The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

In terms of rights to the contingent revenues on players' sell on rights or triggering performance, appearence criteria there is no 3rd party ownership.

Whoever the rights are assigned to has no direct/ indirect control over any aspect of the players employment. The employer is liable to pay such sums in the event of any one of the criteria being triggered no matter who the ultimate beneficiary.

The concept just because someone has the money to pay for something, then the real value be damned, is bizarre.

Would you do that? Now if in your own value set criteria owning the club was the be all and end all then you might but in reality it is a very quick way to lose what money you have made in the first place as I suggest M. Duchatelet has discovered.

On what basis was the club worth the £18.6mn debt he assumed, when considering the £7mn lien against club assets and the outstanding £2.5mn commercial mortgage is matter for his advisors.

He/ they chose to gazump other interested parties because he had a €20mn dividend taken from Standard Liege burning a hole in his corporate investment pocket. It provided him the opportunity of diverting other non performing assets (players) into a more useful and hopefully more productive channel. It did not work.

In our current situation the present apparent hiatus is unsurprising. The devil is always, always in the detail. The concern is the longer the process takes the greater the difficulty in concluding the deal. The spectre of buyers/ investors remorse looms ever larger. Those little noises in your head become ever louder to the point you almost start congratulating yourself for starting to walk away.

There is no secret formula. Buyers/ investors come to the market to do a deal. Behind them will come an army of naysayers, immensely valuable people, who will ask repeatedly "why are you/ we doing this again?" or surely there must be a better deal out there. The justification of the costs involved to this point deflect to it being a worthwhile exercise in testing and understanding the market should another opportunity present itself.

I have absolutely no information on the proposed sale of the club.

I am entirely comfortable with the information shared on this and other web sites and by the clubs own official/ unofficial statements. It would probably serve us all to register such information and indeed the deal itself as being researched, shared and negotiated on a "best endeavours" basis.

The market noise suggests considerable work has been done by someone somewhere. Whether matters have stalled to the point no accommodation can be reached will be known to only a few parties and in this case primarily one.

That we have reached this position remains the responsibility of one individual.

This delusion you can burden any trading organisation with unprecedented debt without consequence comes at a cost. Unless we see material progress in terms of the clubs playing status or in the removal of any barriers to completing the sale the club is now in limbo.

It is a limbo we can accommodate unhealthily until the end of the season.

At some point there is always, always a tipping point. For every £ or € spent someone somewhere has to pay.

The extra £20mn sought (if true) is £20mn you do not get to spend again. It is the equivalent of 2 or 3 years trading or a years trading and a completed training ground. It is the difference between the numbers stacking up and the business case working and the whole thing collapsing.

The biggest, biggest business failure is launching an under capitalised business or project.

To put it into perspective on top of the acquisition price, in this market you will want five years operational funding and structural investment on and off the field, acquiring better players and finishing the training ground and stadium.

Depending on margins allowed it could be another £50-£80mn so I suggest we may need to be a little less disparaging in terms of potential future investors. The extra £20mn and/ or trading away future contingent revenue all come into play.

Someone has some serious decisions to make. Does he fold the cards or play another hand. Just how will staring down the barrel of a £50mn debt plus £7mn directors loans, plus contractual obligations to players and staff impact future operational funding?

None of us or our trusted sources can know. In truth I suggest it is quite likely the decision maker himself having explored the market remains undecided.

In truth such issues can be resolved in a heartbeat but in the meantime I thank those who have contributed what information they have been able to share, though the concept/ vision of Kerry Katona snorting anything is probably an image I could have done without.

I just hope to God we beat Shrewsbury on Saturday.

Grapevine49 said:

In terms of rights to the contingent revenues on players' sell on rights or triggering performance, appearence criteria there is no 3rd party ownership.

Whoever the rights are assigned to has no direct/ indirect control over any aspect of the players employment. The employer is liable to pay such sums in the event of any one of the criteria being triggered no matter who the ultimate beneficiary.

The concept just because someone has the money to pay for something then the real vale be damned is bizarre.

Would you do that? Now if in you own value set criteria owning the club was the be all and end all then you might but in reality it is a very quick way to lose what money you have made in the first place as I suggest M. Duchatelet has discovered.

On what basis was the club worth the £18.6mn debt he assumed, when considering the £7mn lien against club assets and the outstanding £2.5mn commercial mortgage is matter for his advisors.

He/ they chose to gazump other interested parties because he had a €20mn dividend taken from Standard Liege burning a hole in his corporate investment pocket. It provided him the opportunity of diverting other non performing assets (players) into a more useful and hopefully more productive channel. It did not work.

In our current situation the present apparent hiatus is unsurprising. The devil is always, always in the detail. The concern is the longer the process takes the greater the difficulty in concluding the deal. The spectre of buyers/ investors remorse looms ever larger. Those little noises in your head become ever louder to the point you almost start congratulating yourself for starting to walk away.

There is no secret formula. Buyers/ investors come to the market to do a deal. Behind them will come an army of naysayers, immensely valuable people, who will ask repeatedly "why are you/ we doing this again?" or surely there must be a better deal out there. The justification of the costs involved to this point deflect to it being a worthwhile exercise in testing and understanding the market should another opportunity present itself.

I have absolutely no information on the proposed sale of the club.

I am entirely comfortable with the information shared on this and other web sites and by the clubs own official/ unofficial statements. It would probably serve us all to register such information and indeed the deal itself as being researched, shared and negotiated on a "best endeavours" basis.

The market noise suggests considerable work has been done by someone somewhere. Whether matters have stalled to the point no accommodation can be reached will be known to only a few parties and in this case primarily one.

That we have reached this position remains the responsibility of one individual.

This delusion you can burden any trading organisation with unprecedented debt without consequence comes at a cost. Unless we see material progress in terms of the clubs playing status or in the removal of any barriers to completing the sale the club is now in limbo.

It is a limbo we can accommodate unhealthily until the end of the season.

At some point there is always, always a tipping point. For every £ or € spent someone somewhere has to pay.

The extra £20mn sought (if true) is £20mn you do not get to spend again. It is the equivalent of 2 or 3 years trading or a years trading and a completed training ground. It is the difference between the numbers stacking up and the business case working and the whole thing collapsing.

The biggest, biggest business failure is launching an under capitalised business or project.

To put it into perspective on top of the acquisition price, in this market you will want five years operational funding and structural investment on and off the field, acquiring better players and finishing the training ground and stadium.

Depending on margins allowed it could be another £50-£80mn so I suggest we may need to be a little less disparaging in terms of potential future investors. The extra £20mn and/ or trading away future contingent revenue all come into play.

Someone has some serious decisions to make. Does he fold the cards or play another hand. Just how will staring down the barrel of a £50mn debt plus £7mn directors loans, plus contractual obligations to players and staff impact future operational funding?

None of us or our trusted sources can know. In truth I suggest it is quite likely the decision maker himself having explored the market remains undecided.

In truth such issues can be resolved in a heartbeat but in the meantime I thank those who have contributed what information they have been able to share, though the concept/ vision of Kerry Katona snorting anything is probably an image I could have done without.

I just hope to God we beat Shrewsbury on Saturday.

Please mate, we’re trying to have a conversation about Kerry Katona here.