You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
How much would a 2 bed apartment go for in Charlton? 350k-400k?
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
No, is the short answer. Too much uncertainty and not enough profit. And you’re overlooking that a big chunk can’t be sold at market price, and some not at all because they would be reserved for social rent.
Small point, but the affordable housing also has a gross value. Maybe about £100k-£150k per unit for the rented homes - funded by a housing association or a local authority.
£50m equates to about £15m per hectare at the Valley. That is not an unreasonable land valuation (with planning) when compared to resi and mixed use schemes I am aware of not too far away, all with a significant quantum of affordable housing and many not dissimilar in scale and nature to the development Duchatelet probably envisages for the Valley. Of course he doesn't have planning.
However, If you put all the barriers to one side (notably the abnormal ground costs at the Valley - topography, demolition, utilities etc - and whether the access constraints can support in excess of 150 homes per hectare) and for a moment go with his way of thinking that there is a viable route to releasing inherent value in the land, and that value is £50m, one major factor for me is time.
No rational developer would make an unconditional acquisition of the Valley, not at £50m. It would be an option subject to planning with the income coming to Duchatelet once planning is secured. I think there are few if any reputable UK developers who would take an option on the Valley at the moment given how politically toxic that would be, as an aside. He could of course seek to secure planning himself, but at significant cost and risk, and he won't see any income until he is the other side of a planning consent / JR etc and that in itself will require a negotiation, not a process he is noted for expediting.
But let's just assume everything falls his way - the club goes out of business, he finds a purchaser, the site costs are not excessive, he secures change of use and planning consent for the scale of scheme required to deliver a £50m residual value. How long will all of that take?
Being realistic on two matters - 1. he is never getting £50m from ESI or whoever inherits that deal, and - 2. to get his £50m from the land, securing a consent at the Valley will be an extremely protracted planning process, quite likely going to appeal if Greenwich refuse consent or judicial review in the unlikely event they approve it.
He is probably looking at something like at least six years for all the events and processes he needs to go his way to work through to a (for him) positive conclusion and cash in the bank. In my experience it can very often take three to four years or so for a sizeable scheme to get to committee, even in favourable commercial and political circumstances, never mind effectively being contingent on a professional football club going out of business - and these are schemes with experienced developers already in place. Add to that at least a year to 18 months for an appeal, then any subsequent legal processes and another 6-12 months to conclude a Section 106 agreement once he has his consent.
Assuming his average cost of capital is 6%, the £50m is worth about £35m today, and about £33m this time last year when the Australians were trying to close a deal with with him, less the ex-directors' loans. Wasn't £33m roughly what he had agreed with the Aussies?
Given the huge development risks involved, 6% is a very generous discount rate depending what side of the deal you sit on. If you increase it to 12%, which is roughly the annual rate of return a property developer would expect on average, his £50m is worth about £25m today, and this isn't an 'average' scheme.
I think we agree. My main point was to counter the glib assumptions that there is big financial potential in developing The Valley per se. In fact the viable schemes were all about releasing other more expensive land on the peninsula for market rate housing. That opportunity has gone.
It is absolutely the case that he is better off taking the money he can have now.
You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
How much would a 2 bed apartment go for in Charlton? 350k-400k?
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
No, is the short answer. Too much uncertainty and not enough profit. And you’re overlooking that a big chunk can’t be sold at market price, and some not at all because they would be reserved for social rent.
Small point, but the affordable housing also has a gross value. Maybe about £100k-£150k per unit for the rented homes - funded by a housing association or a local authority.
£50m equates to about £15m per hectare at the Valley. That is not an unreasonable land valuation (with planning) when compared to resi and mixed use schemes I am aware of not too far away, all with a significant quantum of affordable housing and many not dissimilar in scale and nature to the development Duchatelet probably envisages for the Valley. Of course he doesn't have planning.
However, If you put all the barriers to one side (notably the abnormal ground costs at the Valley - topography, demolition, utilities etc - and whether the access constraints can support in excess of 150 homes per hectare) and for a moment go with his way of thinking that there is a viable route to releasing inherent value in the land, and that value is £50m, one major factor for me is time.
