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 ?
Whatever contract exists it must be contingent on payment, so it cannot be certain and it wouldn’t avoid the issue of the charges. They can take on the liability - they can’t remove the charges. Anyway, I’ve repeated myself enough on this!
Personally, I’ll be more than happy to trust ESI when I see them spending money to back up the positive messages. Lee Bowyer’s contract is a good start but we need to stay in this division.
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.
Yes, I take your point, but as I said above, perhaps the legally binding agreement/type of compulsory order has covered this angle, so that the new owners have taken on the liability ?
I would like to think that the ex-directors will be contacted by ESI in the short term to clarify matters to everyone's satisfaction.
RD can't withhold the purchase of the freehold, if there is a legally binding agreement to do so (as we've been told).
It’s of no relevance to this what they have contracted to do in the future if what they claim to have done now isn’t legally possible. No matter what contract exists, it must be contingent on payment if nothing else. Therefore it cannot be certain.
All fluff. Just note in your diary to ask for an update on the 31st December 2020. More important stuff to sort at this moment 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 issue while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
I would think it’s all the land (the freehold), not just the surrounding land i.e. the car park?
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.
I think it’s very difficult to say what is correct without seeing the agreements (the one governing the ABDB acquisition and the ones governing the secured loans).
If I were structuring the purchase of Charlton and I could do it in a way that did not disrupt the current loan holders rights, I would.
Why would I offer to pay £7m today if that is not due until a new lease is required or until Charlton are in the premiership?
i wouldn’t,
There is a greater chance of premiership football under the new ownership:.
it is unfortunate that some of the creditors have been given the impression they would be paid out on the takeover but if you don’t need to borrow against the secured assets, why would you choose to pay today if you could pay later?
I wouldn’t.. if the expectation is the loans get paid if and when we get to the premiership and the new owners want and need to get to the premiership, that seems reasonable.
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.
It's late, more tomorrow
I would think it’s all the land (the freehold), not just the surrounding land i.e. the car park?
I remember in 1985 one of the reasons why we moved to Selhurst was that Gliksten owed the land (specifically the land behind the ground, ie car park) and wasn't going to let us use it due to some payment or other.....
And they say that lightening doesnt strike twice. Ho hum.
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 issue while they were for others.
It's late, more tomorrow
I would think it’s all the land (the freehold), not just the surrounding land i.e. the car park?
I remember in 1985 one of the reasons why we moved to Selhurst was that Gliksten owed the land (specifically the land behind the ground, ie car park) and wasn't going to let us use it due to some payment or other.....
And they say that lightening doesnt strike twice. Ho hum.
As a financial advisor you must understand how a 99 year lease would work, surely?
They apparently own a 99 year Lease on the Valley stadium, via owning CHARLTON Athletic football company, will buy CAFC holdings which owns the freeholds.
That's good enough for me. Maybe we can go back to being football fans!
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.
"FML"? "Feck me lengthways"? A variation of "Feck me sideways" of which I was unaware.
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 ?
Whatever contract exists it must be contingent on payment, so it cannot be certain and it wouldn’t avoid the issue of the charges. They can take on the liability - they can’t remove the charges. Anyway, I’ve repeated myself enough on this!
Personally, I’ll be more than happy to trust ESI when I see them spending money to back up the positive messages. Lee Bowyer’s contract is a good start but we need to stay in this division.
Having now retired from a banking commercial background, I did previously get significantly involved in the taking and in the wording of debenture security. It can be a minefield!
If the old directors have cross guarantees and debentures across both companies it is hard to see how ESL have done what they are purporting to have done, without some sort of agreement from the debenture holders.
However it is very difficult to pass judgement without seeing;
1. The original security documentation.
2. Terms of the sale contract.
@“Airman Brown" do you know if the directors are taking legal advice over this?
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 ?
Whatever contract exists it must be contingent on payment, so it cannot be certain and it wouldn’t avoid the issue of the charges. They can take on the liability - they can’t remove the charges. Anyway, I’ve repeated myself enough on this!
Personally, I’ll be more than happy to trust ESI when I see them spending money to back up the positive messages. Lee Bowyer’s contract is a good start but we need to stay in this division.
Having now retired from a banking commercial background, I did previously get significantly involved in the taking and in the wording of debenture security. It can be a minefield!
If the old directors have cross guarantees and debentures across both companies it is hard to see how ESL have done what they are purporting to have done, without some sort of agreement from the debenture holders.
However it is very difficult to pass judgement without seeing;
1. The original security documentation.
2. Terms of the sale contract.
@“Airman Brown" do you know if the directors are taking legal advice over this?
Agreed. The Director loans are insignificant to any deal, they are simply a debt new owners take into account in making a deal.
I suspect nothing has changed in terms of who owes what to whom.
MS comments about not being worried about carrying debt makes sense given a £60m loan owed to Staprix at 2% and a contingent liability of £7m create no significant financial liability. As long as tenure is secure it doesn’t matter if you occupy as a freeholder or leaseholder.
“Owning bricks and mortar” may be reference to the benefit of the lease via CAFC Ltd otherwise it can only mean the freehold has been bought from Holdings/Baton. The statement about buying Sparrows Lane in six months means they don’t yet own Holdings/Baton and haven’t bought out the freehold, so can’t see how CAFC has anything other than the ongoing leasehold title.
i see no logical reason to be worried about how the legal issues around the deal get sorted. Who knows, the Rat may be happy to get his debt repaid down the line and in the meantime gets a small rent, why should we be worried if that suit both parties.
Re Glicjsten, I suspect Glicksten was bleeding the club with a hefty commercial rent, not a nominal rent as currently paid to the freeholder so an entirely different financial exposure.
