on the beaches' rally-rousing stuff about previous 'fan victories', it can serve a purpose in lifting those engaged and providing them hope and it can give off the view of Charlton fans being passionate, creative, determined and many other positive things.
But if you evaluate the last four years its clear he is a steely determined individual only ever influenced by his own mindset, which in his mind rarely wrong. And while other aspects clearly succeed in annoying him and in many cases provoke a reaction, it has never steered him any nearer to hastening his exit by making the sale more viable. Worryingly, no one can categorically say either that everytime Charlton fans annoy him in some way it doesn't make him more determined in his own mind to ensure he doesn't concede on his stance, can they?
What do i think his mindset is saying? Who knows with him. My best interpretation is that he seperates this into three categories, potentially four; the club, the assets, the directors debt and potentially his own debt.
In his mind, he is giving the club away. The problem is the accumulation of the valuation of the assets, and the other debt take the acquisition away from what is a viable fair value for a purchaser. But he just can't see that, as he sees land value as something he should not have to haircut. Why should he sell a house for less than its worth? He can't discount the club any further as he's attaching no valuation to it, and probably accepts he's not going to get all his debt back (how much his red line is on this is anyone's guess).
But in my mind that land value is key and why i have had so little confidence over the last two years of a sale as i can't see anyone willing to pay that to take on a loss-making club and i can't see him lowering. I thought there was a chance in the immediate weeks following Wembley of either an interested party biting the bullet and raising it a bit more, or Roland seeing that opportunity to get out while the focus and interest was there, but neither happened and it was clear weeks ago that this window of opportunity had now sadly passed.
Not sure why you needed to repost that again @PragueAddickbut I don't think you can pick and choose quotes from Roland to suit arguments. Its been proven he's bonkers and many feel tells lies, half truths and twists on situations, so i wouldn't equally accept a quote that suits your agenda as being factually correct.
Equally, your view is influenced by what you are told by the Standard Socios, who will naturally not downplay their involvement.
When Roland eventually does sell the club on, those who have been active in protesting in Belgium will say it is down to their actions, those active in protesting in the UK will say its down to them. Jim White will say it was the pressure he put on Roland, Dreisen will say it was on his recomendation etc...We've been protesting in the UK for 4 years and in Belgium for 3 1/2 years. As further time goes on while there is no sale, no slashing of demands (let alone desperation to exit), the less and less credibility any of those claims will hold.
Of course they add to the backdrop and create publicity and difficulty to him, but my key point is that absolutely none of that publicity or difficulty has led to him attempting to escalate his exit in any way over the last couple of years (even less so if the rumours of raising the price are true). i don't understand why that view is perceived as contraversial.
So we can all bang the drum and engage in 'we will fight them on the beaches' rally-rousing stuff about previous 'fan victories', it can serve a purpose in lifting those engaged and providing them hope and it can give off the view of Charlton fans being passionate, creative, determined and many other positive things.
But if you evaluate the last four years its clear he is a steely determined individual only ever influenced by his own mindset, which in his mind rarely wrong. And while other aspects clearly succeed in annoying him and in many cases provoke a reaction, it has never steered him any nearer to hastening his exit by making the sale more viable. Worryingly, no one can categorically say either that everytime Charlton fans annoy him in some way it doesn't make him more determined in his own mind to ensure he doesn't concede on his stance, can they?
What do i think his mindset is saying? Who knows with him. My best interpretation is that he seperates this into three categories, potentially four; the club, the assets, the directors debt and potentially his own debt.
In his mind, he is giving the club away. The problem is the accumulation of the valuation of the assets, and the other debt take the acquisition away from what is a viable fair value for a purchaser. But he just can't see that, as he sees land value as something he should not have to haircut. Why should he sell a house for less than its worth? He can't discount the club any further as he's attaching no valuation to it, and probably accepts he's not going to get all his debt back (how much his red line is on this is anyone's guess).
