The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Valiantphil

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

Covered End

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

stonemuse

https://twitter.com/skidmarky67/status/852842594619011072

North Lower Neil

In Coventry today we can see the dangers of the club and the ground's respective ownership being separated.

It would be especially dangerous under someone that appears to be as cold towards us and openly interested in making a profit from us rather than helping us be a suceess. He'd surely milk us for maximum gain, be it extortiate rents to a captive market or even a Wasps style situation if he's offered more by anyone else.

I want him gone, but complely gone, and hope no one will give in to a purchase without the stadium to force his hand into selling the lot.

vff

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement a Balfour Beatty a non executive director ? I don't think its wise to assume competency of the Australians before it is proven. Duchatelet is going to try to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team & strategy only. As good as ridding the club of the incompetents currently in control of the football side of things is. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club that will seriously hinder / severly undermine progress on the field.

For Duchatelet success on the pitch is not a key driver but making his money back or developing the stadium to achieve that is. The Football team success or position is incidental, and that is why it is important whether Duchatelet continues to be involved. The Sint Truiden model at Charlton is the beige football future / walking death for Charlton football supporters with Duchatelet.

bobmunro

vff said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement as a non executive director ? Duchatelet is going to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team only. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club.

Pure speculation - not least wildly speculating about the total and utter incompetence of the major players (chumps!) in the AFC consortium and their corporate lawyers (not likely to be from the Meire school of law I hasten to add) in being sucked in to signing a dodgy lease. If it doesn't work then they won't do it.

If the deal was a secure long term lease at a reasonable fixed rental (or linked with inflation) with no profit share from the operation, with an option to buy the freehold at a point in the future (e.g. on promotion to the prem) at a fixed price agreed up front, then it frees up working capital to finance the promotion (two) push. Funds would then be more readily available to us as a premier league club to fund the freehold purchase. If that was the sort of deal then I have no problem with it at all.

Redmidland

bobmunro said:

vff said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement as a non executive director ? Duchatelet is going to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team only. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club.

Pure speculation - not least wildly speculating about the total and utter incompetence of the major players (chumps!) in the AFC consortium and their corporate lawyers (not likely to be from the Meire school of law I hasten to add) in being sucked in to signing a dodgy lease. If it doesn't work then they won't do it.

If the deal was a secure long term lease at a reasonable fixed rental (or linked with inflation) with no profit share from the operation, with an option to buy the freehold at a point in the future (e.g. on promotion to the prem) at a fixed price agreed up front, then it frees up working capital to finance the promotion (two) push. Funds would then be more readily available to us as a premier league club to fund the freehold purchase. If that was the sort of deal then I have no problem with it at all.

My thoughts exactly @bobmunro

Covered End

vff said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement as a non executive director ? Duchatelet is going to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team only. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club.

Yes, but a non executive CEO is there to advise & I can't believe the head of Balfour Beatty, would advise them to sign a poor lease agreement.

RedChaser

Inevitable on a fans forum that people will be concerned about leasing the ground but until we know the full details I am not going to damage my health worrying about it.

My best advice is to chill and be patient until we know the full facts. Even then I'm not sure what we can do if the consortium allow themselves to be screwed over which I really can't see them allowing to happen.

vff

bobmunro said:

vff said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement as a non executive director ? Duchatelet is going to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team only. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club.

Pure speculation - not least wildly speculating about the total and utter incompetence of the major players (chumps!) in the AFC consortium and their corporate lawyers (not likely to be from the Meire school of law I hasten to add) in being sucked in to signing a dodgy lease. If it doesn't work then they won't do it.

If the deal was a secure long term lease at a reasonable fixed rental (or linked with inflation) with no profit share from the operation, with an option to buy the freehold at a point in the future (e.g. on promotion to the prem) at a fixed price agreed up front, then it frees up working capital to finance the promotion (two) push. Funds would then be more readily available to us as a premier league club to fund the freehold purchase. If that was the sort of deal then I have no problem with it at all.

