According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
£60m+ owed to RD, interest on top, former directors loans and club, The Valley and training ground valued at around £20 to £30m or so.
Sounds about right, but no one will pay £30m as well as taking on or paying off Roland’s loans and interest.
He needs to agree a deal that works for a buyer and not just himself.
Lot of double counting in there. He paid for the assets in 2014 (-and took on the mortgage) and left that figure in as debt, so it’s all part of the £60m+, which will be £65m plus now. The debt figure already includes the accumulated interest.
So let’s say £65m plus the £7m. There might be something to add around the training ground, which I guess can’t be left in limbo indefinitely.
No sane business person(s) are going to pay £72 million for what, in 10 month's time, could once again be a 3rd Division club. So unless he cuts his losses and sells for a reasonable price, we will be stuck with Roland for the foreseeable future.
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
And presumably we don’t know who did or does perhaps in part even ?
This is the 'ownership' structure that was published in the papers of the Khakshouri case.
Slater was just a former solicitor employed by Cash to devise ways of concealing his ownership of assets - for example when Cash was taken to an Employment Tribunal for sacking his butler he claimed he didn't own the country mansion where the sacking took place, but was just a 'non-paying guest'.
Yesterday felt pretty depressing but I’ve been convinced for s while now that he ain’t selling. I wonder whether Bowyer and Gallen laying the stark financial realities on the line to him prompted his appearance on talksport - I’m not sure how he can claim to be a socialist yet know that 10,000 fans are going to suffer a miserable season if he doesn’t release a small proportion of his vast wealth in order to give us half a chance next season - a socialist when it suits.
Glossing over the bit about him claiming to be a socialist (where on earth does that come from?) were you convinced that he isn't selling when "someone at the club" told you a few days ago that the Muir was in negotiation with the ex-directors? Or did you only become convinced when that turned out not to be true?
I said I didn't believe it and that view was reinforced by airmans post of bob whitehands comments - do keep up
So, at the time the source at the club time you Muir was in discussions with the ex directors you didn't bekieve him/her, but you promulgated the rumour anyway?
What did your source day when you told him/her a few minutes later when their story was shown to be a lie?
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
then who did? Was it actually Jiminez and Cash's to sell? Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know where the judge is coming from. CAFC Holdings Ltd seems to be an offshore company so details not readily available, but the OS reported " Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent). CAFC Holdings Limited is in turn owned by Tony Jimenez (47.6 per cent) and Michael Slater (23 per cent) plus minority shareholders with less than 10 per cent". Incidently from what I can see Murray still holds 10% which might explain why he is still a director.
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
then who did? Was it actually Jiminez and Cash's to sell? Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know where the judge is coming from. CAFC Holdings Ltd seems to be an offshore company so details not readily available, but the OS reported " Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent). CAFC Holdings Limited is in turn owned by Tony Jimenez (47.6 per cent) and Michael Slater (23 per cent) plus minority shareholders with less than 10 per cent". Incidently from what I can see Murray still holds 10% which might explain why he is still a director.
Why do you think he is still a Director? Surely Rolly bought him out at the same time he bought the club?
If there is some undisclosed historical debt, then wouldn’t that mean either the club or Baton have been filing false accounts.
Most likely this just confirms that Roland doesn’t want to take a haircut on the Staprix debt.
I suspect that the core of the deal is - pay Roland some cash amount - pay of the directors loans - make Statprix the primary guaranteed creditor for whatever debt is outstanding after the cash amount is deducted.
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
then who did? Was it actually Jiminez and Cash's to sell? Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know where the judge is coming from. CAFC Holdings Ltd seems to be an offshore company so details not readily available, but the OS reported " Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent). CAFC Holdings Limited is in turn owned by Tony Jimenez (47.6 per cent) and Michael Slater (23 per cent) plus minority shareholders with less than 10 per cent". Incidently from what I can see Murray still holds 10% which might explain why he is still a director.
Why do you think he is still a Director? Surely Rolly bought him out at the same time he bought the club?
Because he’s shown as a Director on the Companies House website.
Would it be worthwhile someone (CAST) contacting Martin Protheroe and asking if he could shed some light on why Duchatelet is having so much trouble selling Charlton. Presumably, he’s not covered by a NDA. Worst He could do is say no ... Just a thought. Probably won’t help but it might shed some light on why we find ourselves in such a mess
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
And presumably we don’t know who did or does perhaps in part even ?
This is the 'ownership' structure that was published in the papers of the Khakshouri case.
Slater was just a former solicitor employed by Cash to devise ways of concealing his ownership of assets - for example when Cash was taken to an Employment Tribunal for sacking his butler he claimed he didn't own the country mansion where the sacking took place, but was just a 'non-paying guest'.
Yep. So if that's all true - and there's no reason to doubt it as it was evidence produced in court - Kevin Cash never owned us. We were owned at the time by the Cavansa Trust, which operated via corporate trustees.
