The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Gills in director’s box yesterday. Bloke next to Murray doesn’t look like an Arab!0
-
was about million wasn't it?0
-
MountsfieldPark said:
There was rather more than just the friendly debt of £7m at that time, though, wasn't there? E.g. bank debt secured against the Valley, which RD has paid off.razil said:Reality check, Charlton went for a quid a few years back, and had some saleable assets that funded a successful promotion season, albeit with friendly long term debt of £7m, albeit it was a fairly distressed sale.
The spivs flogged it for £15-18m, a division higher, also a distressed sale
My point is that RD is not a "win some, lose some" speculator looking for the big Peninsula pay-off, like the spivs. His mind works differently and he will still want to minimise his losses through a little creativity. For example, he too could offer debt secured against the property.0 -
How could he offer Debt secured against property? It's charged to 7 Ex Directors.2
-
So there!Davidsmith said:How could he offer Debt secured against property? It's charged to 7 Ex Directors.
0 -
Presumably nothing to do with the Takeover but the online system is not allowing me to purchase tickets for the Walsall match.....
Never had any problems with this in the past.
Come back, Kitty !
I was only joking !1 -
Scally looks like he's admiring Murray's blue glasses...kentred2 said:Gills in director’s box yesterday. Bloke next to Murray doesn’t look like an Arab!
7 -
Almost worth a flag for a secondFanny Fanackapan said:Presumably nothing to do with the Takeover but the online system is not allowing me to purchase tickets for the Walsall match.....
Never had any problems with this in the past.
Come back, Kitty !
I was only joking !
2 -
Murray needed a staff photo now he’s acting CEO?
13 - Sponsored links:
-
Know a couple of blokes in that photo0
-
Is that Bobby Charlton in the back row along from Scally too?0
-
Homes under the hammer geezer on the left isn't it?0
-
Paul Gambaccini on the seat behind Murray2
-
He's wearing a bloody awful shirt either way!!kentred2 said:Gills in director’s box yesterday. Bloke next to Murray doesn’t look like an Arab!
0 -
3 -
1
-
Since it keeps being brought up by others, and is continually mis-represented by others, I will just cut and paste the following anytime someone scoffs at my numbers for the sale, as this will explain my reasoning, which I am fairly confident will be proven entirely correct. Or.... he won't sell.
1. In the 2014-15 financials, for the first time, it was announced that when Rolly took over in Jan, 2014, he inherited £21.6M of debt. He now owns that debt.
2. Debt as of the last filing was now £55.6M.
3. The difference between these two numbers is made up of primarily yearly cash losses, money spent on Sparrows Lane and some money spent on the The Valley. The total debt he has added to the books is £34.0M, for which he is adding 3 percent interest, annually. He considers this cash he has "injected" into the club.
4. When he purchased the club, he became owner of the debt. Enterprise value is defined as the total of debt + equity.
5. His purchase price is unknown, but a common number most quoted is £14M. This was for the equity, not the debt! Some estimates are as high as £20M, but let's assume the former. This puts his true purchase price at £35.6M (£14 equity + £21.6 debt assumed.) Some here think I am counting twice but I am not. These are separate amounts and he owns both, the sole difference being he now owes most of the debt to himself.
6. Our total debt now is £55.6M, meaning even if he sold the club for ZERO equity, the enterprise value of CAFC is much higher than it was when he bought it (£35.6M.)
7. My guess is the absolute bare minimum he will EVER accept for the club (unless we are relegated again) is to be made whole for every cent he put into the club.
8. Which means he will want back AT MINIMUN the £14M of equity plus assumption or payback of all debt he injected (£34.0M). This means he will walk away with a minimum of £48.0M. My guess is the £50M number mentioned the last 24 hours is about right and makes sense to me, financially. Morally, no. Financially, as he thinks, yes.
9. But.... in addition to paying off Rolly his £48M, there will still be the original debt he inherited, which includes the £7M of directors loans. The new owner will be required to take on the original £21.6M or pay it off.
10. £48M plus £21.6M = £69.6M, rounded to £70M. That is the current enterprise value of CAFC. If he wants £20M for the equity, then we are looking at over £76M. With interest on the debt the last year, I guessed a little more at the time, £77.5M. People are confusing enterprise value with inherent value. What someone pays may not be what the books claim it is worth. But in this case, I seriously doubt Rolly will sell for less.
If he takes some tens of millions of haircut on debt, great. But he does not seem like the kind of guy to do that and I think those who hope he will simply have not come to face with who he is and can't stand the idea he will be made whole, or even profit, from his time here. But money and morals are not the same thing.
I stand by my original predictions and believe when the dust settles, one of the following will occur....
1. He walks away with (at minimum) all his money back, or
2. He walks away with a small profit, or
3. He does not sell
Also....
4. That when all debt and equity are added together, the enterprise value of the sale will be over £70M and probably higher.
