Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the 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.
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.
The share prospectus would make for a really interesting read: basically buy some shares in this company we have with no cash, no assets, no prospects, no SMT, no staff and, oh, we're going to put up a state of the art training facility on land owned by someone else. Oh, and under a previous chairman we pissed all over fan shareholders by cancelling their shares and making them worthless. Brilliant, I'll have some of that, were do I sign?
Grimsby away years ago and a police horse, something like that.
I was told Brighton away, 7-0 loss early 80’s, major tear up in the park outside the goldstone after the game, OB fell off his horse as it reared up during the melee, almost happened at Horwich station after Bolton FA cup QF game as well
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
ACV is about change of use rather than change of ownership IIRC
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
ACV is about change of use rather than change of ownership IIRC
Not sure about that my understanding is it’s simply a sale of the land separately from the business
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.
A new share issue? It’s a no from me, brought a grand worth many moons ago. Never got anything in return, not even a discount on season tickets or club shop. Then Murray wipes them off.
Grimsby away years ago and a police horse, something like that.
I was told Brighton away, 7-0 loss early 80’s, major tear up in the park outside the goldstone after the game, OB fell off his horse as it reared up during the melee, almost happened at Horwich station after Bolton FA cup QF game as well
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
OK apologies for being a trusting optimist, maybe the Aussies are really minted but have seen that fans are saying we have lost our sense of ownership of the club, so they offer a symbolic share issue. This gives us a voice again, the potential for an elected board member again and the chance to be a part of what they are building.
There was a bloke worth $870m at the valley Thursday with a Charlton scarf round his neck, how can the Aussies have no money?
Because it was suggested they were trying to raise funds about a year ago and rumours of RD holding on to part of the ground/training ground have continued.
They might be not even be the same people. Some of the rumours from the Belgium20 have turned out to be false.
What does "no money" even mean? I remember reading that the real money men behind Slater and Jimenez had serious money. I've also read that RD is now a billionaire. That sort of wealth doesn't guarantee success.
We don't need to spend huge money on signings. We need owners that can fund the club and run it in a sensible way.
It's obvious it takes a lot of money just to pay the bills. Anyone buying the club is looking to make a profit.
How and why would anyone buy us if they couldn't afford to run the club for at least 2/3 seasons, if not more?
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 was told the same re the share issue Thursday night after the game. They are looking to raise £50 million.
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?
The debt carries a 3% rate of interest. If I was a wealthy entrepreneur I would be looking to make nearer 20% on my capital. So if I can use someone else’s capital at a cost of 3% I use my own £40m of capital elsewhere earning 20% leaving me 17% after paying back the loan.
Having cart loads of dosh don't mean they/them/him/her or those still to determine are going to spend it.Settle for some proper football /sport people who understand OUR club ,get the fans genuinely involved,get rid of the toxic Pitch PR and Burger Van Boy.
Good Bye Horse either Brighton or QPR away and plod deffo came off the horse at Bolton last seen being dragged down the platform utter filth they were that day
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.
Please study this post from NapaAddick. Then google Andrew Muir and read about his career and his philanthropic/charitable interests. Then I suggest those of you who are in a particular pickle over this go and run yourselves a lovely hot bath and pour yourselves a large single malt.
Comments
Oh, and under a previous chairman we pissed all over fan shareholders by cancelling their shares and making them worthless.
Brilliant, I'll have some of that, were do I sign?
CLB74 is your man for that. He's very Jack Dee.
I’m not worried in the slightest.
Or they can't even afford a jar of Vegimite.
I have a feeling Thursdays visit was a pressure applying exercise.
They might be not even be the same people. Some of the rumours from the Belgium20 have turned out to be false.
What does "no money" even mean? I remember reading that the real money men behind Slater and Jimenez had serious money. I've also read that RD is now a billionaire. That sort of wealth doesn't guarantee success.
We don't need to spend huge money on signings. We need owners that can fund the club and run it in a sensible way.
It's obvious it takes a lot of money just to pay the bills. Anyone buying the club is looking to make a profit.
How and why would anyone buy us if they couldn't afford to run the club for at least 2/3 seasons, if not more?
Good Bye Horse either Brighton or QPR away and plod deffo came off the horse at Bolton last seen being dragged down the platform utter filth they were that day
5,000 max people interested at an average of £500 each gives £2,500,000
Then google Andrew Muir and read about his career and his philanthropic/charitable interests.
Then I suggest those of you who are in a particular pickle over this go and run yourselves a lovely hot bath and pour yourselves a large single malt.