Who the beneficiaries of that trust are, or were, isn't clear. And that's exactly why these things are done.
In theory these trustees are completely independent and do what they think is right under the brief of their engagement and the trust deed. However, in practice (and in my personal experience) quite often they are nothing of the sort and are just faceless people who's job it is to live in some paradise-like island and simply rubber stamp whatever they are "asked" (ie "told") to do.
That's why whenever the likes of Cash get divorced there's always a massive bunfight over how much money or assets they actually have.
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
then who did? Was it actually Jiminez and Cash's to sell? Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know where the judge is coming from. CAFC Holdings Ltd seems to be an offshore company so details not readily available, but the OS reported " Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent). CAFC Holdings Limited is in turn owned by Tony Jimenez (47.6 per cent) and Michael Slater (23 per cent) plus minority shareholders with less than 10 per cent". Incidently from what I can see Murray still holds 10% which might explain why he is still a director.
Why do you think he is still a Director? Surely Rolly bought him out at the same time he bought the club?
Company owners/shareholders and company directors are two different things.
You can be one but not the other, or you can be both.
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
then who did? Was it actually Jiminez and Cash's to sell? Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know where the judge is coming from. CAFC Holdings Ltd seems to be an offshore company so details not readily available, but the OS reported " Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent). CAFC Holdings Limited is in turn owned by Tony Jimenez (47.6 per cent) and Michael Slater (23 per cent) plus minority shareholders with less than 10 per cent". Incidently from what I can see Murray still holds 10% which might explain why he is still a director.
Murray does not own 10 per cent, since all of Baton 2010 was sold to Staprix in 2014.
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
And presumably we don’t know who did or does perhaps in part even ?
This is the 'ownership' structure that was published in the papers of the Khakshouri case.
Slater was just a former solicitor employed by Cash to devise ways of concealing his ownership of assets - for example when Cash was taken to an Employment Tribunal for sacking his butler he claimed he didn't own the country mansion where the sacking took place, but was just a 'non-paying guest'.
Yep. So if that's all true - and there's no reason to doubt it as it was evidence produced in court - Kevin Cash never owned us. We were owned at the time by the Cavansa Trust, which operated via corporate trustees.
Who the beneficiaries of that trust are, or were, isn't clear. And that's exactly why these things are done.
In theory these trustees are completely independent and do what they think is right under the brief of their engagement and the trust deed. However, in practice (and in my personal experience) quite often they are nothing of the sort and are just faceless people who's job it is to live in some paradise-like island and simply rubber stamp whatever they are "asked" (ie "told") to do.
That's why whenever the likes of Cash get divorced there's always a massive bunfight over how much money or assets they actually have.
He was once hailed as one of Britain’s most successful property tycoons with a fortune of £500 million.
But that proved to be a gilded fiction when Kevin Cash was declared bankrupt last July, owing no less than £40 million.
Cash’s creditors are hoping to retrieve the proceeds but it may be a long process. ‘The registered owner of the Hall was a Virgin Island company called Covergold Limited,’ explains Ian Baker of City litigation specialists PGB Gitlin Baker, who acts for one of Cash’s creditors, businessman Darius Khakshouri.
‘It’s to be hoped that the bankruptcy trustees will unpick Cash’s complex web of offshore property interests,’ adds Baker.
Cash declines to comment. ‘I can’t give any details at all,’ says the receptionist at his London office. ‘My hands are tied.’
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
then who did? Was it actually Jiminez and Cash's to sell? Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know where the judge is coming from. CAFC Holdings Ltd seems to be an offshore company so details not readily available, but the OS reported " Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent). CAFC Holdings Limited is in turn owned by Tony Jimenez (47.6 per cent) and Michael Slater (23 per cent) plus minority shareholders with less than 10 per cent". Incidently from what I can see Murray still holds 10% which might explain why he is still a director.
Murray does not own 10 per cent, since all of Baton 2010 was sold to Staprix in 2014.
Unless we found out that Roland paid someone who wasn't the beneficial owner of the club. And therefore doesn't own it at all.
And therefore his asset is precisely zero. And we can sue him for the doing "work" on the pitch and on Sparrows Lane without the permission of the real owner. (Whoever that might (still) be).
And we can sue him for trespassing. By turning up at The Valley. A couple of times.
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
then who did? Was it actually Jiminez and Cash's to sell? Maybe this is the problem.
I don't know where the judge is coming from. CAFC Holdings Ltd seems to be an offshore company so details not readily available, but the OS reported " Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd is owned by Baton 2010 Ltd, which is owned by CAFC Holdings Limited (90 per cent) and Richard Murray (10 per cent). CAFC Holdings Limited is in turn owned by Tony Jimenez (47.6 per cent) and Michael Slater (23 per cent) plus minority shareholders with less than 10 per cent". Incidently from what I can see Murray still holds 10% which might explain why he is still a director.