No rational developer would make an unconditional acquisition of the Valley, not at £50m. It would be an option subject to planning with the income coming to Duchatelet once planning is secured. I think there are few if any reputable UK developers who would take an option on the Valley at the moment given how politically toxic that would be, as an aside. He could of course seek to secure planning himself, but at significant cost and risk, and he won't see any income until he is the other side of a planning consent / JR etc and that in itself will require a negotiation, not a process he is noted for expediting.
But let's just assume everything falls his way - the club goes out of business, he finds a purchaser, the site costs are not excessive, he secures change of use and planning consent for the scale of scheme required to deliver a £50m residual value. How long will all of that take?
Being realistic on two matters - 1. he is never getting £50m from ESI or whoever inherits that deal, and - 2. to get his £50m from the land, securing a consent at the Valley will be an extremely protracted planning process, quite likely going to appeal if Greenwich refuse consent or judicial review in the unlikely event they approve it.
He is probably looking at something like at least six years for all the events and processes he needs to go his way to work through to a (for him) positive conclusion and cash in the bank. In my experience it can very often take three to four years or so for a sizeable scheme to get to committee, even in favourable commercial and political circumstances, never mind effectively being contingent on a professional football club going out of business - and these are schemes with experienced developers already in place. Add to that at least a year to 18 months for an appeal, then any subsequent legal processes and another 6-12 months to conclude a Section 106 agreement once he has his consent.
Assuming his average cost of capital is 6%, the £50m is worth about £35m today, and about £33m this time last year when the Australians were trying to close a deal with with him, less the ex-directors' loans. Wasn't £33m roughly what he had agreed with the Aussies?
Given the huge development risks involved, 6% is a very generous discount rate depending what side of the deal you sit on. If you increase it to 12%, which is roughly the annual rate of return a property developer would expect on average, his £50m is worth about £25m today, and this isn't an 'average' scheme.
I think we agree. My main point was to counter the glib assumptions that there is big financial potential in developing The Valley per se. In fact the viable schemes were all about releasing other more expensive land on the peninsula for market rate housing. That opportunity has gone.
It is absolutely the case that he is better off taking the money he can have now.
Yes.
The problem, as others have suggested, is that he needs to see this himself.
Maybe the council could be persuaded to be proactive in having that conversation with him, assuming they haven't done so already.
I'd prefer to see AB (not you) steer clear of some of the more political stuff on Twitter, btw.
You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
How much would a 2 bed apartment go for in Charlton? 350k-400k?
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
No, is the short answer. Too much uncertainty and not enough profit. And you’re overlooking that a big chunk can’t be sold at market price, and some not at all because they would be reserved for social rent.
Small point, but the affordable housing also has a gross value. Maybe about £100k-£150k per unit for the rented homes - funded by a housing association or a local authority.
£50m equates to about £15m per hectare at the Valley. That is not an unreasonable land valuation (with planning) when compared to resi and mixed use schemes I am aware of not too far away, all with a significant quantum of affordable housing and many not dissimilar in scale and nature to the development Duchatelet probably envisages for the Valley. Of course he doesn't have planning.
However, If you put all the barriers to one side (notably the abnormal ground costs at the Valley - topography, demolition, utilities etc - and whether the access constraints can support in excess of 150 homes per hectare) and for a moment go with his way of thinking that there is a viable route to releasing inherent value in the land, and that value is £50m, one major factor for me is time.
No rational developer would make an unconditional acquisition of the Valley, not at £50m. It would be an option subject to planning with the income coming to Duchatelet once planning is secured. I think there are few if any reputable UK developers who would take an option on the Valley at the moment given how politically toxic that would be, as an aside. He could of course seek to secure planning himself, but at significant cost and risk, and he won't see any income until he is the other side of a planning consent / JR etc and that in itself will require a negotiation, not a process he is noted for expediting.
But let's just assume everything falls his way - the club goes out of business, he finds a purchaser, the site costs are not excessive, he secures change of use and planning consent for the scale of scheme required to deliver a £50m residual value. How long will all of that take?
Being realistic on two matters - 1. he is never getting £50m from ESI or whoever inherits that deal, and - 2. to get his £50m from the land, securing a consent at the Valley will be an extremely protracted planning process, quite likely going to appeal if Greenwich refuse consent or judicial review in the unlikely event they approve it.
