So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
Please can you tell us the problems that you are aware of, that the EFL would find unacceptable, as no one else is in the know.
I am not saying I know what the problem is. But if they have not presented the required paper work to the EFL after a year or more, then they are either incompetent and not fit to run a football club, or they know that there is problem that even the easy to persuade EFL might think makes them unfit to run a football club. can you explain why they have not lodged the final paper work with the EFL after so much time.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I believe it is purchase price plus 2 years' running costs (losses!). I could very easily be wrong though!
And it does make sense - say the losses are £7m a year, so they would need capital of £14m - doesn't stop them cutting costs. They don't have to spend all of it!
That makes no sense at all. But that doesn't mean it's not true!
I don't "get" why a business taking over another business would have to "show" that it had the funds to continue to service the previous owner's losses.
If Roland paid himself £10m a year out of Charlton's money and just lumped that onto the debt, a new owner wouldn't need to show they had an extra £20m to cover that (easily avoided) debt over two years.
I'd like to think that the EFL looked at the accounts with some common sense and would take into account a departing owner taking a £10M pa salary or dividend.
To what end?
To ascertain if a new owner has the funds to purchase and run the club for a few years, without putting the club into administration.
Mind you, it was an odds on bet that Ken Anderson would quickly get into financial difficulties at Bolton (on his track record), yet he passed the ODT.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation. Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
Nowadays you do have to provide answers and evidence to mortgage lenders to show you have sufficient income to cover mortgage payments plus typical outgoings
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I believe it is purchase price plus 2 years' running costs (losses!). I could very easily be wrong though!
And it does make sense - say the losses are £7m a year, so they would need capital of £14m - doesn't stop them cutting costs. They don't have to spend all of it!
That makes no sense at all. But that doesn't mean it's not true!
I don't "get" why a business taking over another business would have to "show" that it had the funds to continue to service the previous owner's losses.
If Roland paid himself £10m a year out of Charlton's money and just lumped that onto the debt, a new owner wouldn't need to show they had an extra £20m to cover that (easily avoided) debt over two years.
I'd like to think that the EFL looked at the accounts with some common sense and would take into account a departing owner taking a £10M pa salary or dividend.
To what end?
To ascertain if a new owner has the funds to purchase and run the club for a few years, without putting the club into administration.
Mind you, it was an odds on bet that Ken Anderson would quickly get into financial difficulties at Bolton (on his track record), yet he passed the ODT.
Sorry, you're absolutely right. I misread your last post.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation. Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
Hmm, wild speculation in my view is quite a different thing but hey ho..
So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
Please can you tell us the problems that you are aware of, that the EFL would find unacceptable, as no one else is in the know.
I am not saying I know what the problem is. But if they have not presented the required paper work to the EFL after a year or more, then they are either incompetent and not fit to run a football club, or they know that there is problem that even the easy to persuade EFL might think makes them unfit to run a football club. can you explain why they have not lodged the final paper work with the EFL after so much time.
No, because no one knows. I suspect they don't have the money. It is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that they are in negotiations with American backers for additional funds.
So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
Please can you tell us the problems that you are aware of, that the EFL would find unacceptable, as no one else is in the know.
I am not saying I know what the problem is. But if they have not presented the required paper work to the EFL after a year or more, then they are either incompetent and not fit to run a football club, or they know that there is problem that even the easy to persuade EFL might think makes them unfit to run a football club. can you explain why they have not lodged the final paper work with the EFL after so much time.
No, because no one knows. I suspect they don't have the money. It is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that they are in negotiations with American backers for additional funds.
another good point chalked up for the 'wild speculation'
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation". Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
When I bought my first house with the aid of a mortgage @Chizz I had to produce a full monthly income and expenditure statement to satisfy my lender that I could afford the repayments. The last thing a lender wants is the hassle of having to enforce his security, so viability is key in any lending situation surely?
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation". Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
When I bought my first house with the aid of a mortgage @Chizz I had to produce a full monthly income and expenditure statement to satisfy my lender that I could afford the repayments. The last thing a lender wants is the hassle of having to enforce his security, so viability is key in any lending situation surely?
Yes.
