I think its a positive sign that there are still two interested parties because if the Aussies cannot reduce the complexity of their consortium at least there is a fall back with the second party which are subject to the non disclosure agreement. I said a while back that it looked like Andrew Muir was raising more capital by selling real estate and maybe this is part of the process. Fingers crossed.
an interesting read but poses as many questions as it answers. Mystery Consortium have NDA, Aussies do not, Club confirm Aussies have funds but do not do likewise for Mystery Consortium, Club confirms Aussies buying lock, stock and barrel but don't confirm similarly for Mystery Consortium.
The credit card thing is extraordinary. The banks have been demanding a much higher transaction fee for season tickets from Charlton or the value to be underwritten by guarantees since about 2010. That was why a fee was introduced to discourage people from using credit cards, but it never covered the cost. The bank holding back the funds for match by match release is a sign that they have no confidence in the administration of the club.
an interesting read but poses as many questions as it answers. Mystery Consortium have NDA, Aussies do not, Club confirm Aussies have funds but do not do likewise for Mystery Consortium, Club confirms Aussies buying lock, stock and barrel but don't confirm similarly for Mystery Consortium.
I would guess that the comments about the Aussies were in response to specific questions about their bid which were either not asked about the Mystery bidder or not answered due to NDA (not sure why an NDA would prevent answers about what the Mystery bidders are trying to buy or their ability to buy it though).
I still think mentioning the 'other party" smell fishy. Easy to hide behind "there is an NDA in place" so can't say anymore. If they want to be serious about buying us & are vying with the Aussies (who like miles ahead) then why don't they go public ?
Also "LB has met the potential new owners". We know the Aussies agreed to him being caretaker manager so has he met the other lot too & have they agreed to him being cm ?? No, doubt it as they don't exist.
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
I am about at the moment briefly for any clarifications/questions.
Some further details (I expect @Pico can correct me if needed)
The man in question was friendly and appeared open, candid and spoke convincingly. One thing referred to a considerable amount was the complexity of the Aussie consortium and a need to reduce that.
I asked if the playing side was part of cost reduction and was told no. All player departures were BAU and in consultation with LB and due to squad management and players wanting away - don't expect big purchases in the millions though. This was caveated as were most things with the fact that we were in the process of being sold and some details not forthcoming due to NDAs.
I also asked if the mechanism for sales of players/sale of the club arrangement which apparently is underpinned contractually was like for like, and was told no.
Details on EFL regulations and compliance by the club are due to come back to us via Chris Parkes this week hopefully, as this was something I and possibly others had raised as a concern and an agenda item for the meeting.
The meeting was called primarily as an update around the Sale but as you can tell this actually covered a broad spectrum.
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
The club will look into its own management decision, brought to its attention by fans...
I still think mentioning the 'other party" smell fishy. Easy to hide behind "there is an NDA in place" so can't say anymore. If they want to be serious about buying us & are vying with the Aussies (who like miles ahead) then why don't they go public ?
Also "LB has met the potential new owners". We know the Aussies agreed to him being caretaker manager so has he met the other lot too & have they agreed to him being cm ?? No, doubt it as they don't exist.
I share your doubts that there are currently alternative interested parties.
I still think mentioning the 'other party" smell fishy. Easy to hide behind "there is an NDA in place" so can't say anymore. If they want to be serious about buying us & are vying with the Aussies (who like miles ahead) then why don't they go public ?
Also "LB has met the potential new owners". We know the Aussies agreed to him being caretaker manager so has he met the other lot too & have they agreed to him being cm ?? No, doubt it as they don't exist.
I share your doubts that there are currently alternative interested parties.
Absolutely. The regime think we're stupid. Wibble.
I heard on the 6th June, the EFL had rejected it. My source was told a week before me. So the EFL rejected the Aussie bid at the end of May!
Heard EFL have rejected it in Sale of Charlton - (Pg 946 - Statement from Club "expecting a takeover of the club to be completed") Comment by Redhenry June 8
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
The club will look into its own management decision, brought to its attention by fans...
You’d rather they didn’t? Not sure what else you would expect them to say publicly.
I don’t know any details on what breakfast actually amounts to and how used / liked / needed but concern raised and acknowledged is at least something that can be followed up on at next meeting. Even if no decision is reversed.
I do wonder if the footballing management team involved with those directly impacted forcefully gave feedback on this as I’d have thought that opinion is the one that matters. That’s more interesting to appreciate.
The credit card thing is extraordinary. The banks have been demanding a much higher transaction fee for season tickets from Charlton or the value to be underwritten by guarantees since about 2010. That was why a fee was introduced to discourage people from using credit cards, but it never covered the cost. The bank holding back the funds for match by match release is a sign that they have no confidence in the administration of the club.
This bit really confused me, can you (anyone else) explain what's going on with Season Ticket money?