He is probably looking at something like at least six years for all the events and processes he needs to go his way to work through to a (for him) positive conclusion and cash in the bank. In my experience it can very often take three to four years or so for a sizeable scheme to get to committee, even in favourable commercial and political circumstances, never mind effectively being contingent on a professional football club going out of business - and these are schemes with experienced developers already in place. Add to that at least a year to 18 months for an appeal, then any subsequent legal processes and another 6-12 months to conclude a Section 106 agreement once he has his consent.
Assuming his average cost of capital is 6%, the £50m is worth about £35m today, and about £33m this time last year when the Australians were trying to close a deal with with him, less the ex-directors' loans. Wasn't £33m roughly what he had agreed with the Aussies?
Given the huge development risks involved, 6% is a very generous discount rate depending what side of the deal you sit on. If you increase it to 12%, which is roughly the annual rate of return a property developer would expect on average, his £50m is worth about £25m today, and this isn't an 'average' scheme.
I think we agree. My main point was to counter the glib assumptions that there is big financial potential in developing The Valley per se. In fact the viable schemes were all about releasing other more expensive land on the peninsula for market rate housing. That opportunity has gone.
It is absolutely the case that he is better off taking the money he can have now.
Yes.
The problem, as others have suggested, is that he needs to see this himself.
Maybe the council could be persuaded to be proactive in having that conversation with him, assuming they haven't done so already.
I'd prefer to see AB (not you) steer clear of some of the more political stuff on Twitter, btw.
I think this is an excellent summary sufficient to show why RD should be sitting round the table with serious potential owners and why it's difficult to confer credibility on the conspiracy theory of RD's behaviour to destroy CAFC.
I tend towards the views that Southall was used as a crooked useful idiot, and the others as small time racketeers connected to either Nimer or Southall looking to flip the club for a few quid. And it all unravelled due to the actors thinking Nimer's pension pot would pass muster as proof of funds and EFL fearful over facilitating another Bury collapse have just stalled the process in the hope that a viable new owner appears on the scene.
There is another aspect to all this that has been bothering me. Roland came out last year to say that he would be willing to give the club away for nothing but would want paying for the assets did he not? I think this would have alerted the crooks to the opportunity, but explain this to me.
Why did ESI not agree a price to be paid within a period without a commitment on their part. The bit of the club they purchased was being advertised for free wasn't it? So you take what is free and commit yourself to paying £50m, a price we know is far higher than the assets are even worth. This price now puts a value on the club of £50m as that is what any new buyer would have to commit to. Could somebody explain why they would want to do that if they were not in on it with Roland?
I appreciate one may need to go with the other. But £50m? Pull the other one!
You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
How much would a 2 bed apartment go for in Charlton? 350k-400k?
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
No, is the short answer. Too much uncertainty and not enough profit. And you’re overlooking that a big chunk can’t be sold at market price, and some not at all because they would be reserved for social rent.
Small point, but the affordable housing also has a gross value. Maybe about £100k-£150k per unit for the rented homes - funded by a housing association or a local authority.
£50m equates to about £15m per hectare at the Valley. That is not an unreasonable land valuation (with planning) when compared to resi and mixed use schemes I am aware of not too far away, all with a significant quantum of affordable housing and many not dissimilar in scale and nature to the development Duchatelet probably envisages for the Valley. Of course he doesn't have planning.
However, If you put all the barriers to one side (notably the abnormal ground costs at the Valley - topography, demolition, utilities etc - and whether the access constraints can support in excess of 150 homes per hectare) and for a moment go with his way of thinking that there is a viable route to releasing inherent value in the land, and that value is £50m, one major factor for me is time.
No rational developer would make an unconditional acquisition of the Valley, not at £50m. It would be an option subject to planning with the income coming to Duchatelet once planning is secured. I think there are few if any reputable UK developers who would take an option on the Valley at the moment given how politically toxic that would be, as an aside. He could of course seek to secure planning himself, but at significant cost and risk, and he won't see any income until he is the other side of a planning consent / JR etc and that in itself will require a negotiation, not a process he is noted for expediting.