But in my mind that land value is key and why i have had so little confidence over the last two years of a sale as i can't see anyone willing to pay that to take on a loss-making club and i can't see him lowering. I thought there was a chance in the immediate weeks following Wembley of either an interested party biting the bullet and raising it a bit more, or Roland seeing that opportunity to get out while the focus and interest was there, but neither happened and it was clear weeks ago that this window of opportunity had now sadly passed.
So your belief is that if there had been no protests whatsoever he would have acted in exactly the same way throughout, Fraeye would have been removed in January 2016, British managers culminating in Bowyer would have been appointed, Meire would still have left and he would have moved from his 2017 position that the club was not for sale to negotiating with a whole stream of interested parties while spending hundreds of thousands on professional fees?
Reminds me of the late Bill Treadgold, who argued that the Valley campaign had no impact on the return to The Valley because the directors were always going to bring the club back anyway, a view which just happened to justify his do-nothing position as chairman of the supporters' club.
"Worryingly, no one can categorically say either that everytime Charlton fans annoy him in some way it doesn't make him more determined in his own mind to ensure he doesn't concede on his stance, can they?"
And by the same token no one can say it doesn't but even you accept the fan actions "annoy" him.
Even that is enough justification IMHO.
As I said way, way back even before black and white scarves and before you were a member of the CARD organising group "we have no knock out punch".
We can't do any one, single thing to remove him instantly so we have to keep jabbing away.
The protests here and in Belgium DID annoy him and DID get a response and he decided to sell. That decision wasn't only about the protests but it is reasonable and evidenced to say it was a factor. We can never know for sure how much of a factor.
Ultimately, the lack of a sale is down to the same person who caused all the mess we are in now and no one else and that is Roland Duchatelet.
Only the irrational Duchatelet can authorise a deal, all we can do is counter his lies and keep on making his time as a "owner" as uncomfortable as possible.
Not sure why you needed to repost that again @PragueAddickbut I don't thin(k you can pick and choose quotes from Roland to suit arguments. Its been proven he's bonkers and many feel tells lies, half truths and twists on situations, so i wouldn't equally accept a quote that suits your agenda as being factually correct.
Equally, your view is influenced by what you are told by the Standard Socios, who will naturally not downplay their involvement.
When Roland eventually does sell the club on, those who have been active in protesting in Belgium will say it is down to their actions, those active in protesting in the UK will say its down to them. Jim White will say it was the pressure he put on Roland, Dreisen will say it was on his recomendation etc...We've been protesting in the UK for 4 years and in Belgium for 3 1/2 years. As further time goes on while there is no sale, no slashing of demands (let alone desperation to exit), the less and less credibility any of those claims will hold.
Of course they add to the backdrop and create publicity and difficulty to him, but my key point is that absolutely none of that publicity or difficulty has led to him attempting to escalate his exit in any way over the last couple of years (even less so if the rumours of raising the price are true). i don't understand why that view is perceived as contraversial.
So we can all bang the drum and engage in 'we will fight them on the beaches' rally-rousing stuff about previous 'fan victories', it can serve a purpose in lifting those engaged and providing them hope and it can give off the view of Charlton fans being passionate, creative, determined and many other positive things.
But if you evaluate the last four years its clear he is a steely determined individual only ever influenced by his own mindset, which in his mind rarely wrong. And while other aspects clearly succeed in annoying him and in many cases provoke a reaction, it has never steered him any nearer to hastening his exit by making the sale more viable. Worryingly, no one can categorically say either that everytime Charlton fans annoy him in some way it doesn't make him more determined in his own mind to ensure he doesn't concede on his stance, can they?
What do i think his mindset is saying? Who knows with him. My best interpretation is that he seperates this into three categories, potentially four; the club, the assets, the directors debt and potentially his own debt.
In his mind, he is giving the club away. The problem is the accumulation of the valuation of the assets, and the other debt take the acquisition away from what is a viable fair value for a purchaser. But he just can't see that, as he sees land value as something he should not have to haircut. Why should he sell a house for less than its worth? He can't discount the club any further as he's attaching no valuation to it, and probably accepts he's not going to get all his debt back (how much his red line is on this is anyone's guess).
