The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

This is dragging on longer than Brexit!

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

They have a charge over the assets like a Building Society would have over your property you can't sell it, lease or do anything with it without the BS being satisfied can you?

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing

That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?

DD
+ condition of hard assets ---Valley ---Training Ground. Commercial value of those assets ,depreciation etc.
+ Playing assets ---who owns the players--length of contracts.Commercial value.
+Debts, deferred, payments near and far.Transfer fees outstanding + -.
+Statutory issues HMRC, building regs etc
+Pensions to staff
+Staff T+Cs

Some of the above will take lawyers they aint quick.Some will take experts in property and experts in playing contracts.

Just because former directors who have deferred debts owed to them have yet to be approached dosnt really mean anything neg or pos.

The only thing to take from recent info is that something is happening ---or was.That in itself is possitive and even if they walked away RD will have learnt alot and maybe his expectations will lower ?

Wonder if Murray will insist on being part of the new board?

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing

That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?

All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.

Hope it goes through this week - got the week off as it's my birthday, would end up barred from all my local pubs

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

Because that's what the legal agreement says. They can also agree to roll the debt over as they did in 2014. Or they can negotiate a deal that gives them a percentage of the money now rather than all of it later on the basis they may never get it otherwise. If RM is involved in the deal that may be an issue in some quarters, but they are fans in the end.

Red_in_SE8 said:

RedChaser said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing

That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?

All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.

My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.

It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.

They have a first legal charge on the assets.

Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.

Red_in_SE8 said:

RedChaser said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing

That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?

All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.

My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.

It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.

I can't help you then, I only deal in facts, sorry. And who said anything about them having a say how the club is run? I'm out.

Uboat said:

See you all back here in a week.

You know as well as I do that you'll be checking at least on the hour.

RedChaser said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Wonder if Murray will insist on being part of the new board?

I thought it had been mooted on here somewhere that he would be like to be involved.

He can feck right off.

Airman Brown said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

RedChaser said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing

That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?

All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.

My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.

It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.

They have a first legal charge on the assets.

Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.

Wow...I always thought it was a debt only payable on promotion. These ex directors still have a lot more influence and power than I ever realised.

Airman Brown said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

RedChaser said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?

They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.

Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?

Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing

That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?

All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.

My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.

It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.

They have a first legal charge on the assets.

Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.

Just read the last bit of your post. It is an important point to remember, and you rightly point it out before people on here go into meltdown accusing the ex directors of preventing a sale, that huge amounts were written off by the ex directors.

When you state some amounts were converted to equity that now has no value what equity are you referring to?

And last question, and I am been lazy here but you know off the top of your head, apart from Richard Murray, who are the other ex directors that have this charge?

lets not forget what that a lot of shareholders have already lost their investment without even a fecking thank you