So are you saying the ACV offers no protection from scheming owners?
In the event of a sale for use other than a sports venue for example I think it just gives CAST the right to make a counter offer to purchase but if it can't raise the funds then it's curtains. In other words it just buys you some time (6 months) to acquire the asset.
How much would it be worth ? Wondering how many 10 /20 year season tickets the trust would need to sell to raise the cash?? On a GoFundMe type scheme if you dont meet a target all the backers are refunded. All hypothetical obviously
So are you saying the ACV offers no protection from scheming owners?
In the event of a sale for use other than a sports venue for example I think it just gives CAST the right to make a counter offer to purchase but if it can't raise the funds then it's curtains. In other words it just buys you some time (6 months) to acquire the asset.
How much would it be worth ? Wondering how many 10 /20 year season tickets the trust would need to sell to raise the cash?? On a GoFundMe type scheme if you dont meet a target all the backers are refunded. All hypothetical obviously
£50-£60 million is what was mentioned, whether that's what ESI's agreed price is is anyone's guess.
Has the training ground scheme got outline or detailed planning consent? I guess if they are serious about building in the summer they should have progressed to / be progressing to detailed planning consent by now and gearing up for tender - I would imagine this would be in the ‘5 year plan’ regardless of what division we are in next year - anybody know if any progress on this ?
How much would it be worth ? Wondering how many 10 /20 year season tickets the trust would need to sell to raise the cash?? On a GoFundMe type scheme if you dont meet a target all the backers are refunded. All hypothetical obviously
£50-£60 million is what was mentioned, whether that's what ESI's agreed price is is anyone's guess.
That's a lot of season tickets!
The Bournemouth fans in the East Stand should cover that
Basically, Roland has removed himself from paying for the football team, the clubs staff, ground and training ground whilst retaining the ownership of the two most valuable assets: the Valley and Sparrows Lane.
If we stay in the Championship, continuing to meet his rent payments (and maintaining the ground and pitch to a reasonable standard) might - just - be possible. As would, possibly, attracting other investors interested in paying the price Roland wants to complete the sale.
Where it gets sticky is if the club are relegated. As things stand now I would reckon we need to take 15 points from the final 10 games to be certain of staying up. This means playing better than Riga managed in 2015-2016 (when we took 15 points from the final 12 games).
Were relegation to occur I can see a cycle of decline starting very quickly.
I can't help but feel that all of this is Matt Southall's 'dream' of being the owner & chairman of a football club. He has 'sold' the idea to business partner, friend and confidant (Nimer) on the basis that he could, with a 5 year plan, turn a decent profit (bit like the spivs did with Kevin Cash). If it all starts to 'come apart at the seams' then we could be in trouble again. People keep saying that "Nimer is loaded" ... well (a) we don't know that for sure and (b) even if he is loaded then it doesn't mean he will spend any of it on the club. The entity that 'owns' us is called East Street Investments (and you don't invest to throw away your own money). I agree with all those saying lets give ESI more time and see what happens in June/July but I do think there is a lot of risk in there.
Exactly, although I think things may kick off when Roland doesn’t get his money.
The best guarantee that ESI will complete is that RD must have got a cast iron arrangement that delivers the shekels. In return ESI acquire the ownership of the holding company/freeholds. Last thing RD wants is a default and both he and EFL must have evidence that ESI is good for the money.
At the moment I assume RD is collecting interest under the new loan agreement with Staprix which I also assume is a commercial rate rather than the mates rate of 2.5% (3%?) between CAFC and Staprix for the existing debt.
Conspiracy theory would be RD happy long term to get a commercial return on his £60m investment in CAFC and ESI is happy not to have to shell out £60m up front to acquire the freeholds. If ESI have access to sufficient funds to buy and run the club (which presumably they had to show evidence of to both EFL and RD) it is dead money if its sitting in cash and will be dead money if used now to acquire the freeholds. If instead ESI can use the funds they have proven access to, for running the club and improving the squad it makes entire financial sense for ESI to continue as a sitting tenant. It would also make financial sense for RD if it is the case that RD does not want the bother of investing £60m cash in a new enterprise, and is happy with a fixed return of capital/interest over time.
