Any chance someone on here could explain in simple terms how much actual money the owners would need to actually have in a ring fenced account (I'm assuming) to pass the EFL test?
The purchase price and 2 years running costs I believe.
That, if you believe two things regularly mentioned on here, could be as low as £1.
I’m failing to follow the logic that ESI’s strategy is a “property play”. If it were, why didn’t they purchase the property?
Because they don’t want The Valley
So then, in what way would it be a property play?
Because Roland keeps The Valley for subsequent development and therefore they don’t pay him the c £50m - he keeps The Valley and develops it whilst ESI select a new site which has other development opportunities which will include a football stadium which will cost whatever - maybe £100-300m which is easier to raise funding
So your idea of a property play is to buy a football club and then try to raise a quarter of a billion pounds in order to build a football ground?
Or, to put another way, you save fifty million, but it then costs you one hundred to three hundred million?
Forgive me for suggesting it, but I think this idea doesn't really stack up. But only in the basis of maths.
I’m failing to follow the logic that ESI’s strategy is a “property play”. If it were, why didn’t they purchase the property?
Because they don’t want The Valley
So then, in what way would it be a property play?
Because Roland keeps The Valley for subsequent development and therefore they don’t pay him the c £50m - he keeps The Valley and develops it whilst ESI select a new site which has other development opportunities which will include a football stadium which will cost whatever - maybe £100-300m which is easier to raise funding
So your idea of a property play is to buy a football club and then try to raise a quarter of a billion pounds in order to build a football ground?
Or, to put another way, you save fifty million, but it then costs you one hundred to three hundred million?
Forgive me for suggesting it, but I think this idea doesn't really stack up. But only in the basis of maths.
I’m failing to follow the logic that ESI’s strategy is a “property play”. If it were, why didn’t they purchase the property?
Because they don’t want The Valley
So then, in what way would it be a property play?
Because Roland keeps The Valley for subsequent development and therefore they don’t pay him the c £50m - he keeps The Valley and develops it whilst ESI select a new site which has other development opportunities which will include a football stadium which will cost whatever - maybe £100-300m which is easier to raise funding
So your idea of a property play is to buy a football club and then try to raise a quarter of a billion pounds in order to build a football ground?
Or, to put another way, you save fifty million, but it then costs you one hundred to three hundred million?
Forgive me for suggesting it, but I think this idea doesn't really stack up. But only in the basis of maths.
I don’t think it’s their plan or do I hope it is in don’t way.
However, if it was their intention, it’s not saving 50mil is it. Not if they wanted a new ground. IF they wanted a new stadium, why pay a shed load for a stadium they don’t want. Would be sensible to rent the ground whilst we play there and the new ground is being built.
It would be a short term saving because if you bought the ground and funded a new stadium, it’s double whammy.
Any chance someone on here could explain in simple terms how much actual money the owners would need to actually have in a ring fenced account (I'm assuming) to pass the EFL test?
The purchase price and 2 years running costs I believe.
That, if you believe two things regularly mentioned on here, could be as low as £1.
If it’s true that we are almost breaking even this season, I would suggest that 10mil in a bank could easily cover the costs for two years and that’s with increased investment in the playing staff.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
The time to have moved to the Penisula was the early 2000's or post crash, when the land was cheap, and people weren't prepared to commit to the big build required, since then Knights Dragon have hoovered up the land, and its a prime location.
There isn't anywhere in the north of Greenwich left to develop, other than some land to the north of Plumstead station near Belmarsh, but that isn't a future home of this club.
Anyway, as I keep saying, the Valley is completely suitable for the club, you can invest and improve in what's there. And if there was anything that could move to the Penisula, it's the club offices for example, and free that space up for revenue raising facilities.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
New ground near Plumstead station sounds fine if your a member of Radical club but then the place would be rammed
We've gone over this "new ground" stuff so often and no matter how often its shown that's there's no land at the peninsula it keeps coming up. There is no basis for it.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
I did use the phrase "the premise of ESI", by which I mean it's their own premise, or more specifically that of Lee Amis. I do not have any more independent evidence than anyone else on CL that this is true, and we will all need to see how that unfolds. I am sure you will be all over it and glad that you will be, even if in the process feathers get ruffled and the conclusions from your findings are in turn scrutinised by smart people like Grapevine. Ultimately such a dialogue is what keeps us as a fanbase stronger than (e.g.) those hapless hordes across the Thames.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
Does appear to be more people involved than anyone has officially stated. It could be as simple as they aren't involved at all and MS is just showing off his new football club to his friends.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
Does appear to be more people involved than anyone has officially stated. It could be as simple as they aren't involved at all and MS is just showing off his new football club to his friends.
as well as TN Abu Dhabi Business Development has five other listed directors all with "European" names.