5. If he does not get made whole, he will retain part of the club, such as some of the debt or assets.
If I am proven wrong, fantastic. But I am highly confident I will be right.
The.... end.
10 -
Is that DCI Burnside just behind Murray?kentred2 said:Gills in director’s box yesterday. Bloke next to Murray doesn’t look like an Arab!
0 -
Looks like Jim Davidson has had a heavy Christmas.
31 - Sponsored links:
-
The two top left own Gillingham’s finest wig shop.0
-
Still think he should be saying he’ll accept between £15-20m
The debt is both relevant and irrelevant. Relevant because any potential buyer is taking on an investment that in the short/mid term will continue to lose money. Irrelevant because RD can’t expect that to feature as part of the sale price imo. You don’t buy something, fail to turn it around financially and expect the buyer to pay for your failures
He could put the club up for sale for the nominal £1 and the new buyers take on the debt as did he back in 2013, but we were in the championship then and closer to the promised land of the prem
We’re closer another 10-15 years of league one obscurity at the moment and lookman’s don’t come around every season
The old dickhead must pull his head out of his backside2 -
.
He won't sell for £48m or anywhere near it. For all your numbers, you seem to forget the old adage that something is only worth as much as someone is prepared to pay for it. if he doesn't accept what the market is prepared to pay today he can keep owning it, and losing more money each month which by your reckoning makes the price/value higher. Just like Bolton heh, 180m the debt was wasn't it - did it get sold for that then?NapaAddick said:Since it keeps being brought up by others, and is continually mis-represented by others, I will just cut and paste the following anytime someone scoffs at my numbers for the sale, as this will explain my reasoning, which I am fairly confident will be proven entirely correct. Or.... he won't sell.
1. In the 2014-15 financials, for the first time, it was announced that when Rolly took over in Jan, 2014, he inherited £21.6M of debt. He now owns that debt.
2. Debt as of the last filing was now £55.6M.
3. The difference between these two numbers is made up of primarily yearly cash losses, money spent on Sparrows Lane and some money spent on the The Valley. The total debt he has added to the books is £34.0M, for which he is adding 3 percent interest, annually. He considers this cash he has "injected" into the club.
4. When he purchased the club, he became owner of the debt. Enterprise value is defined as the total of debt + equity.
5. His purchase price is unknown, but a common number most quoted is £14M. This was for the equity, not the debt! Some estimates are as high as £20M, but let's assume the former. This puts his true purchase price at £35.6M (£14 equity + £21.6 debt assumed.) Some here think I am counting twice but I am not. These are separate amounts and he owns both, the sole difference being he now owes most of the debt to himself.
6. Our total debt now is £55.6M, meaning even if he sold the club for ZERO equity, the enterprise value of CAFC is much higher than it was when he bought it (£35.6M.)
7. My guess is the absolute bare minimum he will EVER accept for the club (unless we are relegated again) is to be made whole for every cent he put into the club.
8. Which means he will want back AT MINIMUN the £14M of equity plus assumption or payback of all debt he injected (£34.0M). This means he will walk away with a minimum of £48.0M. My guess is the £50M number mentioned the last 24 hours is about right and makes sense to me, financially. Morally, no. Financially, as he thinks, yes.
9. But.... in addition to paying off Rolly his £48M, there will still be the original debt he inherited, which includes the £7M of directors loans. The new owner will be required to take on the original £21.6M or pay it off.
10. £48M plus £21.6M = £69.6M, rounded to £70M. That is the current enterprise value of CAFC. If he wants £20M for the equity, then we are looking at over £76M. With interest on the debt the last year, I guessed a little more at the time, £77.5M. People are confusing enterprise value with inherent value. What someone pays may not be what the books claim it is worth. But in this case, I seriously doubt Rolly will sell for less.
If he takes some tens of millions of haircut on debt, great. But he does not seem like the kind of guy to do that and I think those who hope he will simply have not come to face with who he is and can't stand the idea he will be made whole, or even profit, from his time here. But money and morals are not the same thing.
I stand by my original predictions and believe when the dust settles, one of the following will occur....
1. He walks away with (at minimum) all his money back, or
2. He walks away with a small profit, or
3. He does not sell
Also....
4. That when all debt and equity are added together, the enterprise value of the sale will be over £70M and probably higher.
5. If he does not get made whole, he will retain part of the club, such as some of the debt or assets.
If I am proven wrong, fantastic. But I am highly confident I will be right.
The.... end.16 -
Unless the £35m he invested has made the club £35m more valuable then no it’s not worth even close to that. Don’t get how you’re still struggling with this.14
-
It's a distance thingcafc_harry said:Unless the £35m he invested has made the club £35m more valuable then no it’s not worth even close to that. Don’t get how you’re still struggling with this.
