I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
I understood that they don't need to contact the ex Directors for a sale to be concluded.
So as I originally suggested, Bob is now Tweeting again questioning the current prospective buyers and whether they aren’t up to much as they cannot buy the ‘whole club’.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
I understood that they don't need to contact the ex Directors for a sale to be concluded.
From what I remember reading on here before - I think that's only true if they are being paid off. They need 7 agreements to roll over. Might be wrong.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
I understood that they don't need to contact the ex Directors for a sale to be concluded.
From what I remember reading on here before - I think that's only true if they are being paid off. They need 7 agreements to roll over. Might be wrong.
No agreement needed to roll over. I used to think that but it was clarified last year.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
His wording would suggest that he wants paying off. If it was Roland trying to hold on to part of the club then the wording would surely be along the lines "Hope Roland allows somebody to buy the whole of the club". His tweets suggests somebody doesn't want to buy everything. Presumably that everything includes the loans to the 7, and why would anybody pay those off now if they didn't have to?
I'm sure Bob is bitter about the last takeover, I would be. You hear some guy with the best part of a billion euros is buying the club, you would hope they'd pay off your loans to get clear title of the club. Roland didn't and I'm sure the ex-directors were gutted not to get a payday.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
I think Roland is probably cross with Varney for making him look like a fool - not realising that it was nothing to do with Varney. He made himself look like a fool.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Why pay £ 7 million up front when you don’t have to or might never have to and don’t see the need to use The Valley as leverage for a lease/ loan
Should the PL promotion happen then in the #cheme of things £ 7 million is the price of an average player. I can see why they aren’t interested in paying it up front.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Are the rolled over loans accruing interest? If not then it doesn't matter how rich the buyers are - only a fool would pay off the charges before they had to!
I read the tweet that Bob wants an owner to pay back his loan, don't blame him at all for that. But if you was buying a club and knew that I could avoid paying £7m back until two promotions time you'd probably want to use that money to invest elsewhere.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Are the rolled over loans accruing interest? If not then it doesn't matter how rich the buyers are - only a fool would pay off the charges before they had to!
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Are the rolled over loans accruing interest? If not then it doesn't matter how rich the buyers are - only a fool would pay off the charges before they had to!
No. And I agree. You’d only pay them if if that benefited you. I am also sceptical new owners could borrow much against the assets even without the charges.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Are the rolled over loans accruing interest? If not then it doesn't matter how rich the buyers are - only a fool would pay off the charges before they had to!
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.
Of course, but I'm assuming there is equity in the freehold value in excess of the £7 mill - and that £7mill is in effect an interest free loan anyway. You wouldn't pay off £7mill that doesn't attract interest so that you could borrow £7mill at 6% !!
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.
Maybe someone knows (or assumes) something by omission, if they haven't heard from anyone.
No contact would mean the loans will be rolled over - there would only be contact if either the loans were to be repaid or a part buy/part lease deal was on the table.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Are the rolled over loans accruing interest? If not then it doesn't matter how rich the buyers are - only a fool would pay off the charges before they had to!
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.
Of course, but I'm assuming there is equity in the freehold value in excess of the £7 mill - and that £7mill is in effect an interest free loan anyway. You wouldn't pay off £7mill that doesn't attract interest so that you could borrow £7mill at 6% !!
But if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn. Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt. My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.
Reading this thread I feel like a kid at Christmas desperate for a bicycle and getting a bicycle shaped package, that turns out to be two hula hoops wrapped to disguise them.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Are the rolled over loans accruing interest? If not then it doesn't matter how rich the buyers are - only a fool would pay off the charges before they had to!
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.
Of course, but I'm assuming there is equity in the freehold value in excess of the £7 mill - and that £7mill is in effect an interest free loan anyway. You wouldn't pay off £7mill that doesn't attract interest so that you could borrow £7mill at 6% !!
But if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn. Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt. My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.
Well it's all old ground but I don't think that is the only assumption because:
1. It may not be the same Aussies, or it may be a different group. Do you know for certain its (exactly) the same group?
2. They may just have a clear idea of what the business is worth and are not prepared to pay more. That happens quite a lot.
3. And Roland wasn't prepared to drop because at least for a while he thought he he might get a better offer, but they seem to have walked away.
I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership. Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens. Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place. Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved. Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Are the rolled over loans accruing interest? If not then it doesn't matter how rich the buyers are - only a fool would pay off the charges before they had to!
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.
Of course, but I'm assuming there is equity in the freehold value in excess of the £7 mill - and that £7mill is in effect an interest free loan anyway. You wouldn't pay off £7mill that doesn't attract interest so that you could borrow £7mill at 6% !!
But if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn. Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt. My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.
Well it's all old ground but I don't think that is the only assumption because:
1. It may not be the same Aussies, or it may be a different group. Do you know for certain its (exactly) the same group?
2. They may just have a clear idea of what the business is worth and are not prepared to pay more. That happens quite a lot.
3. And Roland wasn't prepared to drop because at least for a while he thought he he might get a better offer, but they seem to have walked away.
1. It doesn't matter no one has done a deal yet. 2. How are they purchasing though, all cash Equity or Debt. 3. Roland been playing all comers off against each other, do you know everyone else has walked away?
Comments
I'm sure Bob is bitter about the last takeover, I would be. You hear some guy with the best part of a billion euros is buying the club, you would hope they'd pay off your loans to get clear title of the club. Roland didn't and I'm sure the ex-directors were gutted not to get a payday.
Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved.
Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
Should the PL promotion happen then in the #cheme of things £ 7 million is the price of an average player. I can see why they aren’t interested in paying it up front.
But if you was buying a club and knew that I could avoid paying £7m back until two promotions time you'd probably want to use that money to invest elsewhere.
No contact would mean the loans will be rolled over - there would only be contact if either the loans were to be repaid or a part buy/part lease deal was on the table.
Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt.
My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.
1. It may not be the same Aussies, or it may be a different group. Do you know for certain its (exactly) the same group?
2. They may just have a clear idea of what the business is worth and are not prepared to pay more. That happens quite a lot.
3. And Roland wasn't prepared to drop because at least for a while he thought he he might get a better offer, but they seem to have walked away.
2. How are they purchasing though, all cash Equity or Debt.
3. Roland been playing all comers off against each other, do you know everyone else has walked away?