And it seems that the Aussies have shown they have funds to make the purchase (in the house-buying analogy, they've demonstrated they have access to a mortgage, as you did).
But the speculation seems to be that the EFL requires that the buyers also show they have funds in order to service the current debt level of the club. In the house-buying scenario, this would be you having to prove that you could continue to pay all of the current owners' household bills, including the ones you wouldn't necessarily want to keep up.
The reason I think it's (wild) speculation that the Aussies have been required to (and have failed so far to) show they have funds to meet the current owners' levels of loss. I don't know whether they have to do that or not. But I would be interested to know if they do.
Does anyone have knowledge of this? Specifically, whether the owner has to show they have funds to cover the current owner's levels of debt, going forward?
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
@stoneroses19 thank you for making the point I was trying to make, but in a far better way than I managed!
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I’m as certain as I can be that this isn’t about funds. Proof of funds possibly, but not funding. They wouldn’t go ahead without funding for the ‘5 yr plan’ as anything else wouldn’t makes sense. ‘We just want to scramble together enough cash so that we can lose £600k a month’ isn’t going to attract backers. A bid aimed potentially at the Prem (i.e. a gamble with a possible reward at the end) might.
Indeed and they haven't which suggests they don't have that funding
Funding for what is the key.
There’s a big difference between raising the funds to a) buy the club and run it for a year or two, and b) buy the club and run if for five years with genuine ambition.
If I thought they were struggling to do a) I’d be worried for sure.
So is it possible that the reason for the delays is that finding backers prepared to take on that level of risk can’t be easy, and it’s possible some have backed out as they learn more about the Cash/Jimenez/Roland related problems at the club.
Just speculation of course.
Meanwhile no one is stopping anybody else stepping up to the plate and buying the club if they want to.
So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
Please can you tell us the problems that you are aware of, that the EFL would find unacceptable, as no one else is in the know.
I am not saying I know what the problem is. But if they have not presented the required paper work to the EFL after a year or more, then they are either incompetent and not fit to run a football club, or they know that there is problem that even the easy to persuade EFL might think makes them unfit to run a football club. can you explain why they have not lodged the final paper work with the EFL after so much time.
No, because no one knows. I suspect they don't have the money. It is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that they are in negotiations with American backers for additional funds.
another good point chalked up for the 'wild speculation'
Are you suggesting the meeting with the Americans was to return funds, because they have too much money ?
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation". Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
When I bought my first house with the aid of a mortgage @Chizz I had to produce a full monthly income and expenditure statement to satisfy my lender that I could afford the repayments. The last thing a lender wants is the hassle of having to enforce his security, so viability is key in any lending situation surely?
Yes.
And it seems that the Aussies have shown they have funds to make the purchase (in the house-buying analogy, they've demonstrated they have access to a mortgage, as you did).
But the speculation seems to be that the EFL requires that the buyers also show they have funds in order to service the current debt level of the club. In the house-buying scenario, this would be you having to prove that you could continue to pay all of the current owners' household bills, including the ones you wouldn't necessarily want to keep up.
The reason I think it's (wild) speculation that the Aussies have been required to (and have failed so far to) show they have funds to meet the current owners' levels of loss. I don't know whether they have to do that or not. But I would be interested to know if they do.
Does anyone have knowledge of this? Specifically, whether the owner has to show they have funds to cover the current owner's levels of debt, going forward?
EFL Rules:
16.21
If any Person proposes to acquire Control of a Club:
16.21.1
the Club shall submit to The League up to date Future Financial Information prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position as far in advance of the change of Control as reasonably possible or, if such submission is not reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control, no later than 10 Normal Working Days thereafter; and 16.21.2 The League shall have the power to require the Person who proposes to acquire or has acquired Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.
I believe the sufficiency is based on two years 'future financial position' as a rule of thumb.
That is to cover operational losses - not acquired debt, although clearly servicing any acquired debt would be an operational expense.
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
The EFL say that they cannot proceed until the documentation they asked for from the Australians is lodged with them, the absence of that paper work has nothing to do with RD.
But we don't know that either. If he is asking too high a price which in turn means the Aussies aren't buying so not submitting paperwork then that is down to to RD.