My guess is that at least some of them are these guys.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
Does appear to be more people involved than anyone has officially stated. It could be as simple as they aren't involved at all and MS is just showing off his new football club to his friends.
as well as TN Abu Dhabi Business Development has five other listed directors all with "European" names.
My guess is that at least some of them are these guys.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
Does appear to be more people involved than anyone has officially stated. It could be as simple as they aren't involved at all and MS is just showing off his new football club to his friends.
as well as TN Abu Dhabi Business Development has five other listed directors all with "European" names.
My guess is that at least some of them are these guys.
Interesting one on there, Simon Foster, listed as 'financing football player transfers'
Good spot! This one is bothering me a bit, mainly because of the phrase you highlight, but then because a brief search doesn't lead me to anything mentioned in his profile. In particular this claim:multi-award winning UK based, global technologies firm, VS Technologies. I can't find any company matching that description, although it's a common name, used by companies based in places as far apart as Bangalore and Soweto. On the Companies House web, all I got was this one, which doesn't fit the description by any stretch.
Anyone else able to do a better search? Business I'm in has made me ultra-suspicious of bigged-up personal profiles, but I've only taken two minutes.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
Does appear to be more people involved than anyone has officially stated. It could be as simple as they aren't involved at all and MS is just showing off his new football club to his friends.
as well as TN Abu Dhabi Business Development has five other listed directors all with "European" names.
My guess is that at least some of them are these guys.
Interesting one on there, Simon Foster, listed as 'financing football player transfers'
Good spot! This one is bothering me a bit, mainly because of the phrase you highlight, but then because a brief search doesn't lead me to anything mentioned in his profile. In particular this claim:multi-award winning UK based, global technologies firm, VS Technologies. I can't find any company matching that description, although it's a common name, used by companies based in places as far apart as Bangalore and Soweto. On the Companies House web, all I got was this one, which doesn't fit the description by any stretch.
Anyone else able to do a better search? Business I'm in has made me ultra-suspicious of bigged-up personal profiles, but I've only taken two minutes.
Did the same search yesterday Prague and equally drew a blank.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
Does appear to be more people involved than anyone has officially stated. It could be as simple as they aren't involved at all and MS is just showing off his new football club to his friends.
as well as TN Abu Dhabi Business Development has five other listed directors all with "European" names.
My guess is that at least some of them are these guys.
Interesting one on there, Simon Foster, listed as 'financing football player transfers'
Good spot! This one is bothering me a bit, mainly because of the phrase you highlight, but then because a brief search doesn't lead me to anything mentioned in his profile. In particular this claim:multi-award winning UK based, global technologies firm, VS Technologies. I can't find any company matching that description, although it's a common name, used by companies based in places as far apart as Bangalore and Soweto. On the Companies House web, all I got was this one, which doesn't fit the description by any stretch.
Anyone else able to do a better search? Business I'm in has made me ultra-suspicious of bigged-up personal profiles, but I've only taken two minutes.
Did the same search yesterday Prague and equally drew a blank.
Glad we are giving them a break :-)
Yeah I know.
Mr Heller looks solid, though. And he is the one on the CAFC board.
Look, there is currently not a shred of evidence that any kind of "property play" is central to ESI's plan. If such evidence emerges, no matter how shaky, then I am convinced that @Airman Brownwill be the first to present it.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
I don’t see that there is a property play this time, but the idea that there is “enough financial backing to fund organic growth” is another way of saying “let’s buy the club and then find the money to run it”. Add in the business record and reputation of some of the people chasing this money and you can see why other parties are sceptical.
Does appear to be more people involved than anyone has officially stated. It could be as simple as they aren't involved at all and MS is just showing off his new football club to his friends.
as well as TN Abu Dhabi Business Development has five other listed directors all with "European" names.
My guess is that at least some of them are these guys.
Interesting one on there, Simon Foster, listed as 'financing football player transfers'
Good spot! This one is bothering me a bit, mainly because of the phrase you highlight, but then because a brief search doesn't lead me to anything mentioned in his profile. In particular this claim:multi-award winning UK based, global technologies firm, VS Technologies. I can't find any company matching that description, although it's a common name, used by companies based in places as far apart as Bangalore and Soweto. On the Companies House web, all I got was this one, which doesn't fit the description by any stretch.
