@NapaAddick to be fair you’ve given us a breakdown of your maths and you probably have a better understanding of accounts than I do, but to persist with this figure you’ve got to isn’t worth it
Yes RD is belligerent twat, but he knows 77m isn’t on the table
It’s as @Rob7Lee says, it will be worth what the market determines
You also forget that no prospective buyer will be thinking there is a short term profit here
No one will entertain £77m and RD will eventually accept about £20m
BTW, I have not been bringing this subject up again. Henry Irving keeps bringing it up. But if he does, I will keep responding. If you all want to stop hearing about this subject, talk to him. I have not brought it up in weeks.
I have not been bringing this subject up again. Henry Irving keeps bringing it up. But if he does, I will keep responding. If you all want to stop hearing about this subject, talk to him. I have not brought it up in weeks.
Are you sure ? That doesn’t sound like Henry at all.
You are counting it in the debt he took on, and the debt he has not ended us up with and as the purchase price.
The £55m or whatever is shown as the total debt in the next accounts will be the total owed to him, including purchase price (which is the same as clearing debt to previous owners - not seperate) and including clearing the bank debt (transferring to himself).
So if it is true that his purchase price "cleared all debt" then why did he...
1. Inherit 21.6M of debt, which is still outstanding and part of the £55.6M total? Are you saying he paid nothing for the equity at all his purchase price was only for the debt?
2. Why did he not pay off the bank debt til 2015-16 if it was all "cleared" when he bought it in Jan, 2014?
I believe he paid something like the reported £14M for the assets of the club (Valley, Sparrows, brand) and then assumed £21.6M of debt, for which he has added on £34M more and is collecting interest on. If you have any evidence of the contrary, would be thrilled to see it.
Roland just wants a slight tidy up of his fringe. New owners want to give him a No.1 all over. What he really needs is to have his head shaved and painted purple so he looks like the knob he really is.
Tempted to say I wouldn't have a number one all over him if he was on fire!
I'd just shit all over him,like he has shate over us the last few yrs...;)
I have not been bringing this subject up again. Henry Irving keeps bringing it up. But if he does, I will keep responding. If you all want to stop hearing about this subject, talk to him. I have not brought it up in weeks.
Are you sure ? That doesn’t sound like Henry at all.
I wish someone would tell me that! I assumed he is just trolling me this whole time. I would probably respond with a ";-)" if I thought he was just teasing a little. I think some of what Henry responds with is lost in translation as it goes to this side of the pond. The last time I understood British humor was "A Fish Called Wanda."
I have not been bringing this subject up again. Henry Irving keeps bringing it up. But if he does, I will keep responding. If you all want to stop hearing about this subject, talk to him. I have not brought it up in weeks.
Are you sure ? That doesn’t sound like Henry at all.
I wish someone would tell me that! I assumed he is just trolling me this whole time. I would probably respond with a ";-)" if I thought he was just teasing a little. I think some of what Henry responds with is lost in translation as it goes to this side of the pond.
You are counting it in the debt he took on, and the debt he has not ended us up with and as the purchase price.
The £55m or whatever is shown as the total debt in the next accounts will be the total owed to him, including purchase price (which is the same as clearing debt to previous owners - not seperate) and including clearing the bank debt (transferring to himself).
So if it is true that his purchase price "cleared all debt" then why did he...
1. Inherit 21.6M of debt, which is still outstanding and part of the £55.6M total? Are you saying he paid nothing for the equity at all his purchase price was only for the debt?
2. Why did he not pay off the bank debt til 2015-16 if it was all "cleared" when he bought it in Jan, 2014?
Genuinely not sure if you're on a wind up or are serious.
Read my post the whole thing. I specifically said nor bank debt when talking about the purchase. I'm well aware that happened on a later date.
The way I understand it you can look at it 2 ways. 1) the spivs wrote off the money they had put into the club as debt. RD paid them in the region of 14 mill for the club and loaded that as debt to the club - part of the 55m.
Or
2) RD agreed to take on their debt (effectively clearing it from them and transferring to himself) and paid a notional fee for the club.
Both are effectively the same just approaching from a different angle. They leave the same end product. The purchase price is part of the 55million not additional to it.
