Can we all perhaps make a pact to hold off from immediately going balls deep and rolling out the red carpet and hero worship with the next potential chancer who turns up with the keys to big top tent of CAFC until they actually demonstrate actions to back up words whoever that may be.
I know that will be difficult given it's in our DNA now from the past 15 years but it may save a fair bit of heartache and dignity down the road.
But...what if they have a twitter account and pose in photos with fans?
Surely that alone means they mean business, they instantly understand the club and are Charlton through and through
Eutopia: Prospective new owners are a consortium fronted by actual "football people", funded by money which doesn't trace back to a state with an appalling human rights record.
Dystopia: More Duchatelet/Sandgaard megalomaniacs or ESI style criminals.
Reality: Regardless of owners, we're destined to be a yo-yo club bouncing between Championship and League One. Let's hope so anyway! Being League Two bound ain't much fun is it?
While I'm here, do you think we could refrain from remotely diagnosing people with personality disorders, developmental or mental health issues? It was bad enough people wanging on about Duchatelet being autistic when he owned us, without claiming that Sandgaard has NPD.
Sometimes, people are just gits or arseholes.
With the greatest respect that’s the part where people find it easier just to go along with it. Won’t mention it again though 👍🏻
Roland is much less of a problem than he was two years ago.
Thomas will sell.
The "total package" will cost less than the aussies agreed, especially if your not paying in £s.
Mistic Meg time but I suspect our next owner will be greated with much more hostility/scepticism than the last half a dozen but after about 18 months we will be much happier.
The next two owners are critical
Do you know the asking price then for the club and SL?
Well he’s saying less than £35m inc freeholds. Can’t see that happening, but hope I’m wrong.
RD is asking for less than £35m? Where have you heard that?
How reliable are these sources that we are up for sale? More importantly are these buyers ones that have the required dosh to put us on an upwardly mobile direction or are they ESI type characters?
Difference between being up for sale and people looking to buy. Not sure about the first but confident about the second. And the money.
@Airman Brown Do you mean you are confident both that the business credentials and the wealth of those interested is sufficient to improve our club’s fortunes?
Roland is much less of a problem than he was two years ago.
Thomas will sell.
The "total package" will cost less than the aussies agreed, especially if your not paying in £s.
Mistic Meg time but I suspect our next owner will be greated with much more hostility/scepticism than the last half a dozen but after about 18 months we will be much happier.
The next two owners are critical
Do you know the asking price then for the club and SL?
Well he’s saying less than £35m inc freeholds. Can’t see that happening, but hope I’m wrong.
RD is asking for less than £35m? Where have you heard that?
From my original comment.
Roland is winding down. I can't see his family being as stubborn on the price as he is/was, especially if Thomas's rent was in question.
Factor in the exchange rate of the USD compared to sterling and the euro.
If your buying in USDs I could see you getting the lot for, relatively, less than the aussies would have paid.
I imagine that if TS sells, he'll have to pay RD an early termination fee on his lease agreement as RD will have to negotiate with another party to take it on.
Alternatively, RD might then decide to sell outright, but I doubt he's ready to do that yet. He'll want to have more regular income streams and bide his time waiting for property prices to go up markedly, narrowing the gap between what he shelled out and what he ultimately gets back.
Also, we don't know what RD's personal tax arrangements are and what his preference is for receiving income over capital gains from asset sales, which might impact his decision making. Therefore, for someone to make him an offer he simply can't refuse might be necessary to convince him to sell.
The lease is not with TS, it is with Charlton. They are seperate legal entities. If TS sells the limited company (which has the golden share of league football so is all he has to sell) then RD will not need to get involved.
That said, any decent new owner would hopefully buy the property assets at the same time from RD anyway.
We can but hope and Airman's comments give me some hope!
A good owner with club and assets and an U18 team which just thrashed Liverpool. The apathy would disappear immediately!
I don't want to labour the point, but just to be clear, with Charlton being the tennant in the leasing arrangement, are you saying RD didn't need to get involved before when the limited company was sold, but did.
And the reason why he did and negotiated revised terms with TS was because it was of mutual benefit in that the original clause requiring payments of up to £50M was dropped, at TS's insistence, with increased rental payments agreed instead to facilitate the deal for TS to buy Charlton, RD wanting to avert the possibility of having to pay back £7M in director loans if TS had walked away and no other buyer could be found, with Charlton then going into Administration.