But let's just assume everything falls his way - the club goes out of business, he finds a purchaser, the site costs are not excessive, he secures change of use and planning consent for the scale of scheme required to deliver a £50m residual value. How long will all of that take?
Being realistic on two matters - 1. he is never getting £50m from ESI or whoever inherits that deal, and - 2. to get his £50m from the land, securing a consent at the Valley will be an extremely protracted planning process, quite likely going to appeal if Greenwich refuse consent or judicial review in the unlikely event they approve it.
He is probably looking at something like at least six years for all the events and processes he needs to go his way to work through to a (for him) positive conclusion and cash in the bank. In my experience it can very often take three to four years or so for a sizeable scheme to get to committee, even in favourable commercial and political circumstances, never mind effectively being contingent on a professional football club going out of business - and these are schemes with experienced developers already in place. Add to that at least a year to 18 months for an appeal, then any subsequent legal processes and another 6-12 months to conclude a Section 106 agreement once he has his consent.
Assuming his average cost of capital is 6%, the £50m is worth about £35m today, and about £33m this time last year when the Australians were trying to close a deal with with him, less the ex-directors' loans. Wasn't £33m roughly what he had agreed with the Aussies?
Given the huge development risks involved, 6% is a very generous discount rate depending what side of the deal you sit on. If you increase it to 12%, which is roughly the annual rate of return a property developer would expect on average, his £50m is worth about £25m today, and this isn't an 'average' scheme.
I think we agree. My main point was to counter the glib assumptions that there is big financial potential in developing The Valley per se. In fact the viable schemes were all about releasing other more expensive land on the peninsula for market rate housing. That opportunity has gone.
It is absolutely the case that he is better off taking the money he can have now.
Yes.
The problem, as others have suggested, is that he needs to see this himself.
Maybe the council could be persuaded to be proactive in having that conversation with him, assuming they haven't done so already.
I'd prefer to see AB (not you) steer clear of some of the more political stuff on Twitter, btw.
I think this is an excellent summary sufficient to show why RD should be sitting round the table with serious potential owners and why it's difficult to confer credibility on the conspiracy theory of RD's behaviour to destroy CAFC.
I tend towards the views that Southall was used as a crooked useful idiot, and the others as small time racketeers connected to either Nimer or Southall looking to flip the club for a few quid. And it all unravelled due to the actors thinking Nimer's pension pot would pass muster as proof of funds and EFL fearful over facilitating another Bury collapse have just stalled the process in the hope that a viable new owner appears on the scene.
It isn't difficult at all. Roland only has to think he will get more money if the club dies. It is pointless pointing out how that might not be the case. The issue is about Roland's deranged mind. Nobody has been able to explain why Nimer was willing to legally commit himself to a ridiculous price, unless he knew he would never be paying it. And meanwhile this price is an obstacle to anybody serious buying from ESI and those interested are stallers, there to take our eyes off the ball. Varney and Barclay, who are not stallers, are actually not getting any co-operation from ESI or Roland!
Isn't the £50m price equivalent to what Roland considers he has lost/'invested" and therefore wants to recoup?
And the charge to Staprix is assumed to be that value is it not? So pay the charge, clear the debt and meet his asking price all in one transaction? (Excuse my ignorance and fact this must have been covered elsewhere!)
Here is the millionaire who negotiates the purchase of the Dinamo club
Photo: Charlton
A Belgian millionaire is currently negotiating the purchase of the Dinamo club.
It is about Roland Duchatelet, a 72-year-old Belgian with an estimated fortune of 500 million euros, according to Fanatik.
Duchatelet was the owner of Standard Liege and was also a shareholder in Ujpest (Hungary), Carl Zeis Jenna (Germany), Charlton (England), Alcorcon (Spain) and Sint-Truiden (Belgium).
Although he has an impressive fortune, the Belgian is very thoughtful. For example, when he was Charlton's owner, he decided that the junior football players should no longer drink bottled plain water but only tap water.
He is an economist and engineer, and his business is in the field of electronics.
Ionut Negoita demands 8 million euros in exchange for the shares from Dinamo, and Mircea Rednic mediates the negotiations.