2) RD agreed to take on their debt (effectively clearing it from them and transferring to himself) and paid a notional fee for the club.
Both are effectively the same just approaching from a different angle. They leave the same end product. The purchase price is part of the 55million not additional to it.
Okay, let's say your point 2, above, is correct.
Since the last reports stated the debt upon purchase in Jan, 2014 was £21.6M, and that amount is apparently still on the books, we can assume the total enterprise value of the club was at least that amount, even if he paid only one pound for the club, itself. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Second, since the current debt is now at minimum, £55.6M, if he sells for more than the £21.6M, even if he takes a haircut, then the club's enterprise value went UP despite relegation. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Finally, if he gets £55.6M or more for the club, then it means he has profited. Do you agree? Yes or no?
If I am wrong on any of these 3 points, please explain.
It has been explained numerous times to you in different ways by various people what he has spent yet you continue to double and sometimes triple count it.
You have convinced yourself the club is 1 worth £77m and 2 that he won't take less than that.
No evidence to the contrary will impact on your fixation on those concocted numbers so people makes jokes about it.
It's not meant to be nasty, maybe it is British thing but having tried logic and maths humour was all that was left.
It has been explained numerous times to you in different ways by various people what he has spent yet you continue to double and sometimes triple count it.
You have convinced yourself the club is 1 worth £77m and 2 that he won't take less than that.
No evidence to the contrary will impact on your fixation on those concocted numbers so people makes jokes about it.
It's not meant to be nasty, maybe it is British thing but having tried logic and maths humour was all that was left.
Hate to break it to you Henry, but even if he walks away with the £55.6M, he still sells the club for more than 3x the purchase price of 2014, despite relegation. Same is true at £50M.
A lot of your complaint against my idea is that he cannot and will not sell for more than what he bought the club for after relegating us, as if morally the gods won't allow it. Even if I was counting the equity twice, he still does that, in any scenario over £21.6M.
To believe that he will sell it for £20M (less than he bought it for, which by one account is 21.6M and another source shows 18.6M) and eat all that debt, clearing the books for the new owners, makes no sense. He will not eat £35.6M-38.6M of debt. No freaking way.
It has been explained numerous times to you in different ways by various people what he has spent yet you continue to double and sometimes triple count it.
You have convinced yourself the club is 1 worth £77m and 2 that he won't take less than that.
No evidence to the contrary will impact on your fixation on those concocted numbers so people makes jokes about it.
It's not meant to be nasty, maybe it is British thing but having tried logic and maths humour was all that was left.
Hate to break it to you Henry, but even if he walks away with the £55.6M, he still sells the club for more than 3x the purchase price of 2014, despite relegation. Same is true at £50M.
A lot of your complaint against my idea is that he cannot and will not sell for more than what he bought the club for after relegating us, as if morally the gods won't allow it. Even if I was counting the equity twice, he still does that, in any scenario over £21.6M.
To believe that he will sell it for £20M and eat all that debt, clearing the books for the new owners, makes no sense. He will not eat £35.6M of debt. No freaking way.
Jesus Christ someone make him stop. He’s not going to sell for £50 bloody million. You’re the only one saying that’s even remotely possible.
It has been explained numerous times to you in different ways by various people what he has spent yet you continue to double and sometimes triple count it.
You have convinced yourself the club is 1 worth £77m and 2 that he won't take less than that.
No evidence to the contrary will impact on your fixation on those concocted numbers so people makes jokes about it.
It's not meant to be nasty, maybe it is British thing but having tried logic and maths humour was all that was left.
Hate to break it to you Henry, but even if he walks away with the £55.6M, he still sells the club for more than 3x the purchase price of 2014, despite relegation. Same is true at £50M.
A lot of your complaint against my idea is that he cannot and will not sell for more than what he bought the club for after relegating us, as if morally the gods won't allow it. Even if I was counting the equity twice, he still does that, in any scenario over £21.6M.
To believe that he will sell it for £20M and eat all that debt, clearing the books for the new owners, makes no sense. He will not eat £35.6M of debt. No freaking way.
See, you're doing it again.
You are making up prices and convincing no one but your self.
Now you are also putting words in my mouth (I never said he won't get more than the £14m he paid) to make your numbers fit.