Regarding the rent set up to Duchatelet and one possibly for @Airman Brown
I believe the total rent liability adds up to £7.578 million over 15 years paid in different instalments. So roughly just over half a million £ a year. ( I think the first installment of 623k may already have been paid?) How does that represent as a value for money compared to other clubs that lease their ground from a third party. I know location and size of property would have varying factors, but just wondering if that is a reasonable charge should someone else be looking to take it on??
Anyone? It will have a big bearing on the next incumbents won't it? should they not manage to convince the old scroat to sell up or not even be looking to?
I imagine that if TS sells, he'll have to pay RD an early termination fee on his lease agreement as RD will have to negotiate with another party to take it on.
Alternatively, RD might then decide to sell outright, but I doubt he's ready to do that yet. He'll want to have more regular income streams and bide his time waiting for property prices to go up markedly, narrowing the gap between what he shelled out and what he ultimately gets back.
Also, we don't know what RD's personal tax arrangements are and what his preference is for receiving income over capital gains from asset sales, which might impact his decision making. Therefore, for someone to make him an offer he simply can't refuse might be necessary to convince him to sell.
The lease is not with TS, it is with Charlton. They are seperate legal entities. If TS sells the limited company (which has the golden share of league football so is all he has to sell) then RD will not need to get involved.
That said, any decent new owner would hopefully buy the property assets at the same time from RD anyway.
We can but hope and Airman's comments give me some hope!
A good owner with club and assets and an U18 team which just thrashed Liverpool. The apathy would disappear immediately!
I don't want to labour the point, but just to be clear, with Charlton being the tennant in the leasing arrangement, are you saying RD didn't need to get involved before when the limited company was sold, but did.
And the reason why he did and negotiated revised terms with TS was because it was of mutual benefit in that the original clause requiring payments of up to £50M was dropped, at TS's insistence, with increased rental payments agreed instead to facilitate the deal for TS to buy Charlton, RD wanting to avert the possibility of having to pay back £7M in director loans if TS had walked away and no other buyer could be found, with Charlton then going into Administration.
Have I got that right now?
I have no intimate knowledge of the negotiations that happened last time but correct, the lease is with Charlton ( it can be found on Land Registry if someone wanted to pay), and the freeholder would have no input on who was the owner of Charlton (unless specifically written in the lease which would be highly unusual and ridiculous for any owner of the operational football club to agree).
I believe when TS came in he wanted rid of the £50M obligation and RD could see the fake Sheikh was never going to be good for it so it was mutually beneficial for both to negotiate a completely different lease and rip up the old one.
As a comparison, if Boots the chemist changes ownership, they would not lose the lease on all of their stores.
I imagine that if TS sells, he'll have to pay RD an early termination fee on his lease agreement as RD will have to negotiate with another party to take it on.
Alternatively, RD might then decide to sell outright, but I doubt he's ready to do that yet. He'll want to have more regular income streams and bide his time waiting for property prices to go up markedly, narrowing the gap between what he shelled out and what he ultimately gets back.
Also, we don't know what RD's personal tax arrangements are and what his preference is for receiving income over capital gains from asset sales, which might impact his decision making. Therefore, for someone to make him an offer he simply can't refuse might be necessary to convince him to sell.
The lease is not with TS, it is with Charlton. They are seperate legal entities. If TS sells the limited company (which has the golden share of league football so is all he has to sell) then RD will not need to get involved.
That said, any decent new owner would hopefully buy the property assets at the same time from RD anyway.
We can but hope and Airman's comments give me some hope!
A good owner with club and assets and an U18 team which just thrashed Liverpool. The apathy would disappear immediately!
I don't want to labour the point, but just to be clear, with Charlton being the tennant in the leasing arrangement, are you saying RD didn't need to get involved before when the limited company was sold, but did.
And the reason why he did and negotiated revised terms with TS was because it was of mutual benefit in that the original clause requiring payments of up to £50M was dropped, at TS's insistence, with increased rental payments agreed instead to facilitate the deal for TS to buy Charlton, RD wanting to avert the possibility of having to pay back £7M in director loans if TS had walked away and no other buyer could be found, with Charlton then going into Administration.
Have I got that right now?