This arrangement would contradict the statements made so far.
Of course, the 6 months mentioned might well be a 6 month period over which the Staprix debt is being deferred/repaid in stages, that RD wants his £60m in cash and there is no intention of a long term tenant relationship. This could be technically consistent with the statement about making the priority the control of the club and playing squad and everything else would be sorted out in 6 months.
If it were long term, the risks associated with splitting ownership of the ground and ownership of the club is of serious concern if the club is paying a full commercial rent (as per the old Gliksten/Sunley arrangements) but if its a benign token rent fixed for 99 years, plus a fixed repayment schedule for the £60m over time, it is not a material financial exposure for the club as long as ESI do have access to serious money and do not default on the loan agreement. Staprix, as freeholder with a 99 year lease granted to the sitting tenant, can't do anything with the ground other than collect the rent or sell it on for its negligible rental income value.
So personally, I am not losing sleep about ownership of the ground just yet - as long as ESI are not relying on future operating profits to finance the purchase, it really does have access to serious money and is not significantly reliant on commercial debt. How it finances the purchase is not necessarily a sign of how much wealth ESI has, if given benefit of the doubt, it is as likely simply to reflect what makes best use of finance available to ESI.
I can't help but feel that all of this is Matt Southall's 'dream' of being the owner & chairman of a football club. He has 'sold' the idea to business partner, friend and confidant (Nimer) on the basis that he could, with a 5 year plan, turn a decent profit (bit like the spivs did with Kevin Cash). If it all starts to 'come apart at the seams' then we could be in trouble again. People keep saying that "Nimer is loaded" ... well (a) we don't know that for sure and (b) even if he is loaded then it doesn't mean he will spend any of it on the club. The entity that 'owns' us is called East Street Investments (and you don't invest to throw away your own money). I agree with all those saying lets give ESI more time and see what happens in June/July but I do think there is a lot of risk in there.
Exactly, although I think things may kick off when Roland doesn’t get his money.
The best guarantee that ESI will complete is that RD must have got a cast iron arrangement that delivers the shekels. In return ESI acquire the ownership of the holding company/freeholds. Last thing RD wants is a default and both he and EFL must have evidence that ESI is good for the money.
At the moment I assume RD is collecting interest under the new loan agreement with Staprix which I also assume is a commercial rate rather than the mates rate of 2.5% (3%?) between CAFC and Staprix for the existing debt.
Conspiracy theory would be RD happy long term to get a commercial return on his £60m investment in CAFC and ESI is happy not to have to shell out £60m up front to acquire the freeholds. If ESI have access to sufficient funds to buy and run the club (which presumably they had to show evidence of to both EFL and RD) it is dead money if its sitting in cash and will be dead money if used now to acquire the freeholds. If instead ESI can use the funds they have proven access to, for running the club and improving the squad it makes entire financial sense for ESI to continue as a sitting tenant. It would also make financial sense for RD if it is the case that RD does not want the bother of investing £60m cash in a new enterprise, and is happy with a fixed return of capital/interest over time.
This arrangement would contradict the statements made so far.
Of course, the 6 months mentioned might well be a 6 month period over which the Staprix debt is being deferred/repaid in stages, that RD wants his £60m in cash and there is no intention of a long term tenant relationship. This could be technically consistent with the statement about making the priority the control of the club and playing squad and everything else would be sorted out in 6 months.
If it were long term, the risks associated with splitting ownership of the ground and ownership of the club is of serious concern if the club is paying a full commercial rent (as per the old Gliksten/Sunley arrangements) but if its a benign token rent fixed for 99 years, plus a fixed repayment schedule for the £60m over time, it is not a material financial exposure for the club as long as ESI do have access to serious money and do not default on the loan agreement. Staprix, as freeholder with a 99 year lease granted to the sitting tenant, can't do anything with the ground other than collect the rent or sell it on for its negligible rental income value.
So personally, I am not losing sleep about ownership of the ground just yet - as long as ESI are not relying on future operating profits to finance the purchase, it really does have access to serious money and is not significantly reliant on commercial debt. How it finances the purchase is not necessarily a sign of how much wealth ESI has, if given benefit of the doubt, it is as likely simply to reflect what makes best use of finance available to ESI.