You don't know so can't say what RD will or won't accept.
You are just guessing. You don't know and you can't do basic maths.
Loving a bit of enterprise value so whats a current share of a CAFC/Baton worth?
In all your calcs you are assuming someone is going to buy the debt off him and pay enterprise value, i think it's far more likely a chunk of it will be written off, remember Bolton?
You are getting far to hung up on enterprise values which is really more for publicly listed companies. It's also generally assumed that debt has been invested and therefore added value.
As an example, on your basis/enterprise value/what someone will pay for CAFC - RD/Staprix could tomorrow 'lend' Charlton £100m to buy Messi, the following week we sell Messi to A N Other club for 1p - is CAFC now worth an extra £99,999,999.99? ...... No, I didn't think so.
So I am curious, what do YOU henry and harry, think this club will be sold for, including all debt? Pick a number you think will be more accurate than mine.
£20M? 30M? Less than what he paid for it? Which appears to be between 18.6-21-something?
If the club sells for anything less than the total current debts then it could be argued that the club has actually sold for zero and the buyer has simply bought a percentage of the club's debt to RD.
Unless some Charlton fan has just won a couple hundred million on the lottery, nobody is going to pay close to the total outstanding debt, therefore the club will have been sold at a zero/nominal value.
It could be that RD spins a £35m sale as £25m for the club (and therefore a £4m "profit" and £40m of debts being "forgiven"), but that is being more than a little economical with the facts in order to massage his ego.
So I am curious, what do YOU henry and harry, think this club will be sold for, including all debt? Pick a number you think will be more accurate than mine.
£20M? 30M?
You're not avoiding the point are you? We've just run up another £100m of debt due to poor transfer dealing - but heh - clubs worth another £100m more right by your calcs? Enterprise Value yer?
Seriously, if you are back on planet earth now, football clubs (outside of the top 6) are notoriously difficult to value. Yes you have the 'asset' as in players, training ground, stadium etc. But despite the values in the accounts players often decrease in value as they age or run down their contracts, stadiums are just concrete and difficult to do much else with, training grounds often have other restrictions and most clubs lose money each month/year.
My gut feel, if the club is still losing somewhere north of £500k a month, probably still near £1m i'd personally pay him £15m if he writes of all the debt. But I suspect someone will pay north of £20m, maybe as much as 25m, but i'd play hard ball with him if I was the buyer - anyone who wants to sell, regardless of how rich they are, and continue to lose more and more each month will get desperate. In fact i'd offer him £1 and he can keep the debt hold, interest free, until we reach the premier league at which point it begins to be repaid at £5m a year.
If RD sells for less than £55.6M, I will PayPal someone here who knows Henry and Harry (or one of them) £25. That should pay (hopefully) for a couple of beers at some CAFC match.
If...
1. He does not sell by season's end because he is unwilling to take a haircut, or 2. If he sells for £55.6M or more, or 3. He only sells part of the club and keeps the debt or an asset because he won't take a haircut
Then I win and they can PayPal me £25.
This makes a game of it and not something which seems to be frustrating me, them and everyone else. And we can stop going over it and wait til the fat Meire sings.
So I am curious, what do YOU henry and harry, think this club will be sold for, including all debt? Pick a number you think will be more accurate than mine.
£20M? 30M? Less than what he paid for it? Which appears to be between 18.6-21-something?
The Baton accounts for 2016 clearly state that Staprix acquired £18.6m of debt from the previous owners on January 3rd 2014.
I think the £21.6m figure is the accumulated debt at June 30th 2014 - after Staprix had owned the club for six months - from recollection.
If RD sells for less than £55.6M, I will PayPal someone here who knows Henry and Harry (or one of them) £25. That should pay (hopefully) for a couple of beers at some CAFC match.
If...
1. He does not sell by season's end because he is unwilling to take a haircut, or 2. If he sells for £55.6M or more, or 3. He only sells part of the club and keeps the debt or an asset because he won't take a haircut
Then I win and they can PayPal me £25.
This makes a game of it and not something which seems to be frustrating me, them and everyone else. And we can stop going over it and wait til the fat Meire sings.
But having bought and sold Messi and lost £100m I thought the club was now worth in excess of £150m?!