But in my mind that land value is key and why i have had so little confidence over the last two years of a sale as i can't see anyone willing to pay that to take on a loss-making club and i can't see him lowering. I thought there was a chance in the immediate weeks following Wembley of either an interested party biting the bullet and raising it a bit more, or Roland seeing that opportunity to get out while the focus and interest was there, but neither happened and it was clear weeks ago that this window of opportunity had now sadly passed.
So your belief is that if there had been no protests whatsoever he would have acted in exactly the same way throughout, Fraeye would have been removed in January 2016, British managers culminating in Bowyer would have been appointed, Meire would still have left and he would have moved from his 2017 position that the club was not for sale to negotiating with a whole stream of interested parties while spending hundreds of thousands on professional fees?
Reminds me of the late Bill Treadgold, who argued that the Valley campaign had no impact on the return to The Valley because the directors were always going to bring the club back anyway, a view which just happened to justify his do-nothing position as chairman of the supporters' club.
None of those things, apart from the last are to do with his exit though, just, the protests may have made him change his approach, clearly theyve not made him sell.
He's trying to sell all his clubs, not just Charlton, his issue is football is general, not CARD, ROT, B20 etcetc
Norwich, Hull and Boro still on parachute payments though?
Indeed, but Roland said every club is expected to lose £15m; he didn't differentiate.
Millwall are a very good proxy for Charlton, although our revenue is likely to be higher than theirs in a like-for-like season. Both clubs perform very badly indeed in terms of commercial revenue, which is another key to understanding their financial position relative to the rest of the division. Charlton's declared commercial revenue was under £1.5m in every one of the last five years for which we have figures.
Not sure why you needed to repost that again @PragueAddickbut I don't think you can pick and choose quotes from Roland to suit arguments. Its been proven he's bonkers and many feel tells lies, half truths and twists on situations, so i wouldn't equally accept a quote that suits your agenda as being factually correct.
Equally, your view is influenced by what you are told by the Standard Socios, who will naturally not downplay their involvement.
When Roland eventually does sell the club on, those who have been active in protesting in Belgium will say it is down to their actions, those active in protesting in the UK will say its down to them. Jim White will say it was the pressure he put on Roland, Dreisen will say it was on his recomendation etc...We've been protesting in the UK for 4 years and in Belgium for 3 1/2 years. As further time goes on while there is no sale, no slashing of demands (let alone desperation to exit), the less and less credibility any of those claims will hold.
Of course they add to the backdrop and create publicity and difficulty to him, but my key point is that absolutely none of that publicity or difficulty has led to him attempting to escalate his exit in any way over the last couple of years (even less so if the rumours of raising the price are true). i don't understand why that view is perceived as contraversial.
So we can all bang the drum and engage in 'we will fight them on the beaches' rally-rousing stuff about previous 'fan victories', it can serve a purpose in lifting those engaged and providing them hope and it can give off the view of Charlton fans being passionate, creative, determined and many other positive things.
But if you evaluate the last four years its clear he is a steely determined individual only ever influenced by his own mindset, which in his mind rarely wrong. And while other aspects clearly succeed in annoying him and in many cases provoke a reaction, it has never steered him any nearer to hastening his exit by making the sale more viable. Worryingly, no one can categorically say either that everytime Charlton fans annoy him in some way it doesn't make him more determined in his own mind to ensure he doesn't concede on his stance, can they?
What do i think his mindset is saying? Who knows with him. My best interpretation is that he seperates this into three categories, potentially four; the club, the assets, the directors debt and potentially his own debt.
In his mind, he is giving the club away. The problem is the accumulation of the valuation of the assets, and the other debt take the acquisition away from what is a viable fair value for a purchaser. But he just can't see that, as he sees land value as something he should not have to haircut. Why should he sell a house for less than its worth? He can't discount the club any further as he's attaching no valuation to it, and probably accepts he's not going to get all his debt back (how much his red line is on this is anyone's guess).