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
The club will look into its own management decision, brought to its attention by fans...
You’d rather they didn’t? Not sure what else you would expect them to say publicly.
I don’t know any details on what breakfast actually amounts to and how used / liked / needed but concern raised and acknowledged is at least something that can be followed up on at next meeting. Even if no decision is reversed.
I do wonder if the footballing management team involved with those directly impacted forcefully gave feedback on this as I’d have thought that opinion is the one that matters. That’s more interesting to appreciate.
You don’t think that the guy who is nominally in charge of the business and has a brief to cut costs ought to be aware of a cost-cutting decision that has led to internal disquiet circulating in public?
The credit card thing is extraordinary. The banks have been demanding a much higher transaction fee for season tickets from Charlton or the value to be underwritten by guarantees since about 2010. That was why a fee was introduced to discourage people from using credit cards, but it never covered the cost. The bank holding back the funds for match by match release is a sign that they have no confidence in the administration of the club.
Is this Charlton specific? May relate more to the specific credit card company approach to their possible liabilities of any club if they don’t fulfil fixtures and have to return funds to cardholders under consumer credit obligations.
Or may simply be linked to whatever security the club have or don’t have in place for any liabilities arising from credit card transactions. Didn’t it get reported the charge to HSBC was removed? If they are the card company that could be the issue ie recourse no longer in place so funds now released game by game.
No football club is a good banking risk. Security pledged often very difficult to enforce. Only personal guarantees if held are potentially easier to pursue.
I got the impression it was part of the contract for payment services (for all electronic payments, it doesn't apply to cash), I believe it doesn't attract interest either. Perhaps it is a way of charging a fee without charging, i.e. they gain interest on the money they hold and therefore are reluctant to give it out all in one lump.
The credit card thing is extraordinary. The banks have been demanding a much higher transaction fee for season tickets from Charlton or the value to be underwritten by guarantees since about 2010. That was why a fee was introduced to discourage people from using credit cards, but it never covered the cost. The bank holding back the funds for match by match release is a sign that they have no confidence in the administration of the club.
Is this Charlton specific? May relate more to the specific credit card company approach to their possible liabilities of any club if they don’t fulfil fixtures and have to return funds to cardholders under consumer credit obligations.
Or may simply be linked to whatever security the club have or don’t have in place for any liabilities arising from credit card transactions. Didn’t it get reported the charge to HSBC was removed? If they are the card company that could be the issue ie recourse no longer in place so funds now released game by game.
No football club is a good banking risk. Security pledged often very difficult to enforce. Only personal guarantees if held are potentially easier to pursue.
Can only speak to the situation up to 2012 but banks became very wary of the risk after the 2008 financial crisis - and particularly in Charlton’s case after we were relegated to L1. There was a big negotiation but they never moved to match by match release.
I heard on the 6th June, the EFL had rejected it. My source was told a week before me. So the EFL rejected the Aussie bid at the end of May!
Heard EFL have rejected it in Sale of Charlton - (Pg 946 - Statement from Club "expecting a takeover of the club to be completed") Comment by Redhenry June 8
I got the impression it was part of the contract for payment services (for all electronic payments, it doesn't apply to cash), I believe it doesn't attract interest either. Perhaps it is a way of charging a fee without charging, i.e. they gain interest on the money they hold and therefore are reluctant to give it out all in one lump.
It is not unusual for credit card companies to delay release of funds until the proximity of the delivery of service by the merchant. In the case of goods particularly mail order or internet purchases for example it is a requirement for there to be proof of despatch written into the merchant agreement before funds are released.
Where merchants discount their product via advance sales, airlines being the obvious example then the bank is carrying the risk until the service is delivered. Where there is doubt over the financial standing of the merchant funds will be withheld.
Whatever M.Duchatelets' failings his financial standing is not in question.
The situation here is quite simply the bank is on notice of a change of ownership and as a consequence will not release funds to the current owners on the basis such owners may not be in situ when the service has to be delivered.
They will take a view when the financial standing of the new owners, with whom they currently have no relationship, is known.
They are protecting themselves from any cardholder disputes under consumer credit law in the event there is a dispute arising from the sale of the club.
It is an entirely prudent measure.
It casts no aspersions on the financial standing of either M.Duchatelet or the Australians.
from the takeover thread - sorry I'm cross posting here
I got the impression (and this is my opinion based on a number of comments in the meeting, but not a direct comment) that documents were submitted but some change, clarification or more straightforward demonstration of the final ownership was needed and these are the documents that still need to be submitted. This is also backed up by numerous references to issues with the complexity of the Aussie consortium, and mention that the Aussies do have the money.
Attempts to question details beyond what has been stated were largely covered by NDA comments.
For me personally reference to the second bidder is irrelevant while the Aussies are still in play, and it may turn out to be a bluff - but as others have said and I tend to agree, wouldn't you be doing the same to maintain pressure on the sale/price?
