Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

122232527282265

Comments

  • razil said:

    Am yes we can do something about it, protest may have got us to where we are. Would any prospective owner want to get off on the wrong foot so badly when attendance could be so vital to margins

    Quite agree , they don't want to go upsetting the natives when crowd attendance might be vitally important part of their funding of the club .
  • I mostly valu

    rikofold said:

    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.

    If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
    If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?

    rikofold said:

    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.

    If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
    If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?
    I thought this. Duchatelet moves everything he wants to sell into one vehicle which he sells, and everything he wants to keep stays where it is under his ownership.
  • So whilst the club and ground have been in separate holding companies they have been run in tandem with one another for the last 25 years. My concern with the proposed sale is two different parties owning one part each and not working together.
  • I mostly valu

    rikofold said:

    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.

    If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
    If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?

    rikofold said:

    The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.

    This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.

    Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.

    If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
    If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?
    I thought this. Duchatelet moves everything he wants to sell into one vehicle which he sells, and everything he wants to keep stays where it is under his ownership.
    Sort of like the banks did with ringfencing the bad debt thing?
  • I'm assuming that Charlton have leaked this to bring in other higher bidders. I can see no good reason for the Aussies to have done so.

    Let's say RD is looking for £30M to walk away completely, but has only been offered £20M.

    So he says for that price, I'll keep The Valley and lease it to you.

    Hopefully, he'd rather get out altogether, let's remember his age.

    I still think Elliot's consortium offered him £30m, but of course we were in The Championship then.

    High profile posters on this site and other sites seem to have been receiving accurate info about the the publication of the Daily Mail story for several days before it was published on Thursday evening. Only they can tell us if this information was coming from their usual club sources, the Daily Mail or the so called 'consortium'. It would be helpful, and I don't see why they can't, if they could confirm who was feeding them the story.
    The only reason we knew is because the Mail was asking questions; the story didn't come from usual club sources or from CARD, etc.
    Ok. That is interesting. And confirms my suspicion that the consultant behind the so called 'consortium' sold/planted the story with the Daily Mail purely for self promotion purposes.

    I'm assuming that Charlton have leaked this to bring in other higher bidders. I can see no good reason for the Aussies to have done so.

    Let's say RD is looking for £30M to walk away completely, but has only been offered £20M.

    So he says for that price, I'll keep The Valley and lease it to you.

    Hopefully, he'd rather get out altogether, let's remember his age.

    I still think Elliot's consortium offered him £30m, but of course we were in The Championship then.

    High profile posters on this site and other sites seem to have been receiving accurate info about the the publication of the Daily Mail story for several days before it was published on Thursday evening. Only they can tell us if this information was coming from their usual club sources, the Daily Mail or the so called 'consortium'. It would be helpful, and I don't see why they can't, if they could confirm who was feeding them the story.
    The only reason we knew is because the Mail was asking questions; the story didn't come from usual club sources or from CARD, etc.
    Ok. That is interesting. And confirms my suspicion that the consultant behind the so called 'consortium' sold/planted the story with the Daily Mail purely for self promotion purposes.

    This would explain a lot.
  • Might have to change the name of this site to CF..
  • I cannot imagine RD giving the manager any money to spend on players if a sale is in the offing. Uness a sale is done quickly we will likely have another weak squad come July.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I've heard that they have raised 21m, 20m for Roly, 1m to fund promotion. Going to rent The Valley for 3m a season, deal in place that they will buy it for 40m once we reach the PL. Pardew is the new manager, Congo Chris staying on to collect the rent in cash each week and coach the first team. New CEO to be appointed but Katrien staying to head up Communications Dept. Sue Perks being appointed Catering Manager. Sparrows Lane will be part sold to Millwall and both clubs will share the facilities.

    The above is all true. Or maybe it isn't. Just chill everyone until we know what this approach actually involves.

    I was with you, until you mentioned Pardew. Very good.
  • I heard Katrien was going to double up as CEO and Head of communications.

    Tony Keohane to add Police Liaison officer to his existing duties.
  • I can't get my head round this proposed sale, or rather this rumour.
  • Over 550 posts since I last checked in think I'll give it another 550 before I check again
  • cabbles said:

    The more I read about this potential takeover, the more I think they won't be the ones to be our next owners. That's not me being overly negative (I want a sale tomorrow). It's more that I don't think these guys have the necessary backing yet, and RD is still holding out for some sort of deal that will allow him to recoup most of his losses.

    The sale will happen, but I'm not sure it will be to this lot

    Wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.

  • I've read a few times that Charlton is The Valley. I have to disagree, although don't get me wrong I do understand the sentiment.

    The Valley was the third home ground for me as a Charlton fan. 1st was Selhurst, 2nd Upton and then The Valley. My love affair with Charlton happened after a 3-0 loss to Arsenal at Selhurst.

    Is The Valley important, oh yes. My dad's brick is there outside the main stand and is one of the last things I have to hold onto of him. But is it Charlton? I'd say we are bigger than that.

    The Aussie group has ambition. Has set targets. So I would be happy with that to move the club forward. The Valley as a home ground, owned or rented is fine. But we are bigger than the ground alone.
  • edited April 2017
    Before people make demands on what they think should happen in relation to the Valley, they should look at the terms of any future deal. There is an assumption that Duchatelet wants to keep the Valley, but it may be the buyer doesn't and sees an opportunity to rent it on the cheap. The great thing about the Valley is that is not possible to use it for anything other than a football ground, so whilst it has a value in one sense, it doesn't in another!

    The facts that we do know about is that Duchatelet is losing money hand over fist with us and there is no prospect of that changing under his ownership. Yes, he wants his money back, but the longer he keeps us, the more unlikely that will be. Realistically, it is already impossible. We are worth what we are worth, not what he has blown on us!

