Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an issue while they were for others.
The reason the separation was set up between Holdings and CAFC Limited in the first place was to protect the freehold asset from the football club going bust, i.e. so that its value as a freehold asset when the lease had been broken by insolvency could not be used to pay the debts of the football club.
Unless the title to the land has been split we seem to be getting no further than a range of colourful ways of describing the purchase of CAFC Limited but not Holdings. The ex-directors (some of them at least) don’t believe you can do that without their permission and they have not given it. Perhaps ESI have different advice, but I do wonder why they don’t seem prepared to share it with them if that’s the case?
Paul McCarthy is an ex journalist and now PR consultant to the club. Has been v proactive in arranging fan engagement and probably the one writing the statements.
Lee Amis is a lifelong Charlton fan and erstwhile poster on here.
Duchatelet still owns The Valley?
A shame the meeting had to finish at 8 due to another engagement that could not be postponed.
Here was me thinking signings were the most important thing for a chairman to be sorting in January.
How could I be so blind?
Being blind would explain why you did missed the fact that he had to leave to meet an agent to discuss a possible signing.
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them at this point in time.
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them.
In which case, who do you think currently owes the money?
Paul McCarthy is an ex journalist and now PR consultant to the club. Has been v proactive in arranging fan engagement and probably the one writing the statements.
Lee Amis is a lifelong Charlton fan and erstwhile poster on here.
Duchatelet still owns The Valley?
A shame the meeting had to finish at 8 due to another engagement that could not be postponed.
Here was me thinking signings were the most important thing for a chairman to be sorting in January.
How could I be so blind?
Being blind would explain why you did missed the fact that he had to leave to meet an agent to discuss a possible signing.
I didn't miss that, hence my post. It reads like Elfsborg missed that in my opinion. However could be that I read it as though he was being sarcastic himself and I responded with sarcasm.
Pitches don't have French Drains, they would only go beside a pitch. It's a trench with a land drain at the bottom that is back filled with pea gravel. It can help reduce the water table and as there is no soil/turf on the top, it takes surface run off away quickly to the land drain and away.
Ideal for use close to buildings with no damp proof course. Maybe we are saving money on construction costs 😉
The idea was some bloke in America called French.
It's Friday night and I've just spent 20 minutes reading about drains on wikipedia on the back of this post.
Pitches don't have French Drains, they would only go beside a pitch. It's a trench with a land drain at the bottom that is back filled with pea gravel. It can help reduce the water table and as there is no soil/turf on the top, it takes surface run off away quickly to the land drain and away.
Ideal for use close to buildings with no damp proof course. Maybe we are saving money on construction costs 😉
The idea was some bloke in America called French.
It's Friday night and I've just spent 20 minutes reading about drains on wikipedia on the back of this post.
FML.
Wait until you watch the 15 min YouTube video posted on here earlier, I found it strangely satisfying. 😐
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them.
In which case, who do you think currently owes the money?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. But I believed that the director's loans were repayable when we reach The Premier League.
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them.
That was MS's view.
To answer Rick's question ESI have, according to MS, taken on the liability of the loans but as they don't need to leverage the assets they don't have to repay them now.
They will when we're in the premier league over five years as per the original agreement although MS said they'd be happy to reach a settlement with the directors.
I'm merely reporting what was said at the meeting BTW
I know there are a few outstanding issues, not least the full details of the purchase, but so much from tonight seems entirely consistent with what they have been saying, including in my interview with MS for CAST last week. It feels v different from before. Here's hoping we can believe!
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them.
That was MS's view.
To answer Rick's question ESI have, according to MS, taken on the liability of the loans but as they don't need to leverage the assets they don't have to repay them now.
They will when we're in the premier league over five years as per the original agreement although MS said they'd be happy to reach a settlement with the directors.
I'm merely reporting what was said at the meeting BTW
Thanks, but the loans are secured against the freehold of the land (among other things). It makes no sense to say that ESI have taken on the liability of the loans without holding the assets against which they are secured. For obvious reasons it’s not within ESI’s choice to do so and the asset holder (RD) cannot pass them on like that because they are secured against Baton as well as FC Limited.
The only viable interpretation I can see would be that RD is also liable for the loans because they remain secured against assets which he still owns. He can’t unilaterally release the charges.
In any event ex-directors had been led to believe - including by Richard Murray - that they would be getting their money. So something seems to have changed.
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them.
That was MS's view.
To answer Rick's question ESI have, according to MS, taken on the liability of the loans but as they don't need to leverage the assets they don't have to repay them now.
They will when we're in the premier league over five years as per the original agreement although MS said they'd be happy to reach a settlement with the directors.
I'm merely reporting what was said at the meeting BTW
Thanks, but the loans are secured against the freehold of the land (among other things). It makes no sense to say that they have taken on the liability of the loans without holding the assets against which they are secured. For obvious reasons it’s not their choice to do so and the asset holder cannot pass them on like that.
The only viable interpretation I can see would be that RD is also liable for the loans because they remain secured against assets which he still owns.
And in any event the ex-directors had been led to believe - including by Richard Murray - that they are getting their money.
So if we get promoted, Roland may have to shell out £7m?
If so, come on Charlton, get your skates on. We need to fly back up that table.
You can please some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.
I'm happy. Quite a few others seem happy.