It's hard to see what Roland would do if ESI imploded and he didn't get his money. Would he take the club, staff and players back? Would he let us go to the wall? Given the Valley is going nowhere fast as a non-football/non-community site, (the training ground is a bit different, given recent developments in the area...but my loyalty has been to the club, the Valley and the immediate area, rather than the training ground), I'm inclined to think the most likely "worst case" scenario would be a period of decline with the club having a lengthy spell in League One/League Two under "owners" who lack the funds to do very much else with it....paying whatever they can to Roland to use the ground and having debts that steadily mount.
I can't help but feel that all of this is Matt Southall's 'dream' of being the owner & chairman of a football club. He has 'sold' the idea to business partner, friend and confidant (Nimer) on the basis that he could, with a 5 year plan, turn a decent profit (bit like the spivs did with Kevin Cash). If it all starts to 'come apart at the seams' then we could be in trouble again. People keep saying that "Nimer is loaded" ... well (a) we don't know that for sure and (b) even if he is loaded then it doesn't mean he will spend any of it on the club. The entity that 'owns' us is called East Street Investments (and you don't invest to throw away your own money). I agree with all those saying lets give ESI more time and see what happens in June/July but I do think there is a lot of risk in there.
Exactly, although I think things may kick off when Roland doesn’t get his money.
The best guarantee that ESI will complete is that RD must have got a cast iron arrangement that delivers the shekels. In return ESI acquire the ownership of the holding company/freeholds. Last thing RD wants is a default and both he and EFL must have evidence that ESI is good for the money.
At the moment I assume RD is collecting interest under the new loan agreement with Staprix which I also assume is a commercial rate rather than the mates rate of 2.5% (3%?) between CAFC and Staprix for the existing debt.
Conspiracy theory would be RD happy long term to get a commercial return on his £60m investment in CAFC and ESI is happy not to have to shell out £60m up front to acquire the freeholds. If ESI have access to sufficient funds to buy and run the club (which presumably they had to show evidence of to both EFL and RD) it is dead money if its sitting in cash and will be dead money if used now to acquire the freeholds. If instead ESI can use the funds they have proven access to, for running the club and improving the squad it makes entire financial sense for ESI to continue as a sitting tenant. It would also make financial sense for RD if it is the case that RD does not want the bother of investing £60m cash in a new enterprise, and is happy with a fixed return of capital/interest over time.
This arrangement would contradict the statements made so far.
Of course, the 6 months mentioned might well be a 6 month period over which the Staprix debt is being deferred/repaid in stages, that RD wants his £60m in cash and there is no intention of a long term tenant relationship. This could be technically consistent with the statement about making the priority the control of the club and playing squad and everything else would be sorted out in 6 months.
If it were long term, the risks associated with splitting ownership of the ground and ownership of the club is of serious concern if the club is paying a full commercial rent (as per the old Gliksten/Sunley arrangements) but if its a benign token rent fixed for 99 years, plus a fixed repayment schedule for the £60m over time, it is not a material financial exposure for the club as long as ESI do have access to serious money and do not default on the loan agreement. Staprix, as freeholder with a 99 year lease granted to the sitting tenant, can't do anything with the ground other than collect the rent or sell it on for its negligible rental income value.
So personally, I am not losing sleep about ownership of the ground just yet - as long as ESI are not relying on future operating profits to finance the purchase, it really does have access to serious money and is not significantly reliant on commercial debt. How it finances the purchase is not necessarily a sign of how much wealth ESI has, if given benefit of the doubt, it is as likely simply to reflect what makes best use of finance available to ESI.
It's hard to see what Roland would do if ESI imploded and he didn't get his money. Would he take the club, staff and players back? Would he let us go to the wall? Given the Valley is going nowhere fast as a non-football/non-community site, (the training ground is a bit different, given recent developments in the area...but my loyalty has been to the club, the Valley and the immediate area, rather than the training ground), I'm inclined to think the most likely "worst case" scenario would be a period of decline with the club having a lengthy spell in League One/League Two under "owners" who lack the funds to do very much else with it....paying whatever they can to Roland to use the ground and having debts that steadily mount.