The EFL nor the club are saying the EFL paperwork is the ONLY thing holding up the deal.
And the same applies to the British group who haven't even got as far in 12 months.
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
We have to kill this thread; few are talking about the CARD/EFL meeting, just speculating about the sale terms. Such talk should be on the Sale thread only!!! We have to push it up beyond 2000 pages! LONG LIVE THE SALE THREAD!
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
Isn’t it obvious at this stage that everything said on Talksport is not always 100% fact. Why would Talksport know what was said in a behind closed doors meeting between possible new owners?
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
Seems odd.
What seems odd ?
[I re-posted this on Henry’s sale thread as I’m on commission, plus it’s about a different one than the one this thread was discussing]
Sorry, should have said more.....
It would seem odd, on the face of it, if the meeting was just an attempt to raise funds for the Aussies. That’d be pretty embarrassing for them.
You’d think it was more likely to have be a conference call where the (potential?) American backers could ask questions of LdT?
If it really was a fund raising exercise held in front of Lieven, it’d be a sign of how hard it is find anyone interested in buying us at the price/terms available. It’d be very concerning.
So I’m hoping it was a q & a session where, if the yanks had their questions answered satisfactorily, their funds might be ‘unlocked’
Fingers crossed.
As previously discussed, it’s worrying that no other bidder has even got to the stage the Aussies have. What is putting everyone off?
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
Seems odd.
What seems odd ?
Sorry, should have said more.....
It would seem odd, on the face of it, if the meeting was just an attempt to raise funds for the Aussies. That’d be pretty embarrassing for them.
You’d think it was more likely to have be a conference call where the (potential?) American backers could ask questions of LdT?
If it really was a fund raising exercise held in front of Lieven, it’d be a sign of how hard it is find anyone interested in buying us at the price/terms available. It’d be very concerning.
So I’m hoping it was a q & a session where, if the yanks had their questions answered satisfactorily, their funds might be ‘unlocked’
Fingers crossed.
As previously discussed, it’s worrying that no other bidder has even got to the stage the Aussies have. What is putting everyone off?
The madman’s price.
Clearly if the club was for sale with clean title for £1 it would have sold long ago.
Whichever way you look at it, unless you are a fan with 2x a large euromillions win this is an investment, one which you would only make if you believe you would get a return on your money.
If you are laying out £20/30/70m or whatever the latest price is on a company currently losing 6m+ per year you need a plan how to turn that around and within 5 years you will grow the worth of the company enough to a) recoup your initial outlay and b) recoup any operational losses you may make along the way.
That realistically is getting into the premium league. It’s a huge gamble and therefore the return investors will want for that gamble will be large if indeed you can find such investors.
Ultimately the asking price will kill the deal for most investors. It’s one thing taking on a loss making entity if you have a plan to turn that around. It’s a whole other matter laying out tens of millions for something that has a true value considerably less. Extremely high risk.
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
Seems odd.
What seems odd ?
Sorry, should have said more.....
It would seem odd, on the face of it, if the meeting was just an attempt to raise funds for the Aussies. That’d be pretty embarrassing for them.
You’d think it was more likely to have be a conference call where the (potential?) American backers could ask questions of LdT?
If it really was a fund raising exercise held in front of Lieven, it’d be a sign of how hard it is find anyone interested in buying us at the price/terms available. It’d be very concerning.
So I’m hoping it was a q & a session where, if the yanks had their questions answered satisfactorily, their funds might be ‘unlocked’
Fingers crossed.
As previously discussed, it’s worrying that no other bidder has even got to the stage the Aussies have. What is putting everyone off?
The madman’s price.
Clearly if the club was for sale with clean title for £1 it would have sold long ago.
Whichever way you look at it, unless you are a fan with 2x a large euromillions win this is an investment, one which you would only make if you believe you would get a return on your money.
If you are laying out £20/30/70m or whatever the latest price is on a company currently losing 6m+ per year you need a plan how to turn that around and within 5 years you will grow the worth of the company enough to a) recoup your initial outlay and b) recoup any operational losses you may make along the way.