Not sure Airman is entirely, not a knock but his posts show a clear distrust.
Distrust is not fair. Anyway i for one am happy certainly happier than i was with The Helmet. Things can go pear shaped so nobody knows but everything i hear and read so far makes me feel like we have a plan as a club moving forward. People will always dig deep and research anything they can but we as fans should appreciate those people that do so in the interest of our club.
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them.
That was MS's view.
To answer Rick's question ESI have, according to MS, taken on the liability of the loans but as they don't need to leverage the assets they don't have to repay them now.
They will when we're in the premier league over five years as per the original agreement although MS said they'd be happy to reach a settlement with the directors.
I'm merely reporting what was said at the meeting BTW
Thanks, but the loans are secured against the freehold of the land (among other things). It makes no sense to say that ESI have taken on the liability of the loans without holding the assets against which they are secured. For obvious reasons it’s not ESI’s choice to do so and the asset holder (RD) cannot pass them on like that because they are secured against Baton as well as FC Limited.
The only viable interpretation I can see would be that RD is also liable for the loans because they remain secured against assets which he still owns.
In any event the ex-directors had been led to believe - including by Richard Murray - that they are getting their money.
Perhaps the legally binding agreement/type of compulsory order has covered this angle, so that the new owners have taken on the liability ?
This one off peppercorn payment that was mentioned earlier is I suppose another word for paying the Freeholder... ie Duchatalet, to sign over the Freehold. Where I am slightly confused is are we (as things stand), going to be paying just a one off peppercorn payment or an ongoing leaseholders fee......which we would be obliged to do if Duchatalet were to withhold the purchase of the Freehold to us. The purchase price of Freeholds in the private sector are typically not that expensive, especially when they have a leaseholder in situ on a 99 year lease, in fact I know that leaseholders nowadays even have a ‘right to buy’ the Freehold, though I’m not sure if that legislation also applies to commercial properties?
Henry Irving, can you clarify The Valley/Sparrows Lane ownership status please. I know razil has commented, but do you agree ? Thanks.
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Thanks. So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them.
In which case, who do you think currently owes the money?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. But I believed that the director's loans were repayable when we reach The Premier League.
See above. The loans were to CAFC Limited but because it is a loss-making business they are secured against Baton, I.e the freeholds as held by Holdings, through legal charges. That makes RD liable as the freeholder, but either way you can’t unilaterally remove (part of) the security of the loans.
It’s like me saying I’ve sold my house to someone else without repaying the mortgage. The lender’s legal charge on the land would prevent it and make the sale contract unlawful.
Comments
What MS said was ESI own the bricks and mortar, and pitch, but not the surrounding land.
ESI will, according to MS, own everything in six months.
He understands why fans are uneasy about the separation of club and some of the ground for historical reasons but as he explained later it was less of an issue for ESI as they don't need to leverage (borrow against) the Valley to fund the takeover, unlike other potential buyers.
Hence also why, according to MS, the old directors bonds are not an issue while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
Unless the title to the land has been split we seem to be getting no further than a range of colourful ways of describing the purchase of CAFC Limited but not Holdings. The ex-directors (some of them at least) don’t believe you can do that without their permission and they have not given it. Perhaps ESI have different advice, but I do wonder why they don’t seem prepared to share it with them if that’s the case?
So I'm assuming from this that the directors loans will continue, as they have no need/reason to repay them at this point in time.
Danger of lack of tone on a screen.
FML.
But I believed that the director's loans were repayable when we reach The Premier League.
To answer Rick's question ESI have, according to MS, taken on the liability of the loans but as they don't need to leverage the assets they don't have to repay them now.
They will when we're in the premier league over five years as per the original agreement although MS said they'd be happy to reach a settlement with the directors.
I'm merely reporting what was said at the meeting BTW
Otherwise, you would be foolish to pay off loans, that you may never have to.
I'm happy. Quite a few others seem happy.
Not sure Airman is entirely, not a knock but his posts show a clear distrust.
Some people just can't do happy.
The only viable interpretation I can see would be that RD is also liable for the loans because they remain secured against assets which he still owns. He can’t unilaterally release the charges.
In any event ex-directors had been led to believe - including by Richard Murray - that they would be getting their money. So something seems to have changed.
If so, come on Charlton, get your skates on. We need to fly back up that table.
Anyway i for one am happy certainly happier than i was with The Helmet.
Things can go pear shaped so nobody knows but everything i hear and read so far makes me feel like we have a plan as a club moving forward. People will always dig deep and research anything they can but we as fans should appreciate those people that do so in the interest of our club.
It seems like he doesn't trust them?
Apologies to @Airman Brown if he does in fact trust them, we can only truly comment based on other users posts.
Where I am slightly confused is are we (as things stand), going to be paying just a one off peppercorn payment or an ongoing leaseholders fee......which we would be obliged to do if Duchatalet were to withhold the purchase of the Freehold to us.
The purchase price of Freeholds in the private sector are typically not that expensive, especially when they have a leaseholder in situ on a 99 year lease, in fact I know that leaseholders nowadays even have a ‘right to buy’ the Freehold, though I’m not sure if that legislation also applies to commercial properties?
It’s like me saying I’ve sold my house to someone else without repaying the mortgage. The lender’s legal charge on the land would prevent it and make the sale contract unlawful.