Collectively I am sure the Aussie mob have more capital than Poison Poirot, If the deal is he retains part of anything until we are better off then no probs with me. I just want him and his toxic shit out as much as poss.
If there's a scintilla of truth in the rumour that 'the new guys' will be leasing the premises from the toxic old then this deal can wither and die so far as I'm concerned. Deferred payment based on whatever cock-eyed scheme, that's all fine. But for tooshitsalot to have his cancerous digits left in any part of Charlton's pie will be ruinous. All or nothing. Anybody getting into business with roly is at best a moron, to have that rancid dementor lingering around the place defies sense and will deny any respect whatsoever. I hope it ain't true. I'd sooner have Uncle Ron Noades as landlord, for eternity, than have anymore time in the toxic pantomime.
100%
Pass on the Noades bit.
NAPM @ The Valley all the whist Dushitelet taking money.
If the scenario is that RD is looking to retain the freehold of some land (e.g. car park) at The Valley as insurance against the Aussies not delivering a contingent payment later on, for example not reaching the PL, this would not reflect on the Aussies’ resources but on their willingness to commit over and above the current value of the club at this time.
It follows that in this situation the money might be in the deal to wipe out the ex-directors’ loans and make such a lease possible. A lot of focus has been on the Aussies not being able to afford to buy all the freehold, but that is not the only possible explanation.
This isn't NOT as bad as it sounds in my opinion, for two reasons.
First, it is essentially just collateral against the remainder of the purchase price being paid, which will be paid if/when we are creating higher turnover or promoted, most likely. This is not at all unreasonable, for it means that RD would have sold it all if the full price was paid up front.
Second, it shows Muir is not financially stupid. And despite having hundreds of millions in cash available, was unwilling to overpay up front. It shows he has financial smarts, which his CV proved already.
I always though RD might keep the ground if he did not get full price and said so many times, here. But this feels more like he wants to hold it until he is paid in full, which is VERY different and does not worry me nearly as much. For now.
Not ideal. But not a disaster. I seriously doubt it will interfere in Muir's plans.
Until such time as we get promoted but then the c*** has moved us to wherever.
If there's a scintilla of truth in the rumour that 'the new guys' will be leasing the premises from the toxic old then this deal can wither and die so far as I'm concerned. Deferred payment based on whatever cock-eyed scheme, that's all fine. But for tooshitsalot to have his cancerous digits left in any part of Charlton's pie will be ruinous. All or nothing. Anybody getting into business with roly is at best a moron, to have that rancid dementor lingering around the place defies sense and will deny any respect whatsoever. I hope it ain't true. I'd sooner have Uncle Ron Noades as landlord, for eternity, than have anymore time in the toxic pantomime.
100%
Pass on the Noades bit.
NAPM @ The Valley all the whist Dushitelet taking money.
Wouldn't that be dangerous? Besides where could we get some?
If RD’s going to lease us the training facilities, hadn’t he better build them first?
Maybe he'll lease to the Aussies at £ x but when they develop the facilities he thinks he can then up the price to £ xxxx as they've built on his land ?
The Aussies must be mad if they are agreeing to pay 40M for Charlton , Roland has wrecked the club. We are in a lower division , crowds are down 50% , the Aussies should offer 20M take it or leave it with no strings. If Roland was to getting 10% of player sales that would be the end of Valley Gold for most fans
The Aussies must be mad if they are agreeing to pay 40M for Charlton , Roland has wrecked the club. We are in a lower division , crowds are down 50% , the Aussies should offer 20M take it or leave it with no strings. If Roland was to getting 10% of player sales that would be the end of Valley Gold for most fans
I heard from what I consider to be a credible source today, the deal may well entail the club leasing the Valley from Duchâtelet, Duchâtelet being paid all existing add-ons from previous player sales, and a percentage of ALL future player sales.
In addition, the new owners are considering a new share issue to provide the required working capital.
If there is any truth in this, I fear we have a long way to go before we are rid of Duchâtelet's malign influence on our football club.
I heard from what I consider to be a credible source today, the deal may well entail the club leasing the Valley from Duchâtelet, Duchâtelet being paid all existing add-ons from previous player sales, and a percentage of ALL future player sales.
I think that there’s a bit of shooting the messenger here. Both the Belgium 20 & Rick Everitt on Twitter have suggested ongoing Duchatelet involvement of some / part of the ground. There’s also a rumour about a percentage of player sales. It is important to wait for the detail but if true, any on going Duchatelet involvement is most likely going to benefit him to the detriment of money available for development of the team.
If the Aussies fail, & Duchatelet wants his money back, does anyone seriously think that Duchatelet would not put his needs first. Duchatelet clearly just cares about getting his money back.
Ron Noades at Palace springs to mind. Coventry & the Ricoh arena. Charlton having to move to Selhurst. If the deal is anything like rumoured, a lot of reassurance is going to be needed to convince that this is a good set up & have a chance of success.
To be clear, I have heard something from yesterday which suggests part of the site being leasehold. It was a conversation between the Aussies. I have also heard from someone else they are getting the freehold.
But I’ll repeat - as far as anyone knows, there can be no lease without the ex-directors agreeing or being paid off. And I am certain they (or at least a group of them) have not been approached.
To me it seems pretty obvious (if the rumor of sell-ons and leases are true,) that Muir and RD were at least £10M apart on valuation and this was the only way to make the deal actually happen.
I read this as "agreeing to disagree" but RD putting clauses in-place so that Muir cannot profit off anything until the full £40M price is paid. And Muir not being willing to pay more than X for a club that will likely be in League One next season.
So what we have is an agreement to sell... but RD will keep certain assets and restrict profits until he has the full price. Muir could easily pay the full price with just the interest he earns on his money in the bank, but I guess he is a smart enough businessman to not overpay for something up-front that bleeds money like a football club.
I believe if Muir had held out, Roland would have kept the club. And if there was someone else offering more than Muir's, RD would have taken it.
Which means it was either this kind of a deal or... no deal at all. I will take this over nothing seven days of the week, as imperfect as it might be.
Maybe this is the time to say that I heard last night that more investors would be joining the Aussie consortium - hopefully sooner rather than later - presumably to add to the coffers for close season recruitment.
Based on what I'm reading all I can think is that these various arrangements mean the next takeover thread will make this one look like a picnic. It is going to be the stuff of nightmares.
Based on what I'm reading all I can think is that these various arrangements mean the next takeover thread will make this one look like a picnic. It is going to be the stuff of nightmares.
Comments
Pass on the Noades bit.
NAPM @ The Valley all the whist Dushitelet taking money.
It follows that in this situation the money might be in the deal to wipe out the ex-directors’ loans and make such a lease possible. A lot of focus has been on the Aussies not being able to afford to buy all the freehold, but that is not the only possible explanation.
Oh - not a penny ...
In addition, the new owners are considering a new share issue to provide the required working capital.
If there is any truth in this, I fear we have a long way to go before we are rid of Duchâtelet's malign influence on our football club.
If the Aussies fail, & Duchatelet wants his money back, does anyone seriously think that Duchatelet would not put his needs first. Duchatelet clearly just cares about getting his money back.
Ron Noades at Palace springs to mind. Coventry & the Ricoh arena. Charlton having to move to Selhurst. If the deal is anything like rumoured, a lot of reassurance is going to be needed to convince that this is a good set up & have a chance of success.
But I’ll repeat - as far as anyone knows, there can be no lease without the ex-directors agreeing or being paid off. And I am certain they (or at least a group of them) have not been approached.
I read this as "agreeing to disagree" but RD putting clauses in-place so that Muir cannot profit off anything until the full £40M price is paid. And Muir not being willing to pay more than X for a club that will likely be in League One next season.
So what we have is an agreement to sell... but RD will keep certain assets and restrict profits until he has the full price. Muir could easily pay the full price with just the interest he earns on his money in the bank, but I guess he is a smart enough businessman to not overpay for something up-front that bleeds money like a football club.
I believe if Muir had held out, Roland would have kept the club. And if there was someone else offering more than Muir's, RD would have taken it.
Which means it was either this kind of a deal or... no deal at all. I will take this over nothing seven days of the week, as imperfect as it might be.
Does it remain an interested party?
You know the rest