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.
"FML"? "Feck me lengthways"? A variation of "Feck me sideways" of which I was unaware.
until one entity (ESI) owns the full lot I’ll always be a tad nervous.
but they’ve said, I believe, the only reason they don’t, yet, was to get the deal done for the window and it’s in place to buy the remainder in six months. So in effect July this year. I’ll be more worried if we kick off next season with RD still owning holdings.
in the meantime let’s get up that table, not many days left of the window......
and I have french drains in my garden, work very well.
're Leaseholds / Freeholds - Its quite simple to know what those words mean, but impossible to know the ins and outs of each individual Leasehold Agreement. For example, a Lease could vary from 999 years long and a quid a year ground rent and absolutely no other charges at all. To 3 years long, extortionate ground rent and a £500 charge every time you want to paint a wall or instal a satellite dish. From what Dips says, the Lease between one entity and the other is favourable to the Club itself, so not a lot to worry about imo
Personally though, I don't see it as ESI being "Leaseholdes", I see it as a 6 month "take over period", with ESI first acquiring the footballing side of the business, in order to do things like sign Bowyer etc up for the foreseeable and sign players. Then, the rest follows within the following set time period. This could also explain why not all of the ex directors have been spoken to as Airmen has said a few times.
The proof will be after the golden 6 month period, but I think, in general, everyone should be sleeping easier in the knowledge that the Club is not in RD's hands?
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.
It's late, more tomorrow
I would think it’s all the land (the freehold), not just the surrounding land i.e. the car park.
You have been spouting quite a lot of crap over the last couple of years and im glad to finally not have to read anymore about aussies. No offence meant
When we turn to squad matters...did anyone ask about the circumstances of Gallagher’s recall?
Interesting comment from MS about how asking prices drop significantly at the end of the window. Makes absolute sense, but I’ve never heard it actually articulated by someone with practical experience.
When we turn to squad matters...did anyone ask about the circumstances of Gallagher’s recall?
Interesting comment from MS about how asking prices drop significantly at the end of the window. Makes absolute sense, but I’ve never heard it actually articulated by someone with practical experience.
Speculating here but it could help us get deals done by paying less to the club and giving the player a higher wage or signing on fee. Might be what we need to get Maddison in.
I imagine the risk you take is another club gets desperate in the last few days of the window and offers a much bigger contract.
Comments
Personally, I’ll be more than happy to trust ESI when I see them spending money to back up the positive messages. Lee Bowyer’s contract is a good start but we need to stay in this division.
I would like to think that the ex-directors will be contacted by ESI in the short term to clarify matters to everyone's satisfaction.
Just note in your diary to ask for an update on the 31st December 2020. More important stuff to sort at this moment in time.
i wouldn’t,
There is a greater chance of premiership football under the new ownership:.
it is unfortunate that some of the creditors have been given the impression they would be paid out on the takeover but if you don’t need to borrow against the secured assets, why would you choose to pay today if you could pay later?
And they say that lightening doesnt strike twice. Ho hum.
Having now retired from a banking commercial background, I did previously get significantly involved in the taking and in the wording of debenture security. It can be a minefield!
If the old directors have cross guarantees and debentures across both companies it is hard to see how ESL have done what they are purporting to have done, without some sort of agreement from the debenture holders.
However it is very difficult to pass judgement without seeing;
1. The original security documentation.
2. Terms of the sale contract.
@“Airman Brown" do you know if the directors are taking legal advice over this?
The Director loans are insignificant to any deal, they are simply a debt new owners take into account in making a deal.
I suspect nothing has changed in terms of who owes what to whom.
MS comments about not being worried about carrying debt makes sense given a £60m loan owed to Staprix at 2% and a contingent liability of £7m create no significant financial liability. As long as tenure is secure it doesn’t matter if you occupy as a freeholder or leaseholder.
“Owning bricks and mortar” may be reference to the benefit of the lease via CAFC Ltd otherwise it can only mean the freehold has been bought from Holdings/Baton. The statement about buying Sparrows Lane in six months means they don’t yet own Holdings/Baton and haven’t bought out the freehold, so can’t see how CAFC has anything other than the ongoing leasehold title.
i see no logical reason to be worried about how the legal issues around the deal get sorted. Who knows, the Rat may be happy to get his debt repaid down the line and in the meantime gets a small rent, why should we be worried if that suit both parties.
Re Glicjsten, I suspect Glicksten was bleeding the club with a hefty commercial rent, not a nominal rent as currently paid to the freeholder so an entirely different financial exposure.
No, a French drain is a simple system of pipes with holes in, laid under ground to take water away. I've put it on our drive draining into the lake
but they’ve said, I believe, the only reason they don’t, yet, was to get the deal done for the window and it’s in place to buy the remainder in six months. So in effect July this year. I’ll be more worried if we kick off next season with RD still owning holdings.
in the meantime let’s get up that table, not many days left of the window......
and I have french drains in my garden, work very well.
Personally though, I don't see it as ESI being "Leaseholdes", I see it as a 6 month "take over period", with ESI first acquiring the footballing side of the business, in order to do things like sign Bowyer etc up for the foreseeable and sign players. Then, the rest follows within the following set time period. This could also explain why not all of the ex directors have been spoken to as Airmen has said a few times.
The proof will be after the golden 6 month period, but I think, in general, everyone should be sleeping easier in the knowledge that the Club is not in RD's hands?
Grateful for any feedback on other things that were covered?
Interesting comment from MS about how asking prices drop significantly at the end of the window. Makes absolute sense, but I’ve never heard it actually articulated by someone with practical experience.
I imagine the risk you take is another club gets desperate in the last few days of the window and offers a much bigger contract.