    When players are sold, they are often sold with clauses - playing x number of games, playing for England and most importantly a sell on etc... This brings up the cost of the deal but on condition that the deal is a good one! I see it is a similar principle leasing the ground. You would say, look we will pay you more than the club is worth, but it is conditional on us making the top flight! It is good business because it mitigates your risk but gives Duchatelet a chance to recoup more of his money if they hit the jackpot and certainly stop losing money. Duchatelet, thus keeps an interest in us being successful, but we don't have to have is crazy suicidal ideas.

    Now it could be the Aussies have no business sense, but I think there is a better chance that they do have. It seems logical to me that leasing the Valley on your terms, makes more sense than buying it. Whilst it worries a lot, it actually gives me more confidence about these potential buyers. It seems to me they have their heads screwed on.

    And there is a lot of sporting talent in Australia. We can be a feeder club, but for the Australian Soceroos - giving their best young players exposure and learning at a higher level. Look at the catchment area! And now Brexit has happened, this is a perfect time for an Australian consortium to get involved.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Before people make demands on what they think should happen in relation to the Valley, they should look at the terms of any future deal. There is an assumption that Duchatelet wants to keep the Valley, but it may be the buyer doesn't and sees an opportunity to rent it on the cheap. The great thing about the Valley is that is not possible to use it for anything other than a football ground, so whilst it has a value in one sense, it doesn't in another!

    The facts that we do know about is that Duchatelet is losing money hand over fist with us and there is no prospect of that changing under his ownership. Yes, he wants his money back, but the longer he keeps us, the more unlikely that will be. Realistically, it is already impossible. We are worth what we are worth, not what he has blown on us!

    When players are sold, they are often sold with clauses - playing x number of games, playing for England and most importantly a sell on etc... This brings up the cost of the deal but on condition that the deal is a good one! I see it is a similar principle leasing the ground. You would say, look we will pay you more than the club is worth, but it is conditional on us making the top flight! It is good business because it mitigates your risk but gives Duchatelet a chance to recoup more of his money if they hit the jackpot and certainly stop losing money. Duchatelet, thus keeps an interest in us being successful, but we don't have to have is crazy suicidal ideas.

    Now it could be the Aussies have no business sense, but I think there is a better chance that they do have. It seems logical to me that leasing the Valley on your terms, makes more sense than buying it. Whilst it worries a lot, it actually gives me more confidence about these potential buyers. It seems to me they have their heads screwed on.

    And there is a lot of sporting talent in Australia. We can be a feeder club, but for the Australian Soceroos - giving their best young players exposure and learning at a higher level. Look at the catchment area! And now Brexit has happened, this is a perfect time for an Australian consortium to get involved.

    I agree with you but for your first paragraph, why can the Valley be used solely or partly for football? In this country you can have a whole village scrubbed off the map for an airport or a train line. If it were any other landlord I might be a little more optimistic but this is just business to him and his company and he has never cared for our club.
  • JVLJVL
    edited April 2017
    From what I remember Airman saying about a property sale under the Spivs on the (I think) south-eastern corner of the ground, title to some strategically important land has already passed outside the club's control.

    I don't know if that makes it easier or harder for Roland to unbundle the club from the Valley if that was a route he was prepared to go down.

  • The other question is why would Roland want to keep the ground? He may be able to extract rent, but that would take him decades to do as any higher rent would surely drive an owner to seek a new ground. He can't develop commercially like he has at St Truiden as the Valley isn't in a city centre location where leisure/business premises make sense, it's in a residential side street. And as mentioned many time, access is a major problem for any sort of redevelopment and there for an expensive problem to solve, thus removing any profit from potential developments.

    The only possible reason to keep the ground is either to spite the fans and/or as security against future payments contingent on football success. That being the case, charging a high rent would go against his own interests as it would materially harm changes of on-field success that would lead him seeing some of his money back. I can't see how he could possibly charge in rent any more than the bare minimum interest on the money he has "loaned" the club, so in essence he wouldn't be getting any of his money back.
  • Do we think we're the only club they're looking at?
  • The other question is why would Roland want to keep the ground? He may be able to extract rent, but that would take him decades to do as any higher rent would surely drive an owner to seek a new ground. He can't develop commercially like he has at St Truiden as the Valley isn't in a city centre location where leisure/business premises make sense, it's in a residential side street. And as mentioned many time, access is a major problem for any sort of redevelopment and there for an expensive problem to solve, thus removing any profit from potential developments.

    The only possible reason to keep the ground is either to spite the fans and/or as security against future payments contingent on football success. That being the case, charging a high rent would go against his own interests as it would materially harm changes of on-field success that would lead him seeing some of his money back. I can't see how he could possibly charge in rent any more than the bare minimum interest on the money he has "loaned" the club, so in essence he wouldn't be getting any of his money back.

    The Trust thinks it has uncovered another revenue stream at Sint-Truiden during our inspection of the Staprix accounts. We need to do more work on it, before saying more; however coupled with his eagerness to build a complex at Jena (where admittedly there is far more room) it starts to look like his new way of being a visionary in football. Forget the network idea; hive off the real estate and make the revenue there. There is of course nothing wrong with making the stadium work during the week - there was going to be a bowling alley at the Valley, remember. The RD model however does not assume that the commercial revenue is there to support the football side. STVV are entirely beholden to RD's whims when it comes to the football. The revenue stream we have uncovered at Stayen does not feed back directly to STVV. Indeed STVV is not (apparently) owned by Staprix.

  • Do we think we're the only club they're looking at?

    I think we are now. Sounds like they've looked at others as well though.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!