Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
And your point is ... ?Pedro45 said:.
0 -
I understood that they don't need to contact the ex Directors for a sale to be concluded.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
1 -
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’.0
-
-
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.LargeAddick said:
I understood that they don't need to contact the ex Directors for a sale to be concluded.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
0 -
all Bob's tweets tell me is that he is as much in the dark as the rest of us.13
-
No agreement needed to roll over. I used to think that but it was clarified last year.cafc-west said:
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.LargeAddick said:
I understood that they don't need to contact the ex Directors for a sale to be concluded.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
1 -
Certainly insinuating that Roland is keeping something if a sale goes through with Aussies.razil said:0 -
Reading between the lines it would also appear he is ‘blocking’ a deal which involves leases etc0
-
Sponsored links:
-
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
1 -
I think if you keep reading between those lines, you're going to go crosseyed.14
-
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.4 -
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
3 -
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.8
-
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.0 -
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/ loanDavidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.
7 -
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!Davidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.5 -
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.11 -
Sponsored links:
-
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.bobmunro said:
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!Davidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.0 -
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.bobmunro said:
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!Davidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.2 -
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% !!Davidsmith said:
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.bobmunro said:
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!Davidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.
5 -
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.0 -
Bob?Airman Brown said:
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.4 -
Maybe someone knows (or assumes) something by omission, if they haven't heard from anyone.Airman Brown said:
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.
2 -
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.bobmunro said:
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% !!Davidsmith said:
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.bobmunro said:
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!Davidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.
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.0 -
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.36
-
Well it's all old ground but I don't think that is the only assumption because:Davidsmith said:
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.bobmunro said:
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% !!Davidsmith said:
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.bobmunro said:
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!Davidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.
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.
4 -
1. It doesn't matter no one has done a deal yet.PragueAddick said:
Well it's all old ground but I don't think that is the only assumption because:Davidsmith said:
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.bobmunro said:
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% !!Davidsmith said:
True, but thats assuming Aussies or any buyer is cash rich and doesn't need security against loans.bobmunro said:
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!Davidsmith said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Davidsmith said:
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.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
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?Airman Brown said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
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.
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.
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.
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?0
This discussion has been closed.
