Just be nice to be a stable Championship club for a change, with the chance of getting into the playoffs like what Burnley did, or what we used to do in the past. I know the money is different now then even 3 years ago in that league, but top half Championship is where we need to be as table stakes.
We've all been aware, for some time now, that RD wanted around £40m and that nobody was stupid enough to pay that - but the stubborn idiot is determined to get it. It seems the only way for a buyer to acquire the club is to pay a lump sum up front and then drip feed the rest to him until he gets his £40m. and the Aussies seem willing to accommodate that. That's probably why they are the preferred bid. Now the devil will be in the details of the arrangement to drip feed the balance. I would guess that he will retain certain assets and then lease them back - and that the terms of the lease will mean that the assets transfer when he has got his £40m (or whatever number). Until the details are made available (if ever) then its all speculation. It does, however, mean that the club is rid of RD's influence and his only interest is that of an investor who will 'disappear' at some point. This is probably the only way we will get to see the back of him - all good as long as the asset ownership have terms agreed for their eventual transfer to the new owners.
In some respects it’s better that we continue to produce saleable talent. Sure if the rumour is true Roland snatches a slice but the lions share goes to the club to either quickly pay off the £40 million or for investment where it sees fit.
If anything. Our academy products could be the key to getting rid of the bad smell that Roland is.
I can't pretend to know how it works but I thought, following FIFA's ban on third party ownership, economic rights agreements regarding player transfers were a complete no-no.
If Roland is refusing to exchange until this season is resolved one way or another then potentially the exchange could take place next Monday should the team not be able to turn it around. Would certainly take some of the pain out of the result.
10% of youth player sales isn't a lot, let's be honest.
But I'd rather the full amount was paid off straight away.
In my eyes any deal that leaves RD lurking in the back ground is a bad deal. He needs to be gone completely.
Paying £40m cash for Charlton in its current state is a very bad deal. Roland is legally owed that money. He wants it back and won't take much of a haircut on it and this is what's the cause of all the hold up and aggravation I suspect. How to structure the deal so that Roland gets his money and the new owner's aren't crippled by the debt. Better to pay a sensible amount up front and defer the cost over time. As long as he has no financial interest in the stadium or training ground going forward, I can live with a 10% cut on academy player sales.
10% of youth player sales isn't a lot, let's be honest.
But I'd rather the full amount was paid off straight away.
In my eyes any deal that leaves RD lurking in the back ground is a bad deal. He needs to be gone completely.
Paying £40m cash for Charlton in its current state is a very bad deal. Roland is legally owed that money. He wants it back and won't take much of a haircut on it and this is what's the cause of all the hold up and aggravation I suspect. How to structure the deal so that Roland gets his money and the new owner's aren't crippled by the debt. Better to pay a sensible amount up front and defer the cost over time. As long as he has no financial interest in the stadium or training ground going forward, I can live with a 10% cut on academy player sales.
If the selling price is £40m, he's taking a massive haircut as debts to Staprix are currently about £70m! Yes, for every Joe Gomez we sell RD gets a 10% fee, but only up to the £40m selling price. Unless we know what the upfront fee is, that could take ten years, or never. The issue is that if the Aussies ever want to sell, then that charge may have to be paid off and where it sits with the old directors loans.
Slightly concerning if the new owners don't have 40m to buy him out completely
Been my concern with the Aussie bid all along that they don’t have the money needed to run the club
I will wait and see what the official line is before getting excited
If someone doesn’t have 40 mil to buy us out lock stock and smoking barrels then there is serious implications on them being able to make us compete in this league let alone any other ambitious plans they may think they can achieve
Just asking if there’s a reason why someone wouldn’t want to pay all the money immediately?
Or is it sale or return?
If you were buying the club for £50m, would you think a deal to pay £30m and the balance of £20m back at the rate of 10% of youth player sales a good one?
I’m simply asking the question, which nobody has given any answer too, what benefit if any, would it be to a buyer, not to pay everything upfront?
10% of youth player sales isn't a lot, let's be honest.
But I'd rather the full amount was paid off straight away.
Depends, if we sold another Joe Gomez for £3.5m thats £350k into the pocket of Roland...
But these players don’t come along as often as you think. We do punch above our weight but he could have to wait along time for his money.
However, I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. I think of it more as the consortium will have more money in the pot to build the club. Far better than putting the other (say) £10mil into Rollys pocket up front.
An incentive not to sell our best youngsters seems good to me.
I very much doubt that, RD is no fool, he will insert a clause somewhere saying we have to sell a quota each season otherwise he will never get his money back.
Sounds like we are getting near the end... BUT in true Dutchelet style, if the stench of the man remains in any form, ground lease back etc, as quoted, I cannot see this ending nicely for us.
An incentive not to sell our best youngsters seems good to me.
I very much doubt that, RD is no fool, he will insert a clause somewhere saying we have to sell a quota each season otherwise he will never get his money back.
Either that or he'll have a say so that we cant ask ridiculous fees for the kids in an effort to keep them
i.e. If we dont want Konsa to go we can demand £20m for him... In my scenario, Roland would be able to jump in and say we're demanding too much for him and that he thinks we should accept an offer of 20p for him
10% of youth player sales isn't a lot, let's be honest.
But I'd rather the full amount was paid off straight away.
In my eyes any deal that leaves RD lurking in the back ground is a bad deal. He needs to be gone completely.
Paying £40m cash for Charlton in its current state is a very bad deal. Roland is legally owed that money. He wants it back and won't take much of a haircut on it and this is what's the cause of all the hold up and aggravation I suspect. How to structure the deal so that Roland gets his money and the new owner's aren't crippled by the debt. Better to pay a sensible amount up front and defer the cost over time. As long as he has no financial interest in the stadium or training ground going forward, I can live with a 10% cut on academy player sales.
If the selling price is £40m, he's taking a massive haircut as debts to Staprix are currently about £70m! Yes, for every Joe Gomez we sell RD gets a 10% fee, but only up to the £40m selling price. Unless we know what the upfront fee is, that could take ten years, or never. The issue is that if the Aussies ever want to sell, then that charge may have to be paid off and where it sits with the old directors loans.
The numbers make my head spin! Good point about what happens if new owners decide to move on before Roland is paid off. Maybe there are other payment options built in too, on promotion to Premier League etc. It's a nightmare and no wonder it's taken so long to sort out!!
Comments
MODS, please give @cfgs a promote.
Gotta be next week though hasn't it!?
If anything. Our academy products could be the key to getting rid of the bad smell that Roland is.
"We like to sell with Roland, cos Roland's not our mate! And when he sells the Addicks, he sells it all in EIGHT! SEVEN! SIX! (so on)"
But I'd rather the full amount was paid off straight away.
However, I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. I think of it more as the consortium will have more money in the pot to build the club. Far better than putting the other (say) £10mil into Rollys pocket up front.
Muir for chairman, explicit legal attempt to keep Varney (and others) out - laughing at that tbh.
JUST GET THE FUCK OUT ROLAND!
i.e. If we dont want Konsa to go we can demand £20m for him... In my scenario, Roland would be able to jump in and say we're demanding too much for him and that he thinks we should accept an offer of 20p for him