But in my mind that land value is key and why i have had so little confidence over the last two years of a sale as i can't see anyone willing to pay that to take on a loss-making club and i can't see him lowering. I thought there was a chance in the immediate weeks following Wembley of either an interested party biting the bullet and raising it a bit more, or Roland seeing that opportunity to get out while the focus and interest was there, but neither happened and it was clear weeks ago that this window of opportunity had now sadly passed.
You may be right in implying the protests have had little impact but then again you may be wrong. It may be that more protests will finally push him over the edge to a sale but maybe they won’t. However, there does appear to be a coincidence between some actions and a reaction from Roland. If the choice is between doing something and doing nothing then I will vote to do something.
I re-posted it @AFKABartram because it contained quotes from Roland Duchatelet explaining why he sold Standard Liege, and after the first posting there were still people claiming to be unaware of what is presented there (or choosing to ignore it; or maybe they just missed it, as it was 6 pages back). if anybody has any compelling document showing an alternative set of reasons why he sold, or him saying something different, doubtless that can be posted. Until that happens the first part of your post sounds worryingly like somebody screaming "fake news' on Twitter because what has been posted does not sit well with their opinions and they have no counter-evidence.
The most important thing about what RD says there is an effective admission of failure to persuade the Standard fans - all of them - of the effectiveness of his "leadership". We have previously been told that - he does not do failure, and - he does not take notice of what ignorant minorities of football fans say about his stewardship
So why would this "steely and determined indivdual" confess this failure if it was not true? Why not just say, for example, " I received a satisfactory offer for the sale of Standard, I have taken it as far as I can, and in the interests of 100% transparency (an RD theme) I believe it is important to only own one club in the same league in each country".
Of course I am "influenced" by my three year association with the Standard Socios. Much better it would seem, to be influenced by random musings of some Charlton fans on a message board, who may or may not be able to locate Liege on a map (to be fair I might not have succeeded myself before we had this tie-up, but that is kind of my point). Do you really not credit them with knowing a bit more about RD and Standard than anyone on here?
You make some good points about the land value. Fine. How can we build on it? How about noting that Grapevine has driven a coach and horses through that sale strategy in a cold business -like manner. So I think RD would be extremely embarassed if the Belgian business community and the citizens of Sint-Truiden would be made aware of how incoherent is this supposedly top Belgian businessman's approach is to executing a high - profile asset sale. For example.
Agreed. He believes his view is absolutely rationale from the standpoint of a business model and the rest of the world has gone mad. He is probably right but anyone buying a football club should go into it expecting they will likely lose money unless they are in the Premier League.
The problem is, he wants out but appears to expect any potential buyer to pay for the ongoing errors made on his watch in terms of management rotations, poor player acquisitions, handling of outgoing player valuations and as he moved up the learning curve on English football economics. As has been said, he had the option to get out as soon as he realised the EFL had moved the goalposts as regards FFP. However, if he can keep the club on life support by breaking even, despite relegations back to League 1 or even 2, at least it isn’t costing him money.
Whilst I concede having a reasonable level of current operating costs to outline to potential buyers is good, they will have their view on their appetite for annual losses over the near term. They are however more likely to be interested in a reasonable upfront purchase price and what might be considered reasonable for a Championship club is unlikely to be considered reasonable the further down the leagues the club goes.
Promotion back to the Championship was probably his best chance of extricating himself with a reasonable price to defray some of his investment and it looks like he is closing the window on that.
It may not make any difference in terms of changing his stubbornness but I think in the Fans Forum, CAST communications, interaction with the press etc there has to be continued emphasis on his quotes above and the fact that he has no footballing ambition for the club and that he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he is holding out for a price that covers his aggregate losses for the past 5 years. It would be good if any of the buyers who have walked away would reveal the exact price they had offered.
I don't totally agree with this as it may be considered too commercially sensitive and may not be the real problem as a price seems to get agreed. However, it would be interesting to know what he uses to increase the price. Eg does he throw in a percentage of the sale price of any youngsters in the academy ?
