I’d be interested, but it might be better to buy from the administrators at the end of the season as I think that might be Duchatelet’s next step if we don’t go up. I just don’t want to put a penny of my money into his hands
I think that if it led to RD’s control and ownership of the club being relinquished, and it was based on contributions people can afford, ideally say a set figure of £2500, but whatever they can realistically give, then it might get considerable support. But it would need to be clear and legally set out. The return on it would not be a financial one, the reward would simply be getting rid of Roland Duchatelet.
Nice idea but needs a lot of detailed work to flesh it out into a full proposal. Glad CAST are going to try to do this. Subject to about 100 caveats, I'd be up for this.
You also have to consider the large number of Charlton fans who have vowed that they will not give Roland even one more penny. It would certainly stick in my craw that I would be giving my money to Duchatelet, even if it is to get rid of him.
He has ruined Charlton. He might want to blame everybody else under the sun, but this is all 100% his fault. He has told everybody exactly what he thinks Charlton is worth. One single, solitary fucking pound. I won't even give him that much.
I would certainly consider it. The idea of shares (at maybe £250 each) is a good one as it would allow people who couldn't afford £2,500 to own a little bit of Charlton. Maybe include something in the legal documents that gives the club the right to buy out the shares on reaching the Premier League. All said though I suspect RD wants closer to £30m for the "assets". I also doubt we could get enough people interested to make it work...
Certainly be interested. Lots of complications. How can it realistically be valued is the first one. Normally a property would be valued in relation to its earning potential. In this case that is minimal, arguably nil.
I’d be interested, but it might be better to buy from the administrators at the end of the season as I think that might be Duchatelet’s next step if we don’t go up. I just don’t want to put a penny of my money into his hands
If Duchatelet lets Charlton go into administration he loses everything he's invested/lent ie £65M. It's not going to happen. Awaits the next person to say this again .....
Agree in general with the principle club and ground should not be separated.
However given the choice of a rogue owner or a fans' collective (eg the Supporters' Trust say) there may be an argument that trumps that basic principle.
One argument mooted against is the inability for the club itself to raise finance. I see nothing wrong with the fans' collective raising finance and passing that to those running the club if there is sufficient trust and confidence.
We would then know that any debt genuinely is friendly
Essential reading - from the Bonkers Roland announcement thread-
I am all for "brainstorming" new ideas. In such exercises it is true quite literally nothing is deemed too "stupid".
It is a "behind closed door" exercise designed to remove the personal filters most people have before they release such random thinking into the public domain.
It is a process which then validates and revalidates any suggestion against the reality of considered opinion.
I find it troubling our beneficial owner appears to neither possess such personal or organisational filters.
We have another Laurel & Hardy moment. It is yet another fine mess.
I had drafted probably the longest post in my time on Charlton Life but in all honesty I tire of commenting on probably the most depressing examples of borderline corporate misfeasance I have ever witnessed.
The joke is becoming very old indeed. Just how many more times do we have to go through this farce.
Throughout the entire shambolic experience of the past 5yrs there is one very simple common factor which shines through; Indeed the beneficial owner proudly proclaims it at almost every opportunity. In what realm of fantasy does anyone think you can succeed at anything in making just a 2% commitment to overseeing a business working in a dynamic, fiercely competitive global billion pound industry.
It really is that simple. Such a grotesque failure of a personal & corporate duty of care directly correlates to the lack of industry & market knowledge, the absence of appropriate corporate oversight, totally inappropriate executive & operational appointments, the resultant abject operational and financial performance and now the increasing bizarre outbursts.
The latest outburst has at least saved you from ploughing through my detailed speculation on why we have travelled the journey we have over the past 12-18 months.
I had little to add to "the Vandalism" debate though M.Duchatelet's, once again, immature response betrays the very nature of his thinking and judgements which it seems may have prompted such acts of frustration.
In principle I am not in favour of such action. In truth graffiti, in such circumstances, ultimately defines an inability to influence the decisions which impact our lives. It is meant to attract attention, and often to be offensive. RD, in this instance, is the victim.
In itself it is normally counter productive but whether designed to provoke a response or not it seems we can rely on the beneficial owner to rise to the challenge.
Overall however the consensus has to be he is a victim of his own making.
In what alternative universe does anybody choose to step into English football with the intent to use a pan European club network and not understand it is a Global Industry, with global owners intent on investing considerable sums in, employing established and experienced professionals fully committed to, fully participating in a global brand.
In the real world It displayed an appalling and embarrassing level of due diligence, understanding and neglect.
In the real world I regret to inform M. Duchatelet and the club have, I suggest, acted in direct breach of EFL regulations.
No Club, either by itself, its servants or agents, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit any other Club or The League or in either case any of its directors, officers, employees or agents.
The club statement* is thus reckless, unprofessional, inaccurate and unhelpful in every way imaginable.
It embodies all we have seen since Jan 2014. It is about the interests of one man and one man alone.
I propose not to waste any more than 2% of my time on the individual concerned.
* Attaching a personal profile to such a corporate statement is beyond extraordinary. Any communications professional involved should seriously consider their position.