I have no intimate knowledge of the negotiations that happened last time but correct, the lease is with Charlton ( it can be found on Land Registry if someone wanted to pay), and the freeholder would have no input on who was the owner of Charlton (unless specifically written in the lease which would be highly unusual and ridiculous for any owner of the operational football club to agree).
I believe when TS came in he wanted rid of the £50M obligation and RD could see the fake Sheikh was never going to be good for it so it was mutually beneficial for both to negotiate a completely different lease and rip up the old one.
As a comparison, if Boots the chemist changes ownership, they would not lose the lease on all of their stores.
That's reassuring. Not having that £50M contract term in place is going to make the next sale easier then because RD can't prevent it if the new owner is willing to take on the existing arrangement.
@carly burn has rightly queried whether it's good value as it might be off-putting if exorbitant, but for all his faults, I don't think TS and his legal advisors necessarily did a poor job there. ESI just got the fat juicy worm rate to put Charlton on the hook for £50M.🎣
The lease provides security going forward and a sale can be negotiated further down the line, perhaps when we're in the Premiership playing in Europe 🤣
I know it's mental saying this but I think Mike Ashley would be excellent for us. We'd not agree with all of his decisions (renaming the stadium) but I think we'd end up in a much better place than we have been for a few years.
I know it's mental saying this but I think Mike Ashley would be excellent for us. We'd not agree with all of his decisions (renaming the stadium) but I think we'd end up in a much better place than we have been for a few years.
I know it's mental saying this but I think Mike Ashley would be excellent for us. We'd not agree with all of his decisions (renaming the stadium) but I think we'd end up in a much better place than we have been for a few years.
Can't believe I typed that.
It would fit with CAFC43V3R's comments about lots of initial scepticism but eventual success too.
I know it's mental saying this but I think Mike Ashley would be excellent for us. We'd not agree with all of his decisions (renaming the stadium) but I think we'd end up in a much better place than we have been for a few years.
Can't believe I typed that.
Christ, You’d bite Mike Ashley’s hand off at the moment wouldnt you?
If nothing else he’ll make you a decent prospect to sell on.
We clearly need a bit of stability. Not crazy spending but backing the manager to achieve something and get on with it quietly and efficiently. I am glad Sandgaard doesn't have the Valley and i'm not sure somebody buying it is that important as long as the rent is reasonable as the best time to buy it will be when we have found success. £500k a year for the Valley and training ground with an incentive to own it when we get promoted to the Premier League seems logical to me.
I know Fulham are in an attractive location and that answers it really I guess but they seem to have no trouble attracting a string of owners willing to plow in mega millions and there’s no way they have a bigger support than us - the big money has always been attracted to west and north London I guess
Football is so fucking stupid. They say you get out of life what you put in - well I put in a season ticket every year, but it feels I'll only get anything remotely palatable out of it if by providence Charlton manages to successfully whore itself out to some overwealthy dickhead who doesn't mind spending vast sums on placating their own ego. When will the bottom fall out of this mind-numbing procession?
I know Fulham are in an attractive location and that answers it really I guess but they seem to have no trouble attracting a string of owners willing to plow in mega millions and there’s no way they have a bigger support than us - the big money has always been attracted to west and north London I guess
Better catchment area now the middle and upper classes have stolen top flight football (in the south anyway) from the working classes
1. Will the new owner be normal and or professional?
Probably not
2. Will the new owner know a lot about football?
It's unlikely
3. Will the new owner hold required wealth to run a football club?
£25million is now more favourable instead of just a £1. Plus £75million for the valley...(which will be rejected after the offer is made) and your gana need a lot of money for everything else!
4. Will the new owner be mad?
Yes
5. Will the new owner just be buying Charlton as an advertising method for their own benefit?
Somethings gotta give. They won't all of a sudden be actual Charlton athletic supporters.
6. Will the new owner remain quiet and just allow football to be an enjoyable sport for the clubs supporters?
No Dave, now sign out of charltonlife and get a lunchtime kebab, you seem to be going off on one.
I know it's mental saying this but I think Mike Ashley would be excellent for us. We'd not agree with all of his decisions (renaming the stadium) but I think we'd end up in a much better place than we have been for a few years.
Can't believe I typed that.
Christ, You’d bite Mike Ashley’s hand off at the moment wouldnt you?