Yes, commercially sensitive, with NDAs still Potentially binding if a deal not finally agreed.
This is the bit I don't understand.
You approach RD to buy the Club, part of the negoatiations is to agree a NDA.
You pull out of the deal due to the irrational behaviour of the seller, so surely the NDA becomes null and void. The seller cannot prevent you from telling the World about your approach, offer and reasons for withdrawing.
Does Mrs RD have to sign a NDA when they're discussing what to have for dinner tonight?
Your guess is as good as mine. I was really just hypothesising that buyers may have been asked to sign an NDA that is binding regardless of whether or not a deal is concluded. You would think some snippets would leak but not really so far.
Under an NDA there is normally a clause which states the buying party are legally obliged to keep the information they find out private for 2 years (some 1 year but 2 years is standard).
Source - my job working in mergers & acquisitions.
Also trust me I've joked to my partners constantly to try get us involved with the sale for the last 11 months (since I started) and they saw our Business Plan before Roland acquired the club and said there was some dodgy debt he'd stay a mile away from
To back up Airman Brown's comments of a few pages ago, he is unlikely to make a loss this year.
2019 Fcast
2018
2017
Central Income
6,500
1,420
1,803
Match Day
5,000
3,402
3,176
Commercial
1,400
1,344
1,241
Other
2,000
1,144
1,396
TOTAL
14,900
7,310
7,616
Correct me if I'm wrong on any numbers. Central I am including league basic of £6.3m plus two TV home games @£100k. Match day will be up because Jimmy Seed will be full/nearly most games plus a few boycotters like myself buoyed by Wembley. Other, unseen benefits of a higher division. On the wages front, we have lost Igor, BFG, Ajosi and a few other relatively big earners and ongoing agents saving conservative £2m. I have assumed player transfers are over more than one year so as last year. So from last year's £10.5m loss we have a £7.5m improvement in income, £2m in costs giving almost breakeven.
Agreed. He believes his view is absolutely rationale from the standpoint of a business model and the rest of the world has gone mad. He is probably right but anyone buying a football club should go into it expecting they will likely lose money unless they are in the Premier League.
The problem is, he wants out but appears to expect any potential buyer to pay for the ongoing errors made on his watch in terms of management rotations, poor player acquisitions, handling of outgoing player valuations and as he moved up the learning curve on English football economics. As has been said, he had the option to get out as soon as he realised the EFL had moved the goalposts as regards FFP. However, if he can keep the club on life support by breaking even, despite relegations back to League 1 or even 2, at least it isn’t costing him money.
Whilst I concede having a reasonable level of current operating costs to outline to potential buyers is good, they will have their view on their appetite for annual losses over the near term. They are however more likely to be interested in a reasonable upfront purchase price and what might be considered reasonable for a Championship club is unlikely to be considered reasonable the further down the leagues the club goes.
Promotion back to the Championship was probably his best chance of extricating himself with a reasonable price to defray some of his investment and it looks like he is closing the window on that.
It may not make any difference in terms of changing his stubbornness but I think in the Fans Forum, CAST communications, interaction with the press etc there has to be continued emphasis on his quotes above and the fact that he has no footballing ambition for the club and that he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he is holding out for a price that covers his aggregate losses for the past 5 years. It would be good if any of the buyers who have walked away would reveal the exact price they had offered.
I don't totally agree with this as it may be considered too commercially sensitive and may not be the real problem as a price seems to get agreed. However, it would be interesting to know what he uses to increase the price. Eg does he throw in a percentage of the sale price of any youngsters in the academy ?
Yes, commercially sensitive, with NDAs still Potentially binding if a deal not finally agreed.
This is the bit I don't understand.
You approach RD to buy the Club, part of the negoatiations is to agree a NDA.
You pull out of the deal due to the irrational behaviour of the seller, so surely the NDA becomes null and void. The seller cannot prevent you from telling the World about your approach, offer and reasons for withdrawing.