The appointment of Claudiu Florică and Marian Mihail to the board of Charlton was possible after the removal of Matt Southall and Jonathan Heller, on Thursday, from the management positions. The British had long been in a belligerent situation with Sheikh Tahnoon, with multiple accusations between the parties. Now, the Romanians have to solve a thorny problem at the new job, as the club has an embargo on transfers. Charlton was going through hard times. It was owned by the controversial businessman, Roland Duchatelet, whom Mircea Rednic tried in 2019 to bring to Dinamo! "Puriul" is a good old friend of Duchatelet. The Belgian sold the British club to the consortium of which Sheikh Tahnoon is part in January 2020. Tahnoon was also at the Romanian Derby, he visited Bucharest, he still wants to take over Dinamo.
Comments
The problem, as others have suggested, is that he needs to see this himself.
Maybe the council could be persuaded to be proactive in having that conversation with him, assuming they haven't done so already.
I'd prefer to see AB (not you) steer clear of some of the more political stuff on Twitter, btw.
I tend towards the views that Southall was used as a crooked useful idiot, and the others as small time racketeers connected to either Nimer or Southall looking to flip the club for a few quid. And it all unravelled due to the actors thinking Nimer's pension pot would pass muster as proof of funds and EFL fearful over facilitating another Bury collapse have just stalled the process in the hope that a viable new owner appears on the scene.
Why did ESI not agree a price to be paid within a period without a commitment on their part. The bit of the club they purchased was being advertised for free wasn't it? So you take what is free and commit yourself to paying £50m, a price we know is far higher than the assets are even worth. This price now puts a value on the club of £50m as that is what any new buyer would have to commit to. Could somebody explain why they would want to do that if they were not in on it with Roland?
I appreciate one may need to go with the other. But £50m? Pull the other one!
And the charge to Staprix is assumed to be that value is it not? So pay the charge, clear the debt and meet his asking price all in one transaction? (Excuse my ignorance and fact this must have been covered elsewhere!)
@MuttleyCAFC might appreciate them at least.
I went off the idea of a link between RD and Florica via Rednic, ex-Standard Liege manager, but these articles from Romania purport it-
https://m.ziare.com/dinamo/iata-cine-e-milionarul-care-negociaza-cumpararea-clubului-dinamo-1547040
Here is the millionaire who negotiates the purchase of the Dinamo club
Photo: Charlton
It is about Roland Duchatelet, a 72-year-old Belgian with an estimated fortune of 500 million euros, according to Fanatik.
Duchatelet was the owner of Standard Liege and was also a shareholder in Ujpest (Hungary), Carl Zeis Jenna (Germany), Charlton (England), Alcorcon (Spain) and Sint-Truiden (Belgium).
Although he has an impressive fortune, the Belgian is very thoughtful. For example, when he was Charlton's owner, he decided that the junior football players should no longer drink bottled plain water but only tap water.
He is an economist and engineer, and his business is in the field of electronics.
Ionut Negoita demands 8 million euros in exchange for the shares from Dinamo, and Mircea Rednic mediates the negotiations.
From March 2020 in connection with discussing Florica's appointment to cafc board-
https://www.gsp.ro/international/campionate/claudiu-florica-a-intrat-in-consiliul-de-administratie-de-la-charlton-e-adevarat-dar-nu-renunt-la-dinamo-593490.html
Extract-
They took Charlton from "Rednic's man"
The appointment of Claudiu Florică and Marian Mihail to the board of Charlton was possible after the removal of Matt Southall and Jonathan Heller, on Thursday, from the management positions. The British had long been in a belligerent situation with Sheikh Tahnoon, with multiple accusations between the parties. Now, the Romanians have to solve a thorny problem at the new job, as the club has an embargo on transfers. Charlton was going through hard times. It was owned by the controversial businessman, Roland Duchatelet, whom Mircea Rednic tried in 2019 to bring to Dinamo! "Puriul" is a good old friend of Duchatelet. The Belgian sold the British club to the consortium of which Sheikh Tahnoon is part in January 2020. Tahnoon was also at the Romanian Derby, he visited Bucharest, he still wants to take over Dinamo.