Lots of ifs there. I am not making wild speculations (thanks for that) assuming incompetence of the Australians. I am just advising against making assumptions that the Australians are competent and people arguing on that basis. Trust is earned and competency needs to be proven. Leaving Duchatelet at the club with any interest is very risky given his form. Separation of the club and the stadium is risky. Clearly, devil is in the detail as is obvious. I am not going to assume that a leasehold deal is going to be helpful for Charlton. Remember it is Duchatelet that we are dealing with. IMO any continued involvement with Duchatelet at Charlton will cast a shadow over Charlton's chances of future success. Duchatelet's involvement at Charlton is a chapter in the club that needs to be closed.

Mark_West49

A lot of speculation here but, if the plan to lease back the ground turns out to be true, it would confirm Roland's main interest all along: the redevelopment of The Valley in some, way, shape or form (and despite all the planning restrictions and problems of space/access).

I can't say I'm over the moon about this Australian rumour - even if it did mean seeing the back of Meire & TK - but Roland can't remain pulling the strings either

harveys_gardener

The difference between a buy-out with/without the Valley can be no more than £10m. RD paid £12m in the league above, sold assets, so cannot expect to get £30m+ despite his spending. Any buyer will have to budget for £20m+ losses over next three years so any deal like this will have no legs. Only a Jiminez like chancer would procced on that basis.

kentred2

harveys_gardener said:

The difference between a buy-out with/without the Valley can be no more than £10m. RD paid £12m in the league above, sold assets, so cannot expect to get £30m+ despite his spending. Any buyer will have to budget for £20m+ losses over next three years so any deal like this will have no legs. Only a Jiminez like chancer would procced on that basis.

He bought club, ground and training ground for c£12m which is part of what club owes him. He has now possibly sold the club and sparrows for £20m and do effectively got £8m profit and the ground for free? Just the matter of how he will get his loans back. Always his plan? Is it why he rejects other possible suitors who want the ground too?

charltonkeston

My fear is we could be going from an owner who clearly has no affinity with us but has a strange outlook on life, community, politics, dancing and unhealthy obsession with football clubs to another mob who have no affinity to us or any other English club, not interested in our community and just want to buy into the league pyramid system to nurture Aussie talent.
We might become a short lived franchise.
I wonder if we can have a former director on the next board to be the voice back to fans and give advice to the new owners. It worked out so well last time

MuttleyCAFC

The fact of the matter is, Duchatelet will only get a return on his investment if we get to the Premier League. In League one he will lose around £1m a month. So surely a deal which involves the buyback of the Valley at a set price within 5 years and a very low rent would represent his best chance of getting any money back. That means he stops losing money and gets some of his investment back and a chance of getting more.

I think it is the buyer that holds the best hand here. And if you can get a deal like that in terms of the ground, the other advantage is that there is less haggling over the price. I agree that letting Duchatelet have the Valley on his terms would not be clever, but I think we have to assume the Aussies are far from stupid. The way wealth is distributed in the game, you can afford to be a bit generous in the event of success and it mitigates the risks if it doesn't work.

CheshireAddick

My take on it is that the Aussies are not being forced into any deal. They could just as easy walk away if the terms are not to their liking and feel that they cannot make it work just as Roland can do the same if he feels it's not a good deal for him!

MuttleyCAFC

I think selling the club for £1 would financially be good for Roland - He is losing money at a ridiculous rate and Lookman is gone. The team needs a major overhaul and Konsa and Aribo are not even close to Lookman in terms of what you could get for them!

HardyAddick

The former Directors (Murray etc) still have a first charge on The Valley, so would have a say on any change of club ownership or lease being granted on The Valley. Unless of course they were paid off.

Numbers

When RD bought, it was said to be 16m + 4m if we stayed up. The last few days I've heard 16m, 14m and now 12m! Which is it? Just wondering.

