You would be only be able to borrow on equity over and above £7m, and even then a lender would not be happy with others that would hold a call on forcing closure