That realistically is getting into the premium league. It’s a huge gamble and therefore the return investors will want for that gamble will be large if indeed you can find such investors.
Ultimately the asking price will kill the deal for most investors. It’s one thing taking on a loss making entity if you have a plan to turn that around. It’s a whole other matter laying out tens of millions for something that has a true value considerably less. Extremely high risk.
Agree with that but I stil find it hard to believe that the operating loss has fallen from £14m to £6m - I suspect that even if that is the bottom line loss it’s achieved with some one-off windfalls. There’s no way he can have cut the operating costs by £8m, even if revenue was static.
Comments
Mind you, it was an odds on bet that Ken Anderson would quickly get into financial difficulties at Bolton (on his track record), yet he passed the ODT.
It is a reasonable assumption based on the fact that they are in negotiations with American backers for additional funds.
And it seems that the Aussies have shown they have funds to make the purchase (in the house-buying analogy, they've demonstrated they have access to a mortgage, as you did).
But the speculation seems to be that the EFL requires that the buyers also show they have funds in order to service the current debt level of the club. In the house-buying scenario, this would be you having to prove that you could continue to pay all of the current owners' household bills, including the ones you wouldn't necessarily want to keep up.
The reason I think it's (wild) speculation that the Aussies have been required to (and have failed so far to) show they have funds to meet the current owners' levels of loss. I don't know whether they have to do that or not. But I would be interested to know if they do.
Does anyone have knowledge of this? Specifically, whether the owner has to show they have funds to cover the current owner's levels of debt, going forward?
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
There’s a big difference between raising the funds to a) buy the club and run it for a year or two, and b) buy the club and run if for five years with genuine ambition.
If I thought they were struggling to do a) I’d be worried for sure.
So is it possible that the reason for the delays is that finding backers prepared to take on that level of risk can’t be easy, and it’s possible some have backed out as they learn more about the Cash/Jimenez/Roland related problems at the club.
Just speculation of course.
Meanwhile no one is stopping anybody else stepping up to the plate and buying the club if they want to.
16.21
If any Person proposes to acquire Control of a Club:
16.21.1
the Club shall submit to The League up to date Future Financial Information prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position as far in advance of the change of Control as reasonably possible or, if such submission is not reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control, no later than 10 Normal Working Days thereafter; and 16.21.2 The League shall have the power to require the Person who proposes to acquire or has acquired Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.
I believe the sufficiency is based on two years 'future financial position' as a rule of thumb.
That is to cover operational losses - not acquired debt, although clearly servicing any acquired debt would be an operational expense.
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
The EFL nor the club are saying the EFL paperwork is the ONLY thing holding up the deal.
And the same applies to the British group who haven't even got as far in 12 months.
Sorry, should have said more.....
It would seem odd, on the face of it, if the meeting was just an attempt to raise funds for the Aussies. That’d be pretty embarrassing for them.
You’d think it was more likely to have be a conference call where the (potential?) American backers could ask questions of LdT?
If it really was a fund raising exercise held in front of Lieven, it’d be a sign of how hard it is find anyone interested in buying us at the price/terms available. It’d be very concerning.
So I’m hoping it was a q & a session where, if the yanks had their questions answered satisfactorily, their funds might be ‘unlocked’
Fingers crossed.
As previously discussed, it’s worrying that no other bidder has even got to the stage the Aussies have. What is putting everyone off?
Clearly if the club was for sale with clean title for £1 it would have sold long ago.
Whichever way you look at it, unless you are a fan with 2x a large euromillions win this is an investment, one which you would only make if you believe you would get a return on your money.
If you are laying out £20/30/70m or whatever the latest price is on a company currently losing 6m+ per year you need a plan how to turn that around and within 5 years you will grow the worth of the company enough to a) recoup your initial outlay and b) recoup any operational losses you may make along the way.
That realistically is getting into the premium league. It’s a huge gamble and therefore the return investors will want for that gamble will be large if indeed you can find such investors.
Ultimately the asking price will kill the deal for most investors. It’s one thing taking on a loss making entity if you have a plan to turn that around. It’s a whole other matter laying out tens of millions for something that has a true value considerably less. Extremely high risk.