Does Mrs RD have to sign a NDA when they're discussing what to have for dinner tonight?
Your guess is as good as mine. I was really just hypothesising that buyers may have been asked to sign an NDA that is binding regardless of whether or not a deal is concluded. You would think some snippets would leak but not really so far.
Under an NDA there is normally a clause which states the buying party are legally obliged to keep the information they find out private for 2 years (some 1 year but 2 years is standard).
Source - my job working in mergers & acquisitions.
Also trust me I've joked to my partners constantly to try get us involved with the sale for the last 11 months (since I started) and they saw our Business Plan before Roland acquired the club and said there was some dodgy debt he'd stay a mile away from
Debt that was exposed in the Jimenez v Khakshouri case.
Agreed. He believes his view is absolutely rationale from the standpoint of a business model and the rest of the world has gone mad. He is probably right but anyone buying a football club should go into it expecting they will likely lose money unless they are in the Premier League.
The problem is, he wants out but appears to expect any potential buyer to pay for the ongoing errors made on his watch in terms of management rotations, poor player acquisitions, handling of outgoing player valuations and as he moved up the learning curve on English football economics. As has been said, he had the option to get out as soon as he realised the EFL had moved the goalposts as regards FFP. However, if he can keep the club on life support by breaking even, despite relegations back to League 1 or even 2, at least it isn’t costing him money.
Whilst I concede having a reasonable level of current operating costs to outline to potential buyers is good, they will have their view on their appetite for annual losses over the near term. They are however more likely to be interested in a reasonable upfront purchase price and what might be considered reasonable for a Championship club is unlikely to be considered reasonable the further down the leagues the club goes.
Promotion back to the Championship was probably his best chance of extricating himself with a reasonable price to defray some of his investment and it looks like he is closing the window on that.
It may not make any difference in terms of changing his stubbornness but I think in the Fans Forum, CAST communications, interaction with the press etc there has to be continued emphasis on his quotes above and the fact that he has no footballing ambition for the club and that he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he is holding out for a price that covers his aggregate losses for the past 5 years. It would be good if any of the buyers who have walked away would reveal the exact price they had offered.
I don't totally agree with this as it may be considered too commercially sensitive and may not be the real problem as a price seems to get agreed. However, it would be interesting to know what he uses to increase the price. Eg does he throw in a percentage of the sale price of any youngsters in the academy ?
Yes, commercially sensitive, with NDAs still Potentially binding if a deal not finally agreed.
This is the bit I don't understand.
You approach RD to buy the Club, part of the negoatiations is to agree a NDA.
You pull out of the deal due to the irrational behaviour of the seller, so surely the NDA becomes null and void. The seller cannot prevent you from telling the World about your approach, offer and reasons for withdrawing.
Does Mrs RD have to sign a NDA when they're discussing what to have for dinner tonight?
Your guess is as good as mine. I was really just hypothesising that buyers may have been asked to sign an NDA that is binding regardless of whether or not a deal is concluded. You would think some snippets would leak but not really so far.
Under an NDA there is normally a clause which states the buying party are legally obliged to keep the information they find out private for 2 years (some 1 year but 2 years is standard).
Source - my job working in mergers & acquisitions.
Also trust me I've joked to my partners constantly to try get us involved with the sale for the last 11 months (since I started) and they saw our Business Plan before Roland acquired the club and said there was some dodgy debt he'd stay a mile away from
Debt that was exposed in the Jimenez v Khakshouri case.
@Airman Brown Can you clarify what and how much this is?
It has been mentioned by Jimmy Seed' snon-Aussie source as one reason that the deal is stalling but I've not seen a clear explanation of what the debt is and who it is owed to?
Final point. Yeah, I've got an "agenda". It is to not just sit at my keyboard moaning about Duchatelet but to work with others to get him out, as soon as possible. If you have a superior alternative plan to smart well thought out activities in Belgium then, trust me I will drop my "agenda" in a heartbeat and get behind it in any practical way.