On 1) not selling I would assume means no one meets his desired valuation so not sure how that confirms the value of the club, just the value in RD's eyes. I could sell my car but only if someone pays £100k, doesn't mean it's worth £100k. It's more an indication that it isn't worth 55m+.
On 2) happy with,
On 3) as long as the combined value of amount paid and debt held over is more than £55.6m......
It has been explained numerous times to you in different ways by various people what he has spent yet you continue to double and sometimes triple count it.
You have convinced yourself the club is 1 worth £77m and 2 that he won't take less than that.
No evidence to the contrary will impact on your fixation on those concocted numbers so people makes jokes about it.
It's not meant to be nasty, maybe it is British thing but having tried logic and maths humour was all that was left.
Hate to break it to you Henry, but even if he walks away with the £55.6M, he still sells the club for more than 3x the purchase price of 2014, despite relegation. Same is true at £50M.
A lot of your complaint against my idea is that he cannot and will not sell for more than what he bought the club for after relegating us, as if morally the gods won't allow it. Even if I was counting the equity twice, he still does that, in any scenario over £21.6M.
To believe that he will sell it for £20M and eat all that debt, clearing the books for the new owners, makes no sense. He will not eat £35.6M of debt. No freaking way.
Jesus Christ someone make him stop. He’s not going to sell for £50 bloody million. You’re the only one saying that’s even remotely possible.
To be entirely fair to Napa, although he's not going to sell for £50,000,000... this is indeed the number that's been mentioned (attributed directly to Roland). So Roland clearly thought it was more than remotely possible.
Subsequently Roland adjusted his expectations, but now we understand that he's keen on keeping certain assets - i.e Sparrows Lane - which does add some credibility to Napa's suggestion that Roland wont lay down and take a cut without keeping something in return. This is the whole reason we're discussing the £7,000,000 in debentures, and the power that resides with the ex-directors to block such an arrangement.
Personally I think he will settle for something closer to his original purchase price, but I'm not entirely confident that it wont have strings attached. He has previous after all. The main concern is related to what kind of people are going to do business with Roland and any stipulations he's likely to have: they will either be very naive and agree to conditions that weaken the club, or very sensible and Roland will have to weaken his ego..
Comments
1. Inherit 21.6M of debt, which is still outstanding and part of the £55.6M total? Are you saying he paid nothing for the equity at all his purchase price was only for the debt?
2. Why did he not pay off the bank debt til 2015-16 if it was all "cleared" when he bought it in Jan, 2014?
I believe he paid something like the reported £14M for the assets of the club (Valley, Sparrows, brand) and then assumed £21.6M of debt, for which he has added on £34M more and is collecting interest on. If you have any evidence of the contrary, would be thrilled to see it.
;0)
Read my post the whole thing. I specifically said nor bank debt when talking about the purchase. I'm well aware that happened on a later date.
The way I understand it you can look at it 2 ways. 1) the spivs wrote off the money they had put into the club as debt. RD paid them in the region of 14 mill for the club and loaded that as debt to the club - part of the 55m.
Or
2) RD agreed to take on their debt (effectively clearing it from them and transferring to himself) and paid a notional fee for the club.
Both are effectively the same just approaching from a different angle. They leave the same end product. The purchase price is part of the 55million not additional to it.
Since the last reports stated the debt upon purchase in Jan, 2014 was £21.6M, and that amount is apparently still on the books, we can assume the total enterprise value of the club was at least that amount, even if he paid only one pound for the club, itself. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Second, since the current debt is now at minimum, £55.6M, if he sells for more than the £21.6M, even if he takes a haircut, then the club's enterprise value went UP despite relegation. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Finally, if he gets £55.6M or more for the club, then it means he has profited. Do you agree? Yes or no?
If I am wrong on any of these 3 points, please explain.
It has been explained numerous times to you in different ways by various people what he has spent yet you continue to double and sometimes triple count it.
You have convinced yourself the club is 1 worth £77m and 2 that he won't take less than that.
No evidence to the contrary will impact on your fixation on those concocted numbers so people makes jokes about it.
It's not meant to be nasty, maybe it is British thing but having tried logic and maths humour was all that was left.