My interest is the club, its staff, its clubhouse management, its players and all those involved in the academy.
If the beneficial owner is serious in his intent to depart then he for once in his life needs to communicate with clarity and certainty. Just simply state your price to walk away and your rationale for such price. Everything else is irrelevant.
The confusing utterances on Talksport suggest it is wrapped around the clubs freehold properties. We need to know the mans understanding of what he thinks he bought and the realistic valuations of the related assets.
If based on London land prices let us see 3 independent professional valuations based on the current allowed usage of the land and the facilities thereon. Despite Idle Hans excellent assessment elsewhere the last published accounts do not provide the level of clarity needed.
Any speculative value based on normal commercial stadium use or land development has to be turned aside.
The reality is it is not a question of valuation but the degree to which this vendor will "hold hostage" the club assets to secure the greatest recovery of debt.
M. Duchatelet there is no originality of thought here. South London has danced through the curse of too many who have sought to use & abuse the real estate of our football clubs in their own interest, from Hammam at Wimbledon, Noades at Crystal Palace, even concerns with the environs at Millwall and of course our own Messrs Cash, Slater and Jiminez.
I had and have no interest in any of them as individuals, their nationality, their gender, their personal circumstances or personality traits beyond how they perform(ed) in "serving the organisation(s)" they represent(ed).
We all know there are times in ones life when we recognise the organisations we associate with no longer reflect our personal or professional values. Today I quite simply have had enough of the rambling, self obsessed, self serving, miserable nonsense which continues to emanate from this regime.
It is time for one of us to go.
I am mindful just over 25 years ago small numbers, then hundreds and ultimately thousands fought against all the odds to restore the club to its natural home. They did not due so to assuage the losses of a self important delusional owner who by his actions and words clearly has more money than common sense.
As then I am sure none of us have an appetite for "tilting at windmills" but is there a genuine appetite across the fan base to explore facilitating and driving change today. In very different times and very different circumstances is there a real appetite for the fight?
In my brainstorming exercise
In recognition of over 60 years of the collective experience in following the club I would be prepared to pledge a minimum of £2500 toward securing clear and free and unencumbered title to the land at The Valley and Sparrows Lane to ensure its continued use by Charlton Athletic Football Club in perpetuity.
It would be a "not for profit" investment.
I would have no interest in running a football club.
I would have every interest in joining with others to secure the facilities, to offer secure tenure to those interested in running our football club, at entirely their own financial risk, while meeting the full operational, maintenance and development costs associated with such facilities.
Such a "franchisee" would have no automatic fall back on any other use of such secure tenure or its use as collateral in securing any financial services.
I am just one small voice offering to take one small step forward. 6000 such single or multiple steps will produce £15mn*.
I face a simple choice do I step forward or do I step away.
Grapevine49
*Such a figure in no way asserts any valuation of the freehold assets of the club.
Count me in - whilst some won’t have £2500 to spare, some will have considerably more - be a great achievement if we could raise the money and give a new regime a chance to run the club
It's an idea worthy of further consideration, and I believe it has been mentioned before.
- Purchase the freehold of The Valley and Sparrows Lane, and that would likely also include the former directors' charges, at a fair valuation based on independent assessment.
- Rent to the new football club owners as a full repairing and insuring lease at a pepper corn rent, sufficient to cover admin costs of ownership only. i.e. non-profit making.
- Structure the ownership as a trust, holding the asset only with no operational exposure. Social Enterprise set-up.
- Purchase price x divided by y issued shares e.g. purchase price £20,000,000 with 100,000 issued shares = £200 per share - this allows anyone with at least £200 to participate.
Lots of issues to resolve, not least agreeing a fair valuation with an owner who is batshit crazy. Time scale may prohibit such an approach as well - I believe RD is looking at the end game now.
If the set-up was right then I would be prepared to invest by buying a number of shares (but even I haven't got a spare £20 million I'm afraid!).
Comments
The return on it would not be a financial one, the reward would simply be getting rid of Roland Duchatelet.
RD has apparently said he'll sell the club for free, he just wants paying for the land. We're led to believe his price is upwards of 30m.
Genuinely don't see where we'd find 12k people putting in £2500.
I'd imagine he'd take great pleasure in telling us no.
He has ruined Charlton. He might want to blame everybody else under the sun, but this is all 100% his fault. He has told everybody exactly what he thinks Charlton is worth. One single, solitary fucking pound. I won't even give him that much.
I think the sums and legal complexities are just too huge.
If people do want to donate why not give the protest fund a boost. It would be good to see some huge Roland out banners on tv for example.
It's not going to happen.
Awaits the next person to say this again .....
However given the choice of a rogue owner or a fans' collective (eg the Supporters' Trust say) there may be an argument that trumps that basic principle.
One argument mooted against is the inability for the club itself to raise finance. I see nothing wrong with the fans' collective raising finance and passing that to those running the club if there is sufficient trust and confidence.
We would then know that any debt genuinely is friendly
And I might even be up for it in the right circumstances.