Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Well as far as the accounts go, maybe as we were during this financial year it's allowed?Stu_of_Kunming said:
I thought the 'debt for shares' thing was only allowed in League One.Pedro45 said:I think the £21.5 million might equal the debt we have lost over the last three years. If so, it could be a move by RD to transfer this debt into equity (as he can do under FFP rules) which in turn means that (maybe) the new owners will take over the club with no historic loss on the accounts as far as FFP is concerned. This is important as you can only rack up losses of three times your revenue over a three year period so will give the new guys a chance to really throw some cash into transfers etc if they can/want to without recourse to RD's loss making seasons. Hope so...0 -
Murray doesn’t hold any shares and hasn’t since 2014. Not sure why this keeps coming back?Addickted said:£21,494,704 works out at almost exactly 25m Euros. A nice round sum for a European businessman.
So have Murray's 5m 50p shares have now doubled in value?1 -
The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.
16 -
May as well be speaking Japanese.17
-
Strong rumour from reliable source on Charlton Life of Japanese interest.22
-
-
The club's failure to deny the Japanese takeover rumours has increased speculation that the ESI deal is dead.5
-
21.5 million warchest for Bowyer in Jan confirmed by Dippenhal... There you have itDippenhall said:The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.4 -
10
-
I've heard Andrew Muir is looking to get involved with the Japs in a consortiumSantaClaus said:The club's failure to deny the Japanese takeover rumours has increased speculation that the ESI deal is dead.11 -
Sponsored links:
-
Is there a simple analogy to explain this, not including specialist terms, that an ordinary person has a chance of understanding?1
-
The next two posts on this thread could be crucial.13
-
12 -
Cheers @Cafc43v3rCafc43v3r said:
I'll try, using a house as an examplei_b_b_o_r_g said:Can anyone please explain -
- How shared are made and how they generate instant cash?
- Are they literally introduced to the stock market and bought up straight away?
- How clubs / companies (Man U) can be "refloated" on the markets time and again?
I'm sure it ain't just me on here who don't understand all this
You buy a house for £100,000 (I live in Bradford so it is realistic).
You put in £40k and get a mortgage for £60k. If you think of that as a 100 shares in "the house" you own 40, the bank own 60. Every year you buy 2 shares back off the bank. So after 10 years you own 60 and the bank own 40.
If you sell the house for 120k (a take over) the new owner buys all the shares, both yours and the banks. They may do so as an individual or as a consortium (a bank normally being the money man).
Fowever if you sell some of your shares to a 3rd party you "trouser the cash" but own less of the house.
Every time a house is mortgaged it's a bit like a share issue, and you slowly buy back the shares. Once you own enough of the shares you can remortgage, or issue more shares.soapboxsam said:Can we convert this news into a house buying analogy so we know where we are in the chain ?
Can't wait to get the keys to this house, give it a good clean, replace the broken chairs, and get rid of the old sofa with the stuffing knocked out of it. The window is swinging open in January so damaged goods need to be jettisoned and new more expensive models brought in to reflect the new status.
I know the house is overpriced but it's location, location, location.
Have we won the Lottery ?
You can bet your house on it.5 -
In all seriousness @Dippenhall is that how you're interpreting this? In layman's terms, does this look like a short term cash injection by Roland, which ESI will be paying him back on completion?CAFCsayer said:
21.5 million warchest for Bowyer in Jan confirmed by Dippenhal... There you have itDippenhall said:The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.0 -
I though Lehman Brothers went bust.
0 -
CAFCsayer said:
In all seriousness @Dippenhall is that how you're interpreting this? In lehmans terms, does this look like a short term cash injection by Roland, which ESI will be paying him back on completion?CAFCsayer said:
21.5 million warchest for Bowyer in Jan confirmed by Dippenhal... There you have itDippenhall said:The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.
14 -
Same, and having to read it again from about 4pm yesterdayShootersHillGuru said:As I was three parts pissed last night I’ve actually forgotten what happened anyway.0 -
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Effectively telling all the other clubs that we have a large transfer 'war chest' is an odd way of conducting business.3
-
It would be, but that hasn't happened has it?SantaClaus said:Effectively telling all the other clubs that we have a large transfer 'war chest' is an odd way of conducting business.1 -
Maybe the reputed £60m, broken down is -
- £40m (approx) original asking price.
- £20m (approx) generated from the shares to go towards running costs and players bought in January, if the EFL process went over.
This could also explain why the new people are acting like they're steering the ship already?8 -
More or less.CAFCsayer said:
In all seriousness @Dippenhall is that how you're interpreting this? In layman's terms, does this look like a short term cash injection by Roland, which ESI will be paying him back on completion?CAFCsayer said:
21.5 million warchest for Bowyer in Jan confirmed by Dippenhal... There you have itDippenhall said:The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.
I am buying a house that needs renovation. I've exchanged contracts but the roof needs replacing this week before it collapses. The owner agrees to get it fixed and I add the additional cost to the purchase price on completion. Otherwise the owner's property goes down in value and the purchaser walks away or the purchaser acquires a house without a roof.16 -
Proof that house-buying analogies work.Dippenhall said:
More or less.CAFCsayer said:
In all seriousness @Dippenhall is that how you're interpreting this? In layman's terms, does this look like a short term cash injection by Roland, which ESI will be paying him back on completion?CAFCsayer said:
21.5 million warchest for Bowyer in Jan confirmed by Dippenhal... There you have itDippenhall said:The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.
I am buying a house that needs renovation. I've exchanged contracts but the roof needs replacing this week before it collapses. The owner agrees to get it fixed and I add the additional cost to the purchase price on completion. Otherwise the owner's property goes down in value and the purchaser walks away or the purchaser acquires a house without a roof.9 -
By Jove, I think he’s got it.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Maybe the reputed £60m, broken down is -
- £40m (approx) original asking price.
- £20m (approx) generated from the shares to go towards running costs and players bought in January, if the EFL process went over.
This could also explain why the new people are acting like they're steering the ship already?5 -
I thought you were buying the house.Dippenhall said:
More or less.CAFCsayer said:
In all seriousness @Dippenhall is that how you're interpreting this? In layman's terms, does this look like a short term cash injection by Roland, which ESI will be paying him back on completion?CAFCsayer said:
21.5 million warchest for Bowyer in Jan confirmed by Dippenhal... There you have itDippenhall said:The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.
I am buying a house that needs renovation. I've exchanged contracts but the roof needs replacing this week before it collapses. The owner agrees to get it fixed and I add the additional cost to the purchase price on completion. Otherwise the owner's property goes down in value and the purchaser walks away or the purchaser acquires a house without a roof.
Is the purchaser an additional element?0 -
Not just a pretty face matebobmunro said:
By Jove, I think he’s got it.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Maybe the reputed £60m, broken down is -
- £40m (approx) original asking price.
- £20m (approx) generated from the shares to go towards running costs and players bought in January, if the EFL process went over.
This could also explain why the new people are acting like they're steering the ship already?
I have had enough guesses though and covered just about every eventuality7 -
Wonder if, as a result of this shares carry on, the first bit of major news is that LB and the management team have been given decent contract offers2
-
What if they were not to get EFL clearance though?Dippenhall said:
More or less.CAFCsayer said:
In all seriousness @Dippenhall is that how you're interpreting this? In layman's terms, does this look like a short term cash injection by Roland, which ESI will be paying him back on completion?CAFCsayer said:
21.5 million warchest for Bowyer in Jan confirmed by Dippenhal... There you have itDippenhall said:The statement of capital deposited with Companies House says "No shares allocated other than for cash". This would rule out shares being issued to a creditor for cancellation of debt. It also means a huge dilution in respect of the existing 6.5m shares so only works if RD retains ownership of 100% of shares. I.E If Charlton is valued at £50m then each of 6.5m shares was worth about £8. Each share of the 33m shares is now worth around £1.50.
The share restructure has no impact on the profit and loss figures because the cash is not revenue, it is shareholder capital. It only affects the profit and loss account if it is spent. The balance sheet will be completely restructured after the change of ownership so see no reason why RD would want to mess about with reducing debt it in advance.
Makes more logic if it is to permit the sale to go through and generate a legitimate fund of cash for meeting commitments to sustain the club in the short term that is effectively a loan from RD dressed up as equity, rather than paper adjustments to RD's mix of share/debt only affecting the balance sheet. Not saying I know anything but just trying to apply logic - dangerous when it comes to RD I know.
I am buying a house that needs renovation. I've exchanged contracts but the roof needs replacing this week before it collapses. The owner agrees to get it fixed and I add the additional cost to the purchase price on completion. Otherwise the owner's property goes down in value and the purchaser walks away or the purchaser acquires a house without a roof.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tbobaz8nn4
This discussion has been closed.