1956, Jimmy Seed is asked to resign ( sacked ) as Charlton .
Blimey, football’s a harsh business. Two days ago I read that he’s steered CAFC to FA Cup glory and today I learn that he’s been sacked! Would serve us right if ,today or tomorrow, news breaks of us being relegated.
I think you're right. I can see a long spell out of the top flight and even a relegation to Division 3. But, at least we're safe at The Valley. No-one can take that away from us. Can they?
Actually Roland has thought of a brilliant way of saving money. Ground sharing in St Truiden.
Final point. Yeah, I've got an "agenda". It is to not just sit at my keyboard moaning about Duchatelet but to work with others to get him out, as soon as possible. If you have a superior alternative plan to smart well thought out activities in Belgium then, trust me I will drop my "agenda" in a heartbeat and get behind it in any practical way.
Don't you think it's rather unnecessary to take such a shitty attitude with the person responsibile for building the biggest Charlton community, possiblly ever?
Comments
It got good publicity in Belgium, it rattled him, and we have learnt some lessons from it. Those directly involved also made useful contacts in S-T. There is plenty to build on there.
Here's the truth about Roland's claim that every Championship owner is "expected" to make an operating loss of £15m, updated to the last financial period for which the information is available, as researched by the @swissramble.
Remember, Roland lost £13.3m in League One.
Roland lost £10.1m in League One.
Not sure why you needed to repost that again @PragueAddickbut I don't think you can pick and choose quotes from Roland to suit arguments. Its been proven he's bonkers and many feel tells lies, half truths and twists on situations, so i wouldn't equally accept a quote that suits your agenda as being factually correct.
Equally, your view is influenced by what you are told by the Standard Socios, who will naturally not downplay their involvement.
When Roland eventually does sell the club on, those who have been active in protesting in Belgium will say it is down to their actions, those active in protesting in the UK will say its down to them. Jim White will say it was the pressure he put on Roland, Dreisen will say it was on his recomendation etc...We've been protesting in the UK for 4 years and in Belgium for 3 1/2 years. As further time goes on while there is no sale, no slashing of demands (let alone desperation to exit), the less and less credibility any of those claims will hold.
Of course they add to the backdrop and create publicity and difficulty to him, but my key point is that absolutely none of that publicity or difficulty has led to him attempting to escalate his exit in any way over the last couple of years (even less so if the rumours of raising the price are true). i don't understand why that view is perceived as contraversial.
So we can all bang the drum and engage in 'we will fight them on the beaches' rally-rousing stuff about previous 'fan victories', it can serve a purpose in lifting those engaged and providing them hope and it can give off the view of Charlton fans being passionate, creative, determined and many other positive things.
But if you evaluate the last four years its clear he is a steely determined individual only ever influenced by his own mindset, which in his mind rarely wrong. And while other aspects clearly succeed in annoying him and in many cases provoke a reaction, it has never steered him any nearer to hastening his exit by making the sale more viable. Worryingly, no one can categorically say either that everytime Charlton fans annoy him in some way it doesn't make him more determined in his own mind to ensure he doesn't concede on his stance, can they?
What do i think his mindset is saying? Who knows with him. My best interpretation is that he seperates this into three categories, potentially four; the club, the assets, the directors debt and potentially his own debt.
In his mind, he is giving the club away. The problem is the accumulation of the valuation of the assets, and the other debt take the acquisition away from what is a viable fair value for a purchaser. But he just can't see that, as he sees land value as something he should not have to haircut. Why should he sell a house for less than its worth? He can't discount the club any further as he's attaching no valuation to it, and probably accepts he's not going to get all his debt back (how much his red line is on this is anyone's guess).
But in my mind that land value is key and why i have had so little confidence over the last two years of a sale as i can't see anyone willing to pay that to take on a loss-making club and i can't see him lowering. I thought there was a chance in the immediate weeks following Wembley of either an interested party biting the bullet and raising it a bit more, or Roland seeing that opportunity to get out while the focus and interest was there, but neither happened and it was clear weeks ago that this window of opportunity had now sadly passed.