Murray does not own 10 per cent, since all of Baton 2010 was sold to Staprix in 2014.
Unless we found out that Roland paid someone who wasn't the beneficial owner of the club. And therefore doesn't own it at all.
That would be ridiculous as it is something that would have been uncovered by even the most basic of due diligence checks.
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.
I’ll happily discuss further
off the main forum if you so wish
As its been confirmed by RD that he cant sell at the moment (if ever) would it be a good idea to close this thread until there are signsthat things are changing? It'll stop all the arguments
As its been confirmed by RD that he cant sell at the moment (if ever) would it be a good idea to close this thread until there are signsthat things are changing? It'll stop all the arguments
Think about happyvalley, all the work he has put in
Close the thread page 2019 so Happy Valley can get a sense of completion.......at least someone will as no other Charlton fan will with the club not being sold soon anytime soon 🤨
Close the thread page 2019 so Happy Valley can get a sense of completion.......at least someone will as no other Charlton with the club not being sold soon anytime soon 🤨
After 2019 he will be known as mystic happyvalley or MHV
When it looks like he's going to be here forever, this still manages to make me laugh, funniest thing I think I've ever seen online. I think Happy Valley should be posting this along with all his historical facts replacing the text on the right of the image just so we never forget this and to cheer us all up every now and then!
Not fishing for LOL's, credit them all to BR7_addick's post quoted if you haven't already.
Yesterday felt pretty depressing but I’ve been convinced for s while now that he ain’t selling. I wonder whether Bowyer and Gallen laying the stark financial realities on the line to him prompted his appearance on talksport - I’m not sure how he can claim to be a socialist yet know that 10,000 fans are going to suffer a miserable season if he doesn’t release a small proportion of his vast wealth in order to give us half a chance next season - a socialist when it suits.
Glossing over the bit about him claiming to be a socialist (where on earth does that come from?) were you convinced that he isn't selling when "someone at the club" told you a few days ago that the Muir was in negotiation with the ex-directors? Or did you only become convinced when that turned out not to be true?
I said I didn't believe it and that view was reinforced by airmans post of bob whitehands comments - do keep up
So, at the time the source at the club time you Muir was in discussions with the ex directors you didn't bekieve him/her, but you promulgated the rumour anyway?
What did your source day when you told him/her a few minutes later when their story was shown to be a lie?
Did he apologise?
Why don’t you belt up and read what I said - also - what my source said came via a family member and always does
Comments
No sane business person(s) are going to pay £72 million for what, in 10 month's time, could once again be a 3rd Division club. So unless he cuts his losses and sells for a reasonable price, we will be stuck with Roland for the foreseeable future.
What did your source day when you told him/her a few minutes later when their story was shown to be a lie?
Did he apologise?
Most likely this just confirms that Roland doesn’t want to take a haircut on the Staprix debt.
I suspect that the core of the deal is
- pay Roland some cash amount
- pay of the directors loans
- make Statprix the primary guaranteed creditor for whatever debt is outstanding after the cash amount is deducted.
Who the beneficiaries of that trust are, or were, isn't clear. And that's exactly why these things are done.
In theory these trustees are completely independent and do what they think is right under the brief of their engagement and the trust deed. However, in practice (and in my personal experience) quite often they are nothing of the sort and are just faceless people who's job it is to live in some paradise-like island and simply rubber stamp whatever they are "asked" (ie "told") to do.
That's why whenever the likes of Cash get divorced there's always a massive bunfight over how much money or assets they actually have.
You can be one but not the other, or you can be both.
He was once hailed as one of Britain’s most successful property tycoons with a fortune of £500 million.
But that proved to be a gilded fiction when Kevin Cash was declared bankrupt last July, owing no less than £40 million.
Cash’s creditors are hoping to retrieve the proceeds but it may be a long process. ‘The registered owner of the Hall was a Virgin Island company called Covergold Limited,’ explains Ian Baker of City litigation specialists PGB Gitlin Baker, who acts for one of Cash’s creditors, businessman Darius Khakshouri.
‘It’s to be hoped that the bankruptcy trustees will unpick Cash’s complex web of offshore property interests,’ adds Baker.
Cash declines to comment. ‘I can’t give any details at all,’ says the receptionist at his London office. ‘My hands are tied.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7279121/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Bankrupt-Kevin-Cash-sells-jewel-property-crown-26million.html
And therefore his asset is precisely zero. And we can sue him for the doing "work" on the pitch and on Sparrows Lane without the permission of the real owner. (Whoever that might (still) be).
And we can sue him for trespassing. By turning up at The Valley. A couple of times.
That would be ridiculous as it is something that would have been uncovered by even the most basic of due diligence checks.
Oh .......
Think about happyvalley, all the work he has put in
After 2019 he will be known as mystic happyvalley or MHV
Not fishing for LOL's, credit them all to BR7_addick's post quoted if you haven't already.