Anyone else able to do a better search? Business I'm in has made me ultra-suspicious of bigged-up personal profiles, but I've only taken two minutes.
Did the same search yesterday Prague and equally drew a blank.
Glad we are giving them a break :-)
Yeah I know.
Mr Heller looks solid, though. And he is the one on the CAFC board.
With regard to the LR, there are no new leases pending on any of the titles. There was an official search lodged by Staprix NV which was cancelled on 14/01.
There's also a priority for a charge across both The Valley and SL - and there appears to be a lease set up on 09/01 which was cancelled on 14/01.
It would appear that some documentation (deeds) have gone missing which I assume has caused issues.
Well done to @Chizz and @Airman Brown for keeping it going. Shame about a few who just wanted to silence them. Must have been the excitement (and maybe a bit of their 'do nothing' instincts coming out!
Well done to @Chizz and @Airman Brown for keeping it going. Shame about a few who just wanted to silence them. Must have been the excitement (and maybe a bit of their 'do nothing' instincts coming out!
Funny read as it all unravelled. Did we ever get to the bottom of how long a lease our new "owners" benefit from, as still not registered on Land Registry it must be less than 7 years which is another thing to worry about!
Well done to @Chizz and @Airman Brown for keeping it going. Shame about a few who just wanted to silence them. Must have been the excitement (and maybe a bit of their 'do nothing' instincts coming out!
Comments
That, if you believe two things regularly mentioned on here, could be as low as £1.
Or, to put another way, you save fifty million, but it then costs you one hundred to three hundred million?
Forgive me for suggesting it, but I think this idea doesn't really stack up. But only in the basis of maths.
The previous history of this phrase stems from the role of Lee Amis (who is in the property biz) in one of the bids in 2010, and also the apparent existence of a suitable site on the Peninsula when RD bought us at the end of 2013. I personally knew of another bid in 2013 where moving to that site was central to the plan (albeit in a measured timescale). In the runup to the 2013 sale process I met Lee Amis and that's when he used the phrase "any bid is a property play" and passed me copies of certain documents to prove how central to the thinking in the Charlton boardroom that had been in 2010. It's also true that way back both Murray and Varney mused that we might need to move to increase Charlton's capacity to match West Ham, when they moved into a new stadium (they saw that coming long before the Olympic bid was even clinched).
However that was then and this is now. Lee Amis is also a Charlton fan, and he's clear that this isn't on the agenda now, and I believe him, for two rational reasons. One, no obvious site in Greenwich now exists. Two, unlike previous owners, the premise of ESI is that there is enough financial backing to fund organic growth of the Club and business. The phrase "property play" describes a purchase of a football club by chancers who don't have the funds to build the football club as a business without making a big profit on a deal around selling the existing stadium and moving to a new one. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that ESI are in that bracket. That's all I know, bit it appears to be a bit more than those who are currently trying to divert the thread to suggest it is all part of the "mystery" implied in the thread title. I'd recommend them to give ESI a break and leave this line of thinking until (to re-hash a tag) #WIIVOTV.
There isn't anywhere in the north of Greenwich left to develop, other than some land to the north of Plumstead station near Belmarsh, but that isn't a future home of this club.
Anyway, as I keep saying, the Valley is completely suitable for the club, you can invest and improve in what's there. And if there was anything that could move to the Penisula, it's the club offices for example, and free that space up for revenue raising facilities.
We've gone over this "new ground" stuff so often and no matter how often its shown that's there's no land at the peninsula it keeps coming up. There is no basis for it.
My guess is that at least some of them are these guys.
https://adbd.ae/
Anyone else able to do a better search? Business I'm in has made me ultra-suspicious of bigged-up personal profiles, but I've only taken two minutes.
Glad we are giving them a break :-)
Mr Heller looks solid, though. And he is the one on the CAFC board.
There's also a priority for a charge across both The Valley and SL - and there appears to be a lease set up on 09/01 which was cancelled on 14/01.
It would appear that some documentation (deeds) have gone missing which I assume has caused issues.
Nice to see people asking questions and doing some good research
Well done to @Chizz and @Airman Brown for keeping it going. Shame about a few who just wanted to silence them. Must have been the excitement (and maybe a bit of their 'do nothing' instincts coming out!
Then we woke up and realised that true life was even worse!