Reminds me of the late Bill Treadgold, who argued that the Valley campaign had no impact on the return to The Valley because the directors were always going to bring the club back anyway, a view which just happened to justify his do-nothing position as chairman of the supporters' club.
Otherwise it was a very, very good year!
And by the same token no one can say it doesn't but even you accept the fan actions "annoy" him.
Even that is enough justification IMHO.
As I said way, way back even before black and white scarves and before you were a member of the CARD organising group "we have no knock out punch".
We can't do any one, single thing to remove him instantly so we have to keep jabbing away.
The protests here and in Belgium DID annoy him and DID get a response and he decided to sell. That decision wasn't only about the protests but it is reasonable and evidenced to say it was a factor. We can never know for sure how much of a factor.
Ultimately, the lack of a sale is down to the same person who caused all the mess we are in now and no one else and that is Roland Duchatelet.
Only the irrational Duchatelet can authorise a deal, all we can do is counter his lies and keep on making his time as a "owner" as uncomfortable as possible.
He's trying to sell all his clubs, not just Charlton, his issue is football is general, not CARD, ROT, B20 etcetc
Millwall are a very good proxy for Charlton, although our revenue is likely to be higher than theirs in a like-for-like season. Both clubs perform very badly indeed in terms of commercial revenue, which is another key to understanding their financial position relative to the rest of the division. Charlton's declared commercial revenue was under £1.5m in every one of the last five years for which we have figures.
The most important thing about what RD says there is an effective admission of failure to persuade the Standard fans - all of them - of the effectiveness of his "leadership". We have previously been told that
- he does not do failure, and
- he does not take notice of what ignorant minorities of football fans say about his stewardship
So why would this "steely and determined indivdual" confess this failure if it was not true? Why not just say, for example, " I received a satisfactory offer for the sale of Standard, I have taken it as far as I can, and in the interests of 100% transparency (an RD theme) I believe it is important to only own one club in the same league in each country".
Of course I am "influenced" by my three year association with the Standard Socios. Much better it would seem, to be influenced by random musings of some Charlton fans on a message board, who may or may not be able to locate Liege on a map (to be fair I might not have succeeded myself before we had this tie-up, but that is kind of my point). Do you really not credit them with knowing a bit more about RD and Standard than anyone on here?
You make some good points about the land value. Fine. How can we build on it? How about noting that Grapevine has driven a coach and horses through that sale strategy in a cold business -like manner. So I think RD would be extremely embarassed if the Belgian business community and the citizens of Sint-Truiden would be made aware of how incoherent is this supposedly top Belgian businessman's approach is to executing a high - profile asset sale. For example.
Source - my job working in mergers & acquisitions.
Also trust me I've joked to my partners constantly to try get us involved with the sale for the last 11 months (since I started) and they saw our Business Plan before Roland acquired the club and said there was some dodgy debt he'd stay a mile away from
Correct me if I'm wrong on any numbers. Central I am including league basic of £6.3m plus two TV home games @£100k. Match day will be up because Jimmy Seed will be full/nearly most games plus a few boycotters like myself buoyed by Wembley. Other, unseen benefits of a higher division. On the wages front, we have lost Igor, BFG, Ajosi and a few other relatively big earners and ongoing agents saving conservative £2m. I have assumed player transfers are over more than one year so as last year. So from last year's £10.5m loss we have a £7.5m improvement in income, £2m in costs giving almost breakeven.
It has been mentioned by Jimmy Seed' snon-Aussie source as one reason that the deal is stalling but I've not seen a clear explanation of what the debt is and who it is owed to?
Sad day for Charlton supporters, our greatest manager, also 1956 the great Sam Bartram retired
Final point. Yeah, I've got an "agenda". It is to not just sit at my keyboard moaning about Duchatelet but to work with others to get him out, as soon as possible. If you have a superior alternative plan to smart well thought out activities in Belgium then, trust me I will drop my "agenda" in a heartbeat and get behind it in any practical way.