I think Roland wouldn’t care if we ceased to exist, provided he made a profit.
I think Roland wouldn’t care if we ceased to exist, provided he made a profit.
Bit harsh. You are forgetting that he looks upon our club as one of his children, albeit one he's now given up for adoption. He also cares passionately for our community and the future of the club as evidenced by his vast redevelopment of Sparrows Lane and all those trenches he paid to be dug. He also turned down many interested buyers with deep pockets purely on the grounds that they knew Peter Varney and clearly didn't have the long-term prosperity of the club at heart. Therefore, in the highly unlikely event that he's sold the club to conmen, I am pretty sure he would ride to the rescue if ESI go belly-up and once again pick up the financial burden by piling the debt on the club.
If the Valley Freehold was sold the Lease would in theory prevent a change of use, in effect selling a leasehold very much restricts what can be done in terms of change of use with the asset - you can't just take back a lease. If you think of a house buying scenario... I am by no means saying it is an ideal scenario however.
I can't help but feel that all of this is Matt Southall's 'dream' of being the owner & chairman of a football club. He has 'sold' the idea to business partner, friend and confidant (Nimer) on the basis that he could, with a 5 year plan, turn a decent profit (bit like the spivs did with Kevin Cash). If it all starts to 'come apart at the seams' then we could be in trouble again. People keep saying that "Nimer is loaded" ... well (a) we don't know that for sure and (b) even if he is loaded then it doesn't mean he will spend any of it on the club. The entity that 'owns' us is called East Street Investments (and you don't invest to throw away your own money). I agree with all those saying lets give ESI more time and see what happens in June/July but I do think there is a lot of risk in there.
Exactly, although I think things may kick off when Roland doesn’t get his money.
The best guarantee that ESI will complete is that RD must have got a cast iron arrangement that delivers the shekels. In return ESI acquire the ownership of the holding company/freeholds. Last thing RD wants is a default and both he and EFL must have evidence that ESI is good for the money.
At the moment I assume RD is collecting interest under the new loan agreement with Staprix which I also assume is a commercial rate rather than the mates rate of 2.5% (3%?) between CAFC and Staprix for the existing debt.
Conspiracy theory would be RD happy long term to get a commercial return on his £60m investment in CAFC and ESI is happy not to have to shell out £60m up front to acquire the freeholds. If ESI have access to sufficient funds to buy and run the club (which presumably they had to show evidence of to both EFL and RD) it is dead money if its sitting in cash and will be dead money if used now to acquire the freeholds. If instead ESI can use the funds they have proven access to, for running the club and improving the squad it makes entire financial sense for ESI to continue as a sitting tenant. It would also make financial sense for RD if it is the case that RD does not want the bother of investing £60m cash in a new enterprise, and is happy with a fixed return of capital/interest over time.
This arrangement would contradict the statements made so far.
Of course, the 6 months mentioned might well be a 6 month period over which the Staprix debt is being deferred/repaid in stages, that RD wants his £60m in cash and there is no intention of a long term tenant relationship. This could be technically consistent with the statement about making the priority the control of the club and playing squad and everything else would be sorted out in 6 months.
If it were long term, the risks associated with splitting ownership of the ground and ownership of the club is of serious concern if the club is paying a full commercial rent (as per the old Gliksten/Sunley arrangements) but if its a benign token rent fixed for 99 years, plus a fixed repayment schedule for the £60m over time, it is not a material financial exposure for the club as long as ESI do have access to serious money and do not default on the loan agreement. Staprix, as freeholder with a 99 year lease granted to the sitting tenant, can't do anything with the ground other than collect the rent or sell it on for its negligible rental income value.
So personally, I am not losing sleep about ownership of the ground just yet - as long as ESI are not relying on future operating profits to finance the purchase, it really does have access to serious money and is not significantly reliant on commercial debt. How it finances the purchase is not necessarily a sign of how much wealth ESI has, if given benefit of the doubt, it is as likely simply to reflect what makes best use of finance available to ESI.
