The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Stu_of_Kunming

Cafc43v3r said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Chunes said:

Six months to buy the training ground.

Haven't got that much money then.

I'm not sure we should automatically assume it's money related, it is however somewhat worrying that we no longer own our own training ground.

As there's no actual quotes given, I'm going hold onto to the hope that londonnewsonline have this one wrong.

ESI have had a direct line to them for a while now.  I doubt they are wrong. 

Me too, then hopefully they'll offer an explanation asap as to why RD still has a stinky finger in our pie!

KiwiValley

Change of thread title? Ding Dong Wrong

Isawsummersplay

Personally, as much as I hate Duchatelet, the priority was ownership of The Valley, which thankfully is now in the hands of ESI.
I would have no problems with the training ground remaining in Duchatelet's ownership as long as ESI agree a long term lease at a fair market rent. However, as others have already suggested, there may well be outstanding legal issues, and ESI have given Duchatelet six months to settle these.

Henry Irving

Very odd

Not at all happy about a separation of ownership of the training ground and the club.

However there is a "commitment" to buy it so it could be resolved quickly.

It still raises a few serious questions.

Alwaysneil

Such as what is the nature of the commitment

CafcSCP

Chunes said:

Six months to buy the training ground.

Haven't got that much money then.

Probably wanted to be in for the transfer window.
championship status would be at greater risk if they weren’t.
Ballsy towards Taylor and I like that attitude 

Mal

Richard Cawley

@RichCawleySLP

·

10m

ESI say there is a contractual agreement to buy the training ground and that if they had waited to do all the surveys, due diligence and so on for the TG then they wouldn't have completed their takeover by January.

ESI also say they have committed £15million to developing it once the training ground has been bought this summer.

8:49 AM · Jan 7, 2020·Twitter Web App

AveryAddick

£15M to develop the training ground, that’s a lot of money, why are people worrying. 

Mal

AveryAddick said:

£15M to develop the training ground, that’s a lot of money, why are people worrying. 

I guess were so used to being let down, weve become suspicious on anything that sounds good, meaning if EFI havent spent £20 mil on players by end of the week, they dont have the money.

nth_london_addick

If you wanted a takeover to be done in time for this season the training ground had to be left out but legally bonded by contract for purchase subject to all checks 

some people really do need to get back to enjoying football not trying to be a sleuth 

ElliotCAFC

If the ‘£15m’ number for the training ground is to be believed, does that all but confirm additional investment from elsewhere? 

Surely Nimer wouldn’t be spending this much out of his own pocket? 

Dippenhall

Dippenhall said:

ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time.  Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company.  Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start. 

A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.

Henry Irving

Dippenhall said:

Dippenhall said:

ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time.  Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company.  Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start. 

A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.

Thanks @Dippenhall

In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?

They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.

Dippenhall

Henry Irving said:

Dippenhall said:

Dippenhall said:

ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time.  Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company.  Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start. 

A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.

Thanks @Dippenhall

In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?

They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.

There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd.  That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.  

Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation.  That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.

So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence.  What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.

Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.

happyvalley

The next 6 months will be crucial.

ElfsborgAddick

Isawsummersplay said:

Personally, as much as I hate Duchatelet, the priority was ownership of The Valley, which thankfully is now in the hands of ESI.
I would have no problems with the training ground remaining in Duchatelet's ownership as long as ESI agree a long term lease at a fair market rent. However, as others have already suggested, there may well be outstanding legal issues, and ESI have given Duchatelet six months to settle these.

I'm with you on this totally.

It is too easy to think the training ground issue is financial.

Henry Irving

Dippenhall said:

Henry Irving said:

Dippenhall said:

Dippenhall said:

ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time.  Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company.  Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start. 

A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.

Thanks @Dippenhall

In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?

They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.

There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd.  That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.  

Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation.  That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.

So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence.  What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.

Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.

Thanks @Dippenhall very informative

Does make me think that these issues over Sparrows Lane were a factor in previous takeover's falling through.  We may never know but it all points to there being outstanding issues that other potential buyers wouldn't put up with and neither would ESI, they just found a way around it for six months.

Mal

Henry Irving said:

Dippenhall said:

Henry Irving said:

Dippenhall said:

Dippenhall said:

ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time.  Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company.  Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start. 

A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.

Thanks @Dippenhall

In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?

They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.

There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd.  That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.  

Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation.  That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.

So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence.  What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.

Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.

Thanks @Dippenhall very informative

Does make me think that these issues over Sparrows Lane were a factor in previous takeover's falling through.  We may never know but it all points to there being outstanding issues that other potential buyers wouldn't put up with and neither would ESI, they just found a way around it for six months.

@Henry, EFI have obviously then pushed harder, and wanted to obtain the club more, than any of the other bidders, and I guess surprising that the likes of the Aussies, who were scraping for the money, didnt think about the SL as a separate future purchase. Will make Matt Southall’s Interview interesting, if asked why they wanted to buy this club so bad.

Henry Irving

Mal said:

Henry Irving said:

Dippenhall said:

Henry Irving said:

Dippenhall said:

Dippenhall said:

ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time.  Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company.  Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start. 

A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.

Thanks @Dippenhall

In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?

They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.

There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd.  That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.  

Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation.  That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.

So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence.  What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.

Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.