1 -
6
-
.0
-
Mate what qualifications/skills/experience do you have in this area. The number of accountants and people who know lots about the club and have studied the accounts in detail who have explained this to you yet you still dont get it.NapaAddick said:Since it keeps being brought up by others, and is continually mis-represented by others, I will just cut and paste the following anytime someone scoffs at my numbers for the sale, as this will explain my reasoning, which I am fairly confident will be proven entirely correct. Or.... he won't sell.
1. In the 2014-15 financials, for the first time, it was announced that when Rolly took over in Jan, 2014, he inherited £21.6M of debt. He now owns that debt.
2. Debt as of the last filing was now £55.6M.
3. The difference between these two numbers is made up of primarily yearly cash losses, money spent on Sparrows Lane and some money spent on the The Valley. The total debt he has added to the books is £34.0M, for which he is adding 3 percent interest, annually. He considers this cash he has "injected" into the club.
4. When he purchased the club, he became owner of the debt. Enterprise value is defined as the total of debt + equity.
5. His purchase price is unknown, but a common number most quoted is £14M. This was for the equity, not the debt! Some estimates are as high as £20M, but let's assume the former. This puts his true purchase price at £35.6M (£14 equity + £21.6 debt assumed.) Some here think I am counting twice but I am not. These are separate amounts and he owns both, the sole difference being he now owes most of the debt to himself.
6. Our total debt now is £55.6M, meaning even if he sold the club for ZERO equity, the enterprise value of CAFC is much higher than it was when he bought it (£35.6M.)
7. My guess is the absolute bare minimum he will EVER accept for the club (unless we are relegated again) is to be made whole for every cent he put into the club.
8. Which means he will want back AT MINIMUN the £14M of equity plus assumption or payback of all debt he injected (£34.0M). This means he will walk away with a minimum of £48.0M. My guess is the £50M number mentioned the last 24 hours is about right and makes sense to me, financially. Morally, no. Financially, as he thinks, yes.
9. But.... in addition to paying off Rolly his £48M, there will still be the original debt he inherited, which includes the £7M of directors loans. The new owner will be required to take on the original £21.6M or pay it off.
10. £48M plus £21.6M = £69.6M, rounded to £70M. That is the current enterprise value of CAFC. If he wants £20M for the equity, then we are looking at over £76M. With interest on the debt the last year, I guessed a little more at the time, £77.5M. People are confusing enterprise value with inherent value. What someone pays may not be what the books claim it is worth. But in this case, I seriously doubt Rolly will sell for less.
If he takes some tens of millions of haircut on debt, great. But he does not seem like the kind of guy to do that and I think those who hope he will simply have not come to face with who he is and can't stand the idea he will be made whole, or even profit, from his time here. But money and morals are not the same thing.
I stand by my original predictions and believe when the dust settles, one of the following will occur....
1. He walks away with (at minimum) all his money back, or
2. He walks away with a small profit, or
3. He does not sell
Also....
4. That when all debt and equity are added together, the enterprise value of the sale will be over £70M and probably higher.
5. If he does not get made whole, he will retain part of the club, such as some of the debt or assets.
If I am proven wrong, fantastic. But I am highly confident I will be right.
The.... end.
I'm an analyst and as much as I don't enjoy it I often end up looking at accounts as part of my day job. I'm not expert but what you say baffles me.
You latest version is a little confusing to me but it seems to me like you are double or possibly triple counting the purchase price.
As I believe to be the case he brought the club for somewhere on the region of 14-18m this was effectively him clearing the debt to previous owners (not the bank debt) and paying a notional fee. He transferred that debt to himself so it is counted in the £55m estimated debt. You cannot count it there and in the debt to previous owners as they are one and the same. You cannot count the purchase price as separate from the debt as it is the same.
You are counting it in the debt he took on, and the debt he has not ended us up with and as the purchase price.
The £55m or whatever is shown as the total debt in the next accounts will be the total owed to him, including purchase price (which is the same as clearing debt to previous owners - not seperate) and including clearing the bank debt (transferring to himself).4 -
@NapaAddick to be fair you’ve given us a breakdown of your maths and you probably have a better understanding of accounts than I do, but to persist with this figure you’ve got to isn’t worth it
Yes RD is belligerent twat, but he knows 77m isn’t on the table
It’s as @Rob7Lee says, it will be worth what the market determines
You also forget that no prospective buyer will be thinking there is a short term profit here
No one will entertain £77m and RD will eventually accept about £20m4 -
Undisclosed.cabbles said:@NapaAddick to be fair you’ve given us a breakdown of your maths and you probably have a better understanding of accounts than I do, but to persist with this figure you’ve got to isn’t worth it
Yes RD is belligerent twat, but he knows 77m isn’t on the table
It’s as @Rob7Lee says, it will be worth what the market determines
You also forget that no prospective buyer will be thinking there is a short term profit here
No one will entertain £77m and RD will eventually accept about £20m9