It's hard to see what Roland would do if ESI imploded and he didn't get his money. Would he take the club, staff and players back? Would he let us go to the wall? Given the Valley is going nowhere fast as a non-football/non-community site, (the training ground is a bit different, given recent developments in the area...but my loyalty has been to the club, the Valley and the immediate area, rather than the training ground), I'm inclined to think the most likely "worst case" scenario would be a period of decline with the club having a lengthy spell in League One/League Two under "owners" who lack the funds to do very much else with it....paying whatever they can to Roland to use the ground and having debts that steadily mount.
I was going to give your post a like until you mentioned us "going to the wall"
What due diligence is there to do on buying the the freehold of land?
Surely the hard part is on the liabilities of the club and that was done by the time he gave those press conferences/interviews.
Also how can you do due diligence but also have an agreement in place to buy training ground and valley? It doesn't make any sense. You would do due diligence before that stage. It's nonense.
the very real issue of good clean title to all of the land and the buildings thereon, free of any: liens, caveats, charges, mortgages, debentures, covenants or legal muddiness of any kind. Just cos some decrepit europrat tells Mat S or H.E. TN: "yeh, my company owns all of that property there and over there huh, and nobody else has any interest in them financial or otherwise, huh, it's all yours for numpty-five million euros, huh" don't make it true. Looking up the Land Registry will only reveal what someone has submitted to them previously, again don't make it true.
In the same way as having the V5 don't prove you're the owner of said car, or even if you are, it doesn't reveal if you owe £15k HP on it and aren't legally free to sell it to me. I could pay you £5000 and drive that car away with the V5 but the HP company will still be entitled to take it off me for non payment of the finance. Same goes (in simplified theory) with land, buildings, etc.
An unwary purchaser could pony up, say, £14M to (2 random names out of the air) Tick & Mony for some business and what they say are its premises. Only a dribbling buffoon would fail to seek out if anybody else had, or could claim, any legal or financial interest in any of those assets, premises etc. Again just fr'instance: there might be half a dozen other geezers who had registered documents with the relevant authority saying that they could be entitled to a total, say, £7M if certain events took place e.g. Tick'n'Mony sold the business or the land.
Call me a fantasist but it's just about conceivable that a chap, let's call him J, might be asked by the courts to establish that he J is the beneficial owner of a company incorporated in some offshore tax haven and that company might have a stake in a UK business that J used to run/own/front/whatever. If J can't establish to that court's satisfaction that he is that beneficial owner, then would you cheerfully buy a business from J? That court ain't asking for proof beyond doubt that J owns what he says he owns, just that it can reasonably be established. If J can't establish that, it might suggest to a prudent purchaser that other unknown parties could claim a slice of J's alleged business.
Those examples are obviously off the top of my head and in no way potted summaries of any actual cases that ever happened at all, anywhere.
Up to the would be purchaser of course but the higher the purchase price, the greater the need for sensible investigation of what's being bought and who else might be interested. Digging out all the necessary could sensibly take months. If any chickens come home to roost or skellingtons fall out of any closets (brass ownership plaques notwithstanding) the purchaser will have to consider whether the original ticket price for the business/asset/premises/closet/chairs/statue requires adjustment.
The more premises, plots of land, rights of way, leases or debentures involved in a deal, the work is multiplied exponentially to establish the bona fidés of it all.
With apologies for another house purchase analogy: anyone who's ever bought or sold a house will likely have seen how much time gets used up by solicitors in the simplest admin, and that's when the fees barely top £1000 - imagine the lawyers' fee justification time on a £50M deal?
Never underestimate the time and money that just gets burned up when dealing with the twunt, because he's the twunt.
Just to reiterate that I've made all of that up for the purposes of analogy to illustrate hypothetical outcomes of imagined scenarios, huh.
However much money ESI have, or don't have at least take comfort in their apparent aversion to 'sold as seen'.