Thanks @Dippenhall very informative

Does make me think that these issues over Sparrows Lane were a factor in previous takeover's falling through.  We may never know but it all points to there being outstanding issues that other potential buyers wouldn't put up with and neither would ESI, they just found a way around it for six months.

@Henry, EFI have obviously then pushed harder, and wanted to obtain the club more, than any of the other bidders, and I guess surprising that the likes of the Aussies, who were scraping for the money, didnt think about the SL as a separate future purchase. Will make Matt Southall’s Interview interesting, if asked why they wanted to buy this club so bad.

maybe @mal or RD was getting more desperate/flexible as time wore on and a sale looked less likely while the team slid down the table.  RD would have had a dilemma on his hands now if he hadn't sold as to whether to spend on the squad or see the club relegated and so the sale price drop.  All speculation but it fits.

But as you say, maybe ESI just wanted it more and were willing to pay more. 

Alwaysneil

Dippenhall said:

Henry Irving said:

Dippenhall said:

Dippenhall said:

ESI has filed more papers dealing with share allotments available to view in a few days time.  Could be ESI has acquired all the assets of the club rather than buying the company.  Would eliminate any potential residual legal liabilities for skeletons found in the cupboard re past transactions and mean a new clean start. 

A contract to acquire the assets of the company rather than a contract to acquire the shares of the company which owns the asset is perfectly normal practice particularly where all the intrinsic value exists in the assets rather than the business and ensures clean undisputed title of the new business from the outset.

Thanks @Dippenhall

In this case isn't it the other way around in that they have bought the shares but not all the assets?

They own the Valley but not SL so it doesn't seem they are that short of cash.

There have been no registered share transactions at Companies House for Baton or Holdings, only for CAFC Ltd.  That was the £21.5m share issue that closely matches up with the initial loan from RD when he bought the club.  

Could be that ESI has bought the real estate of the Valley from Baton/Holdings? rather than the shares, and the cash paid by ESI for that real estate was used by RD to pump into CAFC to fund the new £21.5m share allocation.  That cash, held by CAFC, then being used to re-pay part of the Staprix loan.

So the title for SL could similarly be bought from Baton/Holdings, or alternatively the shares of Baton/Holdings acquired. In either case binding contracts have been exchanged subject to due diligence.  What RD always said - I'm giving the club away but will sell the assets.

Worst scenario would be some legal impediment to a clean title of ESI to SL and a legal dispute between ESI and RD resulting in SL being in limbo. That potential problem would arise regardless of how the acquisition has been structured.

Yes, as you know that is entirely possible. If it helps with any of FPP, Duchatelet tax on sale, investment ownership in UAE then this is the sort of thing a team would optimise before signing all the documents.

without being in that team we don’t know what they were trying to make better and the tensions in the sale process. 

However it’s down now and they will play out over time. Doesn’t look either u usual or skewed against what we have left to me so far. 

ForeverAddickted

https://twitter.com/MBonne9/status/1214498016155099136

Henry Irving

Press conference Thursday I'm told.

flyingkiwiDK

Henry Irving said:

Press conference Thursday I'm told.

At the very least I expect them to announce that Bowyer, Jackson and Gallen are all being retained.

carly burn

flyingkiwiDK said:

Henry Irving said:

Press conference Thursday I'm told.

At the very least I expect them to announce that Bowyer, Jackson and Gallen are all being retained.

And if they don't this place will go into complete meltdown

Cardinal Sin

Fair to say the site may go into meltdown if Bowyer, Jackson and Gallen were sacked on Thursday but they won't be. Unrealistic to expect new contracts to have been agreed so quickly. Pleasantly surprised if that were to happen but an announcement that negotiations are to commence is probably all that's needed this month.

flyingkiwiDK

flyingkiwiDK said:

Henry Irving said:

Press conference Thursday I'm told.

At the very least I expect them to announce that Bowyer, Jackson and Gallen are all being retained.

Seems I was wrong! 

T_C_E

Time to say goodbye to Tripadvisor and my one follower on there, I’ve got to be pleased with level 3. I was going to write a book on adventures in Belgium titled “Staying at Stayen” but my publisher cancelled at the last minute. 😉

foresthillred

Stig said:

Does this mean I have to cancel my hotel booking in St Truiden?

No way. We should keep making them for the next few years. Also the crap Tripadvisor reviews, while giving positive reviews to Wim at Op De Beek, who was host to the Unity protest shindig and whose hotel was operational base and accommodation for the B20, ROT and other protesters from early in 2016 onwards. He is now in direct competition with the hotel at Stayen, so every little bit of support will help.

soapboxsam

ForeverAddickted said:

https://twitter.com/MBonne9/status/1214498016155099136

Now that's the way to get your wages trebled Macaulay, get rid of your present agent, and you will have more for yourself.
There are ex-pros with brains at the PFA who can do that service so much cheaper and if Taylor goes, you will be offered a mega increase as soon as you walk into Matt Southall's office.
From 3k to 9k without even blinking, score another 8 plus a few assists and you will be in a great position in the summer.

Addickted

Update from Companies House.

Resolutions The sum of £21,494,704.00 be capitalised 27/12/2019 Restiction on auth share cap revoked and deleted 27/12/2019 This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.

08 Jan 2020

Can someone please translate?