Edit: A number of bids fell away early on when they looked at running costs (not sure however if this was based on our club with super Valley stadium, or based on a typical league 1 club - I will try and get clarity on that). Also others were rejected for their complexity which I take to mean leases and what not
It is not unusual for credit card companies to delay release of funds until the proximity of the delivery of service by the merchant. In the case of goods particularly mail order or internet purchases for example it is a requirement for there to be proof of despatch written into the merchant agreement before funds are released.
Where merchants discount their product via advance sales, airlines being the obvious example then the bank is carrying the risk until the service is delivered. Where there is doubt over the financial standing of the merchant funds will be withheld.
Whatever M.Duchatelets' failings his financial standing is not in question.
The situation here is quite simply the bank is on notice of a change of ownership and as a consequence will not release funds to the current owners on the basis such owners may not be in situ when the service has to be delivered.
They will take a view when the financial standing of the new owners, with whom they currently have no relationship, is known.
They are protecting themselves from any cardholder disputes under consumer credit law in the event there is a dispute arising from the sale of the club.
It is an entirely prudent measure.
It casts no aspersions on the financial standing of either M.Duchatelet or the Australians.
So does this mean if I decide to purchase a ST BEFORE the takeover, that money will not be released to the Club as a lump sum from the start of the season, rather drip feed throughout the season?
Comments
Also "LB has met the potential new owners". We know the Aussies agreed to him being caretaker manager so has he met the other lot too & have they agreed to him being cm ?? No, doubt it as they don't exist.
The club will 'look in to it'.
Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa.
Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
Some further details (I expect @Pico can correct me if needed)
The man in question was friendly and appeared open, candid and spoke convincingly. One thing referred to a considerable amount was the complexity of the Aussie consortium and a need to reduce that.
I asked if the playing side was part of cost reduction and was told no. All player departures were BAU and in consultation with LB and due to squad management and players wanting away - don't expect big purchases in the millions though. This was caveated as were most things with the fact that we were in the process of being sold and some details not forthcoming due to NDAs.
I also asked if the mechanism for sales of players/sale of the club arrangement which apparently is underpinned contractually was like for like, and was told no.
Details on EFL regulations and compliance by the club are due to come back to us via Chris Parkes this week hopefully, as this was something I and possibly others had raised as a concern and an agenda item for the meeting.
The meeting was called primarily as an update around the Sale but as you can tell this actually covered a broad spectrum.
Heard EFL have rejected it
in Sale of Charlton - (Pg 946 - Statement from Club "expecting a takeover of the club to be completed") Comment by Redhenry June 8
I don’t know any details on what breakfast actually amounts to and how used / liked / needed but concern raised and acknowledged is at least something that can be followed up on at next meeting. Even if no decision is reversed.
I do wonder if the footballing management team involved with those directly impacted forcefully gave feedback on this as I’d have thought that opinion is the one that matters. That’s more interesting to appreciate.
Or may simply be linked to whatever security the club have or don’t have in place for any liabilities arising from credit card transactions. Didn’t it get reported the charge to HSBC was removed? If they are the card company that could be the issue ie recourse no longer in place so funds now released game by game.
No football club is a good banking risk. Security pledged often very difficult to enforce. Only personal guarantees if held are potentially easier to pursue.
Where merchants discount their product via advance sales, airlines being the obvious example then the bank is carrying the risk until the service is delivered. Where there is doubt over the financial standing of the merchant funds will be withheld.
Whatever M.Duchatelets' failings his financial standing is not in question.
The situation here is quite simply the bank is on notice of a change of ownership and as a consequence will not release funds to the current owners on the basis such owners may not be in situ when the service has to be delivered.
They will take a view when the financial standing of the new owners, with whom they currently have no relationship, is known.
They are protecting themselves from any cardholder disputes under consumer credit law in the event there is a dispute arising from the sale of the club.
It is an entirely prudent measure.
It casts no aspersions on the financial standing of either M.Duchatelet or the Australians.
I got the impression (and this is my opinion based on a number of comments in the meeting, but not a direct comment) that documents were submitted but some change, clarification or more straightforward demonstration of the final ownership was needed and these are the documents that still need to be submitted. This is also backed up by numerous references to issues with the complexity of the Aussie consortium, and mention that the Aussies do have the money.
Attempts to question details beyond what has been stated were largely covered by NDA comments.
For me personally reference to the second bidder is irrelevant while the Aussies are still in play, and it may turn out to be a bluff - but as others have said and I tend to agree, wouldn't you be doing the same to maintain pressure on the sale/price?
Edit: A number of bids fell away early on when they looked at running costs (not sure however if this was based on our club with super Valley stadium, or based on a typical league 1 club - I will try and get clarity on that). Also others were rejected for their complexity which I take to mean leases and what not