I can't help but feel that all of this is Matt Southall's 'dream' of being the owner & chairman of a football club. He has 'sold' the idea to business partner, friend and confidant (Nimer) on the basis that he could, with a 5 year plan, turn a decent profit (bit like the spivs did with Kevin Cash). If it all starts to 'come apart at the seams' then we could be in trouble again. People keep saying that "Nimer is loaded" ... well (a) we don't know that for sure and (b) even if he is loaded then it doesn't mean he will spend any of it on the club. The entity that 'owns' us is called East Street Investments (and you don't invest to throw away your own money). I agree with all those saying lets give ESI more time and see what happens in June/July but I do think there is a lot of risk in there.
Exactly, although I think things may kick off when Roland doesn’t get his money.
The best guarantee that ESI will complete is that RD must have got a cast iron arrangement that delivers the shekels. In return ESI acquire the ownership of the holding company/freeholds. Last thing RD wants is a default and both he and EFL must have evidence that ESI is good for the money.
At the moment I assume RD is collecting interest under the new loan agreement with Staprix which I also assume is a commercial rate rather than the mates rate of 2.5% (3%?) between CAFC and Staprix for the existing debt.
Conspiracy theory would be RD happy long term to get a commercial return on his £60m investment in CAFC and ESI is happy not to have to shell out £60m up front to acquire the freeholds. If ESI have access to sufficient funds to buy and run the club (which presumably they had to show evidence of to both EFL and RD) it is dead money if its sitting in cash and will be dead money if used now to acquire the freeholds. If instead ESI can use the funds they have proven access to, for running the club and improving the squad it makes entire financial sense for ESI to continue as a sitting tenant. It would also make financial sense for RD if it is the case that RD does not want the bother of investing £60m cash in a new enterprise, and is happy with a fixed return of capital/interest over time.
This arrangement would contradict the statements made so far.
Of course, the 6 months mentioned might well be a 6 month period over which the Staprix debt is being deferred/repaid in stages, that RD wants his £60m in cash and there is no intention of a long term tenant relationship. This could be technically consistent with the statement about making the priority the control of the club and playing squad and everything else would be sorted out in 6 months.
If it were long term, the risks associated with splitting ownership of the ground and ownership of the club is of serious concern if the club is paying a full commercial rent (as per the old Gliksten/Sunley arrangements) but if its a benign token rent fixed for 99 years, plus a fixed repayment schedule for the £60m over time, it is not a material financial exposure for the club as long as ESI do have access to serious money and do not default on the loan agreement. Staprix, as freeholder with a 99 year lease granted to the sitting tenant, can't do anything with the ground other than collect the rent or sell it on for its negligible rental income value.
So personally, I am not losing sleep about ownership of the ground just yet - as long as ESI are not relying on future operating profits to finance the purchase, it really does have access to serious money and is not significantly reliant on commercial debt. How it finances the purchase is not necessarily a sign of how much wealth ESI has, if given benefit of the doubt, it is as likely simply to reflect what makes best use of finance available to ESI.
It's hard to see what Roland would do if ESI imploded and he didn't get his money. Would he take the club, staff and players back? Would he let us go to the wall? Given the Valley is going nowhere fast as a non-football/non-community site, (the training ground is a bit different, given recent developments in the area...but my loyalty has been to the club, the Valley and the immediate area, rather than the training ground), I'm inclined to think the most likely "worst case" scenario would be a period of decline with the club having a lengthy spell in League One/League Two under "owners" who lack the funds to do very much else with it....paying whatever they can to Roland to use the ground and having debts that steadily mount.
I was going to give your post a like until you mentioned us "going to the wall"
Well....we are not in the same world that we were in during 2015-2016. Personally I think this is the most precarious position the club has been in since the mid 80s. The slender thread that might save us is that there isn't any clear advantage to RD in washing his hands completely and forcing the issue.
According to Wynn Grant on his 'blog' - Addicks Championship Diary - I've copied below a small section and I've highlighted what I consider to be a potentially important line-:
Roland still has a financial stranglehold on the club.
Anyone who doubts this should read the documentation online at Companies House. It is quite complex as is the company structure (including Baton 2010 Ltd), but in very simple terms ESI own the club, but not the real estate. A statement for Charlton Athletic Holdings is actually due today, but even if it is filed it may be a few days before it appears.