If nothing else he’ll make you a decent prospect to sell on.
And I can't believe I am agreeing with a Millwall fan.
Roland is much less of a problem than he was two years ago.
Thomas will sell.
The "total package" will cost less than the aussies agreed, especially if your not paying in £s.
Mistic Meg time but I suspect our next owner will be greated with much more hostility/scepticism than the last half a dozen but after about 18 months we will be much happier.
The next two owners are critical
Do you know the asking price then for the club and SL?
Well he’s saying less than £35m inc freeholds. Can’t see that happening, but hope I’m wrong.
RD is asking for less than £35m? Where have you heard that?
Ashley would be interesting, think I read he was beginning to step back from Sports direct. I think the biggest issue Newcastle had was he wouldn't invest heavily in the PL, I'd love it if we could have that problem
I'd be surprised if it was Ashley. Can see possibly another American group as an option, potentially one with some kind of sports background as they seem to be buying stakes in clubs galore at the moment
Comments
But...what if they have a twitter account and pose in photos with fans?
Surely that alone means they mean business, they instantly understand the club and are Charlton through and through
Prospective new owners are a consortium fronted by actual "football people", funded by money which doesn't trace back to a state with an appalling human rights record.
Dystopia:
More Duchatelet/Sandgaard megalomaniacs or ESI style criminals.
Reality:
Regardless of owners, we're destined to be a yo-yo club bouncing between Championship and League One. Let's hope so anyway! Being League Two bound ain't much fun is it?
Won’t mention it again though 👍🏻
Roland is winding down. I can't see his family being as stubborn on the price as he is/was, especially if Thomas's rent was in question.
Factor in the exchange rate of the USD compared to sterling and the euro.
If your buying in USDs I could see you getting the lot for, relatively, less than the aussies would have paid.
And the reason why he did and negotiated revised terms with TS was because it was of mutual benefit in that the original clause requiring payments of up to £50M was dropped, at TS's insistence, with increased rental payments agreed instead to facilitate the deal for TS to buy Charlton, RD wanting to avert the possibility of having to pay back £7M in director loans if TS had walked away and no other buyer could be found, with Charlton then going into Administration.
Have I got that right now?
It will have a big bearing on the next incumbents won't it? should they not manage to convince the old scroat to sell up or not even be looking to?
I have no intimate knowledge of the negotiations that happened last time but correct, the lease is with Charlton ( it can be found on Land Registry if someone wanted to pay), and the freeholder would have no input on who was the owner of Charlton (unless specifically written in the lease which would be highly unusual and ridiculous for any owner of the operational football club to agree).
I believe when TS came in he wanted rid of the £50M obligation and RD could see the fake Sheikh was never going to be good for it so it was mutually beneficial for both to negotiate a completely different lease and rip up the old one.
As a comparison, if Boots the chemist changes ownership, they would not lose the lease on all of their stores.
Leave take-over talk as late as possible, so it don't seem as long and drawn out process this time 🙏🏻
@carly burn has rightly queried whether it's good value as it might be off-putting if exorbitant, but for all his faults, I don't think TS and his legal advisors necessarily did a poor job there. ESI just got the fat juicy worm rate to put Charlton on the hook for £50M.🎣
The lease provides security going forward and a sale can be negotiated further down the line, perhaps when we're in the Premiership playing in Europe 🤣
he’s been out of Newcastle for a year and 3 days. Maybe he’s bored.
Can't believe I typed that.
Not saying I buy it totally but food for thought.
Probably not
2. Will the new owner know a lot about football?
It's unlikely
3. Will the new owner hold required wealth to run a football club?
£25million is now more favourable instead of just a £1. Plus £75million for the valley...(which will be rejected after the offer is made) and your gana need a lot of money for everything else!
4. Will the new owner be mad?
Yes
5. Will the new owner just be buying Charlton as an advertising method for their own benefit?
Somethings gotta give. They won't all of a sudden be actual Charlton athletic supporters.
6. Will the new owner remain quiet and just allow football to be an enjoyable sport for the clubs supporters?
No Dave, now sign out of charltonlife and get a lunchtime kebab, you seem to be going off on one.
Cafc43v3r said:
Thomas will sell.
The "total package" will cost less than the aussies agreed, especially if your not paying in £s.”
From memory Aussies agreed £35m price with RD.