I heard from what I consider to be a credible source today, the deal may well entail the club leasing the Valley from Duchâtelet, Duchâtelet being paid all existing add-ons from previous player sales, and a percentage of ALL future player sales.
In addition, the new owners are considering a new share issue to provide the required working capital.
If there is any truth in this, I fear we have a long way to go before we are rid of Duchâtelet's malign influence on our football club.
I heard from what I consider to be a credible source today, the deal may well entail the club leasing the Valley from Duchâtelet, Duchâtelet being paid all existing add-ons from previous player sales, and a percentage of ALL future player sales.
I think that there’s a bit of shooting the messenger here. Both the Belgium 20 & Rick Everitt on Twitter have suggested ongoing Duchatelet involvement of some / part of the ground. There’s also a rumour about a percentage of player sales. It is important to wait for the detail but if true, any on going Duchatelet involvement is most likely going to benefit him to the detriment of money available for development of the team.
If the Aussies fail, & Duchatelet wants his money back, does anyone seriously think that Duchatelet would not put his needs first. Duchatelet clearly just cares about getting his money back.
Ron Noades at Palace springs to mind. Coventry & the Ricoh arena. Charlton having to move to Selhurst. If the deal is anything like rumoured, a lot of reassurance is going to be needed to convince that this is a good set up & have a chance of success.
To be clear, I have heard something from yesterday which suggests part of the site being leasehold. It was a conversation between the Aussies. I have also heard from someone else they are getting the freehold.
But I’ll repeat - as far as anyone knows, there can be no lease without the ex-directors agreeing or being paid off. And I am certain they (or at least a group of them) have not been approached.
To me it seems pretty obvious (if the rumor of sell-ons and leases are true,) that Muir and RD were at least £10M apart on valuation and this was the only way to make the deal actually happen.
I read this as "agreeing to disagree" but RD putting clauses in-place so that Muir cannot profit off anything until the full £40M price is paid. And Muir not being willing to pay more than X for a club that will likely be in League One next season.
So what we have is an agreement to sell... but RD will keep certain assets and restrict profits until he has the full price. Muir could easily pay the full price with just the interest he earns on his money in the bank, but I guess he is a smart enough businessman to not overpay for something up-front that bleeds money like a football club.
I believe if Muir had held out, Roland would have kept the club. And if there was someone else offering more than Muir's, RD would have taken it.
Which means it was either this kind of a deal or... no deal at all. I will take this over nothing seven days of the week, as imperfect as it might be.
Maybe this is the time to say that I heard last night that more investors would be joining the Aussie consortium - hopefully sooner rather than later - presumably to add to the coffers for close season recruitment.
Based on what I'm reading all I can think is that these various arrangements mean the next takeover thread will make this one look like a picnic. It is going to be the stuff of nightmares.
Based on what I'm reading all I can think is that these various arrangements mean the next takeover thread will make this one look like a picnic. It is going to be the stuff of nightmares.
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
I heard from what I consider to be a credible source today, the deal may well entail the club leasing the Valley from Duchâtelet, Duchâtelet being paid all existing add-ons from previous player sales, and a percentage of ALL future player sales.
In addition, the new owners are considering a new share issue to provide the required working capital.
If there is any truth in this, I fear we have a long way to go before we are rid of Duchâtelet's malign influence on our football club.
The share prospectus would make for a really interesting read: basically buy some shares in this company we have with no cash, no assets, no prospects, no SMT, no staff and, oh, we're going to put up a state of the art training facility on land owned by someone else. Oh, and under a previous chairman we pissed all over fan shareholders by cancelling their shares and making them worthless. Brilliant, I'll have some of that, were do I sign?
Grimsby away years ago and a police horse, something like that.
I was told Brighton away, 7-0 loss early 80’s, major tear up in the park outside the goldstone after the game, OB fell off his horse as it reared up during the melee, almost happened at Horwich station after Bolton FA cup QF game as well
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
ACV is about change of use rather than change of ownership IIRC
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
ACV is about change of use rather than change of ownership IIRC
Not sure about that my understanding is it’s simply a sale of the land separately from the business
I heard from what I consider to be a credible source today, the deal may well entail the club leasing the Valley from Duchâtelet, Duchâtelet being paid all existing add-ons from previous player sales, and a percentage of ALL future player sales.
In addition, the new owners are considering a new share issue to provide the required working capital.
If there is any truth in this, I fear we have a long way to go before we are rid of Duchâtelet's malign influence on our football club.
A new share issue? It’s a no from me, brought a grand worth many moons ago. Never got anything in return, not even a discount on season tickets or club shop. Then Murray wipes them off.
Grimsby away years ago and a police horse, something like that.
I was told Brighton away, 7-0 loss early 80’s, major tear up in the park outside the goldstone after the game, OB fell off his horse as it reared up during the melee, almost happened at Horwich station after Bolton FA cup QF game as well
Surely any division of freeholds and change of ownership of any of them would trigger acv which still has 6 months left, being a de facto separation/sale of ground from part of the club?
Comments
In addition, the new owners are considering a new share issue to provide the required working capital.
If there is any truth in this, I fear we have a long way to go before we are rid of Duchâtelet's malign influence on our football club.
If the Aussies fail, & Duchatelet wants his money back, does anyone seriously think that Duchatelet would not put his needs first. Duchatelet clearly just cares about getting his money back.
Ron Noades at Palace springs to mind. Coventry & the Ricoh arena. Charlton having to move to Selhurst. If the deal is anything like rumoured, a lot of reassurance is going to be needed to convince that this is a good set up & have a chance of success.
But I’ll repeat - as far as anyone knows, there can be no lease without the ex-directors agreeing or being paid off. And I am certain they (or at least a group of them) have not been approached.
I read this as "agreeing to disagree" but RD putting clauses in-place so that Muir cannot profit off anything until the full £40M price is paid. And Muir not being willing to pay more than X for a club that will likely be in League One next season.
So what we have is an agreement to sell... but RD will keep certain assets and restrict profits until he has the full price. Muir could easily pay the full price with just the interest he earns on his money in the bank, but I guess he is a smart enough businessman to not overpay for something up-front that bleeds money like a football club.
I believe if Muir had held out, Roland would have kept the club. And if there was someone else offering more than Muir's, RD would have taken it.
Which means it was either this kind of a deal or... no deal at all. I will take this over nothing seven days of the week, as imperfect as it might be.
Does it remain an interested party?
You know the rest
Oh, and under a previous chairman we pissed all over fan shareholders by cancelling their shares and making them worthless.
Brilliant, I'll have some of that, were do I sign?
CLB74 is your man for that. He's very Jack Dee.
I’m not worried in the slightest.