According to Wynn Grant on his 'blog' - Addicks Championship Diary - I've copied below a small section and I've highlighted what I consider to be a potentially important line-:
Roland still has a financial stranglehold on the club.
Anyone who doubts this should read the documentation online at Companies House. It is quite complex as is the company structure (including Baton 2010 Ltd), but in very simple terms ESI own the club, but not the real estate. A statement for Charlton Athletic Holdings is actually due today, but even if it is filed it may be a few days before it appears.
I presume this is the part ESI own?
ESI own Charlton Athletic Football Club Ltd not Charlton Athletic Holdings (as far as Companies House records currently show) and CAFC has the benefit of the lease for use of the ground. CAFC pays all the wages and expenses and collects all the revenue and is in complete control of all spending.
Holdings is still owned by Staprix and owns the freehold where the only benefit is the collection of the rent under the lease. The only "stranglehold" would be if Holdings is liable for the maintenance and development costs of the ground and refuses to make essential repairs/improvements. But most leases are on a full maintenance and repair basis where the tenant (CAFC in our case) is responsible. If not CAFC would require approval of Holdings to make improvements, even if paid by CAFC, which approval can't be withheld without good cause.
"Stranglehold" might be a bit over the top if Holdings has no financial obligations towards CAFC, where CAFC spending is entirely outside the control of Holdings and the freehold can only be sold on by Staprix/Holdings with the existing 99 year lease forever attached to CAFC.
Comments
Not heard that term before.
May the countdown begin.
That's a lot of season tickets!
An obvious loophole that was pointed out many time in the past.
If we stay in the Championship, continuing to meet his rent payments (and maintaining the ground and pitch to a reasonable standard) might - just - be possible. As would, possibly, attracting other investors interested in paying the price Roland wants to complete the sale.
Where it gets sticky is if the club are relegated. As things stand now I would reckon we need to take 15 points from the final 10 games to be certain of staying up. This means playing better than Riga managed in 2015-2016 (when we took 15 points from the final 12 games).
Were relegation to occur I can see a cycle of decline starting very quickly.
At the moment I assume RD is collecting interest under the new loan agreement with Staprix which I also assume is a commercial rate rather than the mates rate of 2.5% (3%?) between CAFC and Staprix for the existing debt.
Conspiracy theory would be RD happy long term to get a commercial return on his £60m investment in CAFC and ESI is happy not to have to shell out £60m up front to acquire the freeholds. If ESI have access to sufficient funds to buy and run the club (which presumably they had to show evidence of to both EFL and RD) it is dead money if its sitting in cash and will be dead money if used now to acquire the freeholds. If instead ESI can use the funds they have proven access to, for running the club and improving the squad it makes entire financial sense for ESI to continue as a sitting tenant. It would also make financial sense for RD if it is the case that RD does not want the bother of investing £60m cash in a new enterprise, and is happy with a fixed return of capital/interest over time.
This arrangement would contradict the statements made so far.
Of course, the 6 months mentioned might well be a 6 month period over which the Staprix debt is being deferred/repaid in stages, that RD wants his £60m in cash and there is no intention of a long term tenant relationship. This could be technically consistent with the statement about making the priority the control of the club and playing squad and everything else would be sorted out in 6 months.
If it were long term, the risks associated with splitting ownership of the ground and ownership of the club is of serious concern if the club is paying a full commercial rent (as per the old Gliksten/Sunley arrangements) but if its a benign token rent fixed for 99 years, plus a fixed repayment schedule for the £60m over time, it is not a material financial exposure for the club as long as ESI do have access to serious money and do not default on the loan agreement. Staprix, as freeholder with a 99 year lease granted to the sitting tenant, can't do anything with the ground other than collect the rent or sell it on for its negligible rental income value.
So personally, I am not losing sleep about ownership of the ground just yet - as long as ESI are not relying on future operating profits to finance the purchase, it really does have access to serious money and is not significantly reliant on commercial debt. How it finances the purchase is not necessarily a sign of how much wealth ESI has, if given benefit of the doubt, it is as likely simply to reflect what makes best use of finance available to ESI.