A lot of your complaint against my idea is that he cannot and will not sell for more than what he bought the club for after relegating us, as if morally the gods won't allow it. Even if I was counting the equity twice, he still does that, in any scenario over £21.6M.
To believe that he will sell it for £20M (less than he bought it for, which by one account is 21.6M and another source shows 18.6M) and eat all that debt, clearing the books for the new owners, makes no sense. He will not eat £35.6M-38.6M of debt. No freaking way.
You are making up prices and convincing no one but your self.
Now you are also putting words in my mouth (I never said he won't get more than the £14m he paid) to make your numbers fit.
You don't know so can't say what RD will or won't accept.
You are just guessing. You don't know and you can't do basic maths.
Loving a bit of enterprise value
In all your calcs you are assuming someone is going to buy the debt off him and pay enterprise value, i think it's far more likely a chunk of it will be written off, remember Bolton?
You are getting far to hung up on enterprise values which is really more for publicly listed companies. It's also generally assumed that debt has been invested and therefore added value.
As an example, on your basis/enterprise value/what someone will pay for CAFC - RD/Staprix could tomorrow 'lend' Charlton £100m to buy Messi, the following week we sell Messi to A N Other club for 1p - is CAFC now worth an extra £99,999,999.99? ...... No, I didn't think so.
£20M? 30M? Less than what he paid for it? Which appears to be between 18.6-21-something?
Unless some Charlton fan has just won a couple hundred million on the lottery, nobody is going to pay close to the total outstanding debt, therefore the club will have been sold at a zero/nominal value.
It could be that RD spins a £35m sale as £25m for the club (and therefore a £4m "profit" and £40m of debts being "forgiven"), but that is being more than a little economical with the facts in order to massage his ego.
Seriously, if you are back on planet earth now, football clubs (outside of the top 6) are notoriously difficult to value. Yes you have the 'asset' as in players, training ground, stadium etc. But despite the values in the accounts players often decrease in value as they age or run down their contracts, stadiums are just concrete and difficult to do much else with, training grounds often have other restrictions and most clubs lose money each month/year.
My gut feel, if the club is still losing somewhere north of £500k a month, probably still near £1m i'd personally pay him £15m if he writes of all the debt. But I suspect someone will pay north of £20m, maybe as much as 25m, but i'd play hard ball with him if I was the buyer - anyone who wants to sell, regardless of how rich they are, and continue to lose more and more each month will get desperate. In fact i'd offer him £1 and he can keep the debt hold, interest free, until we reach the premier league at which point it begins to be repaid at £5m a year.
Who will break first? Will it be the man who is losing more money the longer he waits or will it be the buyers who aren't?
If RD sells for less than £55.6M, I will PayPal someone here who knows Henry and Harry (or one of them) £25. That should pay (hopefully) for a couple of beers at some CAFC match.
If...
1. He does not sell by season's end because he is unwilling to take a haircut, or
2. If he sells for £55.6M or more, or
3. He only sells part of the club and keeps the debt or an asset because he won't take a haircut
Then I win and they can PayPal me £25.
This makes a game of it and not something which seems to be frustrating me, them and everyone else. And we can stop going over it and wait til the fat Meire sings.
I think the £21.6m figure is the accumulated debt at June 30th 2014 - after Staprix had owned the club for six months - from recollection.
On 1) not selling I would assume means no one meets his desired valuation so not sure how that confirms the value of the club, just the value in RD's eyes. I could sell my car but only if someone pays £100k, doesn't mean it's worth £100k. It's more an indication that it isn't worth 55m+.
On 2) happy with,
On 3) as long as the combined value of amount paid and debt held over is more than £55.6m......
Then you're on.
Subsequently Roland adjusted his expectations, but now we understand that he's keen on keeping certain assets - i.e Sparrows Lane - which does add some credibility to Napa's suggestion that Roland wont lay down and take a cut without keeping something in return. This is the whole reason we're discussing the £7,000,000 in debentures, and the power that resides with the ex-directors to block such an arrangement.
Personally I think he will settle for something closer to his original purchase price, but I'm not entirely confident that it wont have strings attached. He has previous after all. The main concern is related to what kind of people are going to do business with Roland and any stipulations he's likely to have: they will either be very naive and agree to conditions that weaken the club, or very sensible and Roland will have to weaken his ego..