Athletico Charlton

bobmunro said:

vff said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement as a non executive director ? Duchatelet is going to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team only. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club.

Pure speculation - not least wildly speculating about the total and utter incompetence of the major players (chumps!) in the AFC consortium and their corporate lawyers (not likely to be from the Meire school of law I hasten to add) in being sucked in to signing a dodgy lease. If it doesn't work then they won't do it.

If the deal was a secure long term lease at a reasonable fixed rental (or linked with inflation) with no profit share from the operation, with an option to buy the freehold at a point in the future (e.g. on promotion to the prem) at a fixed price agreed up front, then it frees up working capital to finance the promotion (two) push. Funds would then be more readily available to us as a premier league club to fund the freehold purchase. If that was the sort of deal then I have no problem with it at all.

It in this scenario, the Ausies buy us. Fund us for 5 years, fail to get to the PL, lose interest, we fall into administration, miss rental payments on the lease and forfeit it back to RD who sticks the final nail in the clubs coffin.

Maybe I am a glass half empty person but to me this seems a very realistic scenario.

No way should we be happy or in agreement with this splitting of club and ground. If a purchaser does not have the funds to buy the ground they are not wealthy enough to find us to the PL. if they are prepared to buy us for £20M without The Valley they are also pretty exceptionally poor business people, or, as the scenario you have suggested, entirely focussed on unrealistic IRR's which will inevitably go wrong.

simonmatthews

If Roland and the Australians strike a deal and if any lease on the Valley is mutually acceptable and doesn't have terms weighted in Roland's favour and if they appoint a decent manager, and if we buy a stack of new and better players and if we get promoted and if there is then a benign settlement with Roland, whereby he sells them the ground) we might all be in a better place and happier for it.

Lot of ifs there.

Separating - formally - ownership of the club and ground will most likely end in tears. One scenario, pointed out by others, would be if promoted under new owners, the new owners ask and fail to buy the ground from Roland and then march off elsewhere, either in the borough of just outside.

(What happened to Germinal Beerschot after Roland sold up?)

I'd prefer a consortium with the funds to simply buy Roland out.

charltonbob

bobmunro said:

vff said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement as a non executive director ? Duchatelet is going to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team only. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club.

Pure speculation - not least wildly speculating about the total and utter incompetence of the major players (chumps!) in the AFC consortium and their corporate lawyers (not likely to be from the Meire school of law I hasten to add) in being sucked in to signing a dodgy lease. If it doesn't work then they won't do it.

If the deal was a secure long term lease at a reasonable fixed rental (or linked with inflation) with no profit share from the operation, with an option to buy the freehold at a point in the future (e.g. on promotion to the prem) at a fixed price agreed up front, then it frees up working capital to finance the promotion (two) push. Funds would then be more readily available to us as a premier league club to fund the freehold purchase. If that was the sort of deal then I have no problem with it at all.

& do you really think that is likely with RD involved ? He's going to screw us !

WestCountryAddick

Athletico Charlton said:

bobmunro said:

vff said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Covered End said:

Valiantphil said:

Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere.
When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.

Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.

If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.

I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.

@Covered End

If Roland puts the rent up to an unrealistic figure, we won't be able to afford to play there - so we will play somewhere else, and so the sequence begins until we are left with just a smile and a Vegimite sandwich.

I understand what you're saying and until we know any detail, I'm 50/50, whether this could be good or bad.

However, the co head of the consortium is CEO of Balfour Beatty, so is unlikely to sign a lease that would allow RD to put the rent up to an unrealistic figure.

The most likely scenario for Valley redevelopment, would be if a new owner went into administration and then we could be forced out of The Valley if we couldn't pay the rent.

Isn't the Balfour Beatty guy's involvement as a non executive director ? Duchatelet is going to set the terms and see what chumps agree for him to keep hold of the stadium. In effect it is a change of management team only. Duchatlet remains in control of the key asset & will look to extract value and his money back from the club.

Pure speculation - not least wildly speculating about the total and utter incompetence of the major players (chumps!) in the AFC consortium and their corporate lawyers (not likely to be from the Meire school of law I hasten to add) in being sucked in to signing a dodgy lease. If it doesn't work then they won't do it.

If the deal was a secure long term lease at a reasonable fixed rental (or linked with inflation) with no profit share from the operation, with an option to buy the freehold at a point in the future (e.g. on promotion to the prem) at a fixed price agreed up front, then it frees up working capital to finance the promotion (two) push. Funds would then be more readily available to us as a premier league club to fund the freehold purchase. If that was the sort of deal then I have no problem with it at all.

It in this scenario, the Ausies buy us. Fund us for 5 years, fail to get to the PL, lose interest, we fall into administration, miss rental payments on the lease and forfeit it back to RD who sticks the final nail in the clubs coffin.

Maybe I am a glass half empty person but to me this seems a very realistic scenario.

No way should we be happy or in agreement with this splitting of club and ground. If a purchaser does not have the funds to buy the ground they are not wealthy enough to find us to the PL. if they are prepared to buy us for £20M without The Valley they are also pretty exceptionally poor business people, or, as the scenario you have suggested, entirely focussed on unrealistic IRR's which will inevitably go wrong.

I feel the same. I'm extremely worried about the club and the valley being separated. I'm so surprised there appears to be a lot of people that think it could be a workable and acceptable situation. Sure there might be assurances of what could be if and when we reach the premier league (i.e the right to buy back the valley etc), but every season there are lots of clubs vying for promotion. Reaching the premier league is no easy task, and nowadays with all the money floating around in rich owners and parachute payments and the like, it will be a huge task to get us promoted within 5 years.

As far as I am concerned we should not accept any deal that allows Duchatelet to retain any part of the football club, least of all the stadium, something that's a huge part of our identity.

Missed It

Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

ShootersHillGuru

Missed It said:

Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

We have no idea what the consortium from Australia want or intend to do or even if they are buying.

Can't we just wait until we know more before getting depressed about things that might not ever happen.

RedChaser

Missed It said:

Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

It's not just RM, he's owed £2m. There are five other former directors each owed £1m each with a charge (debenture), so RD needs to buy them off for £7m in total.

ShootersHillGuru

RedChaser said:

Missed It said:

Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

It's nit just RM, he's owed £2m. There are five other former directors each owed £1m each with a charge (debenture).

Allo Allo ;0)

Missed It

RedChaser said:

Missed It said:

Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

It's nit just RM, he's owed £2m. There are five other former directors each owed £1m each with a charge (debenture).

Do these directors effectively have veto power on any deal then?

Missed It

ShootersHillGuru said:

Missed It said:

Unfortunately, it's not up to us. Duchatelet is looking for somebody stupid enough to allow him to recoup his losses. By not wanting to buying the Valley, the Australians would seem happy to oblige him.

Is Richard Murray and his charge on the club's property the only thing that can be used to stop this deal?

We have no idea what the consortium from Australia want or intend to do or even if they are buying.

Can't we just wait until we know more before getting depressed about things that might not ever happen.

Yes, I know. I've just feared for a long time that Duchatelet would flog the club and hold on to the Valley to keep leeching money of us for evermore.

I've got to stop reading this site! The whole situation is doing my head in!!

ElfsborgAddick

RedChaser said:

Inevitable on a fans forum that people will be concerned about leasing the ground but until we know the full details I am not going to damage my health worrying about it.

My best advice is to chill and be patient until we know the full facts. Even then I'm not sure what we can do if the consortium allow themselves to be screwed over which I really can't see them allowing to happen.

If I'm not mistaken, the late Ron Noades managed to keep selhurst park whilst a few people bought the club only.

The Belgians have to be rid of totally on the sale.