In the same way as having the V5 don't prove you're the owner of said car, or even if you are, it doesn't reveal if you owe £15k HP on it and aren't legally free to sell it to me. I could pay you £5000 and drive that car away with the V5 but the HP company will still be entitled to take it off me for non payment of the finance. Same goes (in simplified theory) with land, buildings, etc.
An unwary purchaser could pony up, say, £14M to (2 random names out of the air) Tick & Mony for some business and what they say are its premises. Only a dribbling buffoon would fail to seek out if anybody else had, or could claim, any legal or financial interest in any of those assets, premises etc. Again just fr'instance: there might be half a dozen other geezers who had registered documents with the relevant authority saying that they could be entitled to a total, say, £7M if certain events took place e.g. Tick'n'Mony sold the business or the land.
Call me a fantasist but it's just about conceivable that a chap, let's call him J, might be asked by the courts to establish that he J is the beneficial owner of a company incorporated in some offshore tax haven and that company might have a stake in a UK business that J used to run/own/front/whatever. If J can't establish to that court's satisfaction that he is that beneficial owner, then would you cheerfully buy a business from J? That court ain't asking for proof beyond doubt that J owns what he says he owns, just that it can reasonably be established. If J can't establish that, it might suggest to a prudent purchaser that other unknown parties could claim a slice of J's alleged business.
Those examples are obviously off the top of my head and in no way potted summaries of any actual cases that ever happened at all, anywhere.
Up to the would be purchaser of course but the higher the purchase price, the greater the need for sensible investigation of what's being bought and who else might be interested. Digging out all the necessary could sensibly take months. If any chickens come home to roost or skellingtons fall out of any closets (brass ownership plaques notwithstanding) the purchaser will have to consider whether the original ticket price for the business/asset/premises/closet/chairs/statue requires adjustment.
The more premises, plots of land, rights of way, leases or debentures involved in a deal, the work is multiplied exponentially to establish the bona fidés of it all.
With apologies for another house purchase analogy: anyone who's ever bought or sold a house will likely have seen how much time gets used up by solicitors in the simplest admin, and that's when the fees barely top £1000 - imagine the lawyers' fee justification time on a £50M deal?
Never underestimate the time and money that just gets burned up when dealing with the twunt, because he's the twunt.
Just to reiterate that I've made all of that up for the purposes of analogy to illustrate hypothetical outcomes of imagined scenarios, huh.
However much money ESI have, or don't have at least take comfort in their apparent aversion to 'sold as seen'.
Well....we are not in the same world that we were in during 2015-2016. Personally I think this is the most precarious position the club has been in since the mid 80s. The slender thread that might save us is that there isn't any clear advantage to RD in washing his hands completely and forcing the issue.
Duchatelet = Gliksten
Southall = Hulyer
ESI = Fryer and Sunleys
Hope I'm wrong but, as I said at the time, Roland's cryptic comment 'enjoy the moment' when the 'takeover' was announced concerned me at the time.
Really hope it's not the case.
Summer will be hugely telling.
Roland still has a financial stranglehold on the club.
Anyone who doubts this should read the documentation online at Companies House. It is quite complex as is the company structure (including Baton 2010 Ltd), but in very simple terms ESI own the club, but not the real estate. A statement for Charlton Athletic Holdings is actually due today, but even if it is filed it may be a few days before it appears.
I presume this is the part ESI own?
Holdings is still owned by Staprix and owns the freehold where the only benefit is the collection of the rent under the lease. The only "stranglehold" would be if Holdings is liable for the maintenance and development costs of the ground and refuses to make essential repairs/improvements. But most leases are on a full maintenance and repair basis where the tenant (CAFC in our case) is responsible. If not CAFC would require approval of Holdings to make improvements, even if paid by CAFC, which approval can't be withheld without good cause.
"Stranglehold" might be a bit over the top if Holdings has no financial obligations towards CAFC, where CAFC spending is entirely outside the control of Holdings and the freehold can only be sold on by Staprix/Holdings with the existing 99 year lease forever attached to CAFC.
Agree mate. The fact that we spent fuck all in the transfer window, especially given our precarious league position, speaks volumes.
I really do fear for the future.