Just realised that I knew Gerard Murphy back in the day, as he was a dad at my sons’ school. Knew him quite well, but haven’t seen him since about 2013. Quite a character! Will see if I can get in contact.
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
Generally true, but I suspect there is one loan provider who would accept shares - and a seat on the board. That’s not insignificant. You will also know that a number of ex-directors are at loggerheads with him, as well as I do. I repeat - it may be RD who wants a part-lease, as security on a contingent payment, not the Aussies. There are very sensible business reasons for the latter to structure a deal in that way.
But Roland can not get a part-lease or any lease without Ex Directors permission and he will never get 7 to agree. If he could he would have done it already and so far he has not approached anyone, except of course Murray.
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
Generally true, but I suspect there is one loan provider who would accept shares - and a seat on the board. That’s not insignificant. You will also know that a number of ex-directors are at loggerheads with him, as well as I do. I repeat - it may be RD who wants a part-lease, as security on a contingent payment, not the Aussies. There are very sensible business reasons for the latter to structure a deal in that way.
But Roland can not get a part-lease or any lease without Ex Directors permission and he will never get 7 to agree. If he could he would have done it already and so far he has not approached anyone, except of course Murray.
So given your last sentence, in your opinion does it mean that the rumour that the deal involves such a lease of property must be false, because to be true, by now ex directors would have been contacted, and you know for certain that they have not?
I’m guessing that the former director who might be willing to take shares to replace his loan is Richard Murray. It would also I’m guessing keep him at the top table even if not in one of the big chairs.
Would the above scenario mean that RM would loose his current ability to block leases etc under the current terms of the former director loans and leave only six with outstanding loans to the club at a total of £5 million ?
Ex-directors can’t stop a sale. They can stop leases, unless they are repaid. Who pays them is one of the great imponderables (it’s RD’s debt, he bought it, but he doesn’t want to pay it).
It’s important to remember that the ground and training ground are leased at the moment, between two Charlton companies, both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Baton 2010, in turn owned by Staprix (RD). So a lease on The Valley exists.
Have to assume that the charges are drafted in such a way to prevent any chicanery around that. I think these are a stronger line of defence than the ACV, although Razil raises some interesting issues on that.
Just to make it clear,Ex Directors have never been contacted by Aussies or Roland for that matter. They would never except Shares and only full repayment by some and some might do deals,all Loans are Individual, so Roland needs all 7 on side to do anything. Leases can not be granted or Loans Secured by charges without their permission,which has stopped deals so far. Biggest question is regardless of Muir's Wealth, why are Aussies scrambling around for so long to raise funding and then get a deal done? If we don't make the Final let's see who is still around.
Question: If the the lease in place between the two currently separate entities remains unaffected by any change in ownership of one entity (playing side) theoretically it would not affect the other (and those whom have charges over the ground itself) would it?. Just wondering did RD not split it into the current structure as it stands now which he was able to do without recourse? So if both parties understand the details of the lease and its not affected because it remains a contract between the two separate legal entities could he move one on and retain the other (with charges)? Just a thought!
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
The point though is at least investors had something to show for there money at the time and when the shares were wiped out they had nothing left to show for it.
As for ROI Even during the Premier League years I don't recall any returns being paid out to investors.
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
I worked in Corparate Finance so was well aware of the vagaries of the AIM and other markets. I knew that my shares would go down as well as up. But I let my heart rule my head. I did not think that my Shares would be wiped out completely. It was Murray’s attitude that pissed me off.
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
I think the entire point behind offering shares was just to raise capital and I could’ve told you buying shares in a football club is a terrible idea if you want ROI. I wasn’t old enough to buy the shares but my old man did and knew it was just a way of the club to get a bit of extra cash and a gesture to the club’s supporters.
The point though is at least investors had something to show for there money at the time and when the shares were wiped out they had nothing left to show for it.
As for ROI Even during the Premier League years I don't recall any returns being paid out to investors.
While it was a mistake, and badly handled, Its interesting to look up and remind oneself just how many football clubs went to the Stock Exchange at the time, and people, not just their fans, bought them. It was the euphoria of the time, and Charlton did not create that euphoria. Someone may recall better but as far as I recall the only shares which produced capital gains or dividends for many investors was Man U.
I bought some because it was a way of supporting Charlton's development. I sold, at a pretty big loss, after they delisted from AIM,because it felt that the original positivity behind their launch, had disappeared.
I absolutely agree that anyone who knows the history of this, will know that hardly any fans will buy into a similar deal again. Frankly I still have trouble taking this particular rumour seriously. On the other hand something which buys a share in something tangible, such as the pitch, or a share in The Valley, might well be viable. Especially if such a share was a counterpoint to Duchatelet's own ownership of such assets.
When the club needed money upon the return to The Valley, they had the VIP scheme where the investor had 10 years worth of football. Shareholders got nothing.
When the club needed money upon the return to The Valley, they had the VIP scheme where the investor has 10 years worth of football. Shareholders got nothing.
And VIP's got top priority for away tickets too. No such gesture for shareholders though.
I'll feel extremely disappointed if Duchatelet doesn't lose millions after his dire ownership of the club. It would be entirely appropriate and fitting if he did.
It's not likely though is it the way this is going :-(
I will not be buying any more Shares in Charlton. Was pissed off with Murray, the disingenuous way he dismissed the amount of money the Charlton supporters lost in comparison with the amount he lost. I lost many thousands, I was stupid to invest what I did. But I didn't expect to have the Shares declared valueless. I hope the new owners bomb Murray out of the Club ASAP. He hangs about like a bad smell.
Regarding the leasing of the ground, David Smith has told us it can't happen & he should know. However with something like 10% of transfer fees (is that legal ?) would we even know ? Could the belgian make it part of the deal that no details are released ?
Regarding the leasing of the ground, David Smith has told us it can't happen & he should know. However with something like 10% of transfer fees (is that legal ?) would we even know ? Could the belgian make it part of the deal that no details are released ?
Regarding the leasing of the ground, David Smith has told us it can't happen & he should know. However with something like 10% of transfer fees (is that legal ?) would we even know ? Could the belgian make it part of the deal that no details are released ?
Would that not be third party ownership?
I doubt it. I’m sure it could be structured as a charge on the assets. That would prevent the owners from asset stripping the players and not repaying their debts.
I’m Jaume he won’t have any say in who gets sold, when they get sold, and how much they get sold for.
I have been trudging to The Vallley, Selhurst and Upton Park for 57 years and in all that time we’ve mostly been shit. I reason I’ve got if I’m lucky another 25 years to go. In that time I would dearly love us to actually win something. I firmly believe we won’t. I’ll still be Charlton mad until the day I die. It’s not a curse it’s a blessing. COYR
My old neighbour (long since passed) a Millwall supporter said that, "being a football supporter was tantamount to masochism". He'd been a Millwall supporter for 60 years and for 59 and three quarters it had been pure misery. He said he really couldn't remember the good 4 months.
I have been trudging to The Vallley, Selhurst and Upton Park for 57 years and in all that time we’ve mostly been shit. I reason I’ve got if I’m lucky another 25 years to go. In that time I would dearly love us to actually win something. I firmly believe we won’t. I’ll still be Charlton mad until the day I die. It’s not a curse it’s a blessing. COYR
My old neighbour (long since passed) a Millwall supporter said that, "being a football supporter was tantamount to masochism". He'd been a Millwall supporter for 60 years and for 59 and three quarters it had been pure misery. He said he really couldn't remember the good 4 months.
Not sure about Muir & the Aussie bid, but one thing is that he has attended more matches already than Duchatelet has in 4 years, & he is not even confirmed as owner yet.
Comments
Quite a character!
Will see if I can get in contact.
If he could he would have done it already and so far he has not approached anyone, except of course Murray.
Would the above scenario mean that RM would loose his current ability to block leases etc under the current terms of the former director loans and leave only six with outstanding loans to the club at a total of £5 million ?
As for ROI Even during the Premier League years I don't recall any returns being paid out to investors.
I bought some because it was a way of supporting Charlton's development. I sold, at a pretty big loss, after they delisted from AIM,because it felt that the original positivity behind their launch, had disappeared.
I absolutely agree that anyone who knows the history of this, will know that hardly any fans will buy into a similar deal again. Frankly I still have trouble taking this particular rumour seriously. On the other hand something which buys a share in something tangible, such as the pitch, or a share in The Valley, might well be viable. Especially if such a share was a counterpoint to Duchatelet's own ownership of such assets.
Idiot.
from twitter just now-:
Spotted new owner with Richard Murray at Shrewsbury ⚽️#cafc #itshappening
I’m Jaume he won’t have any say in who gets sold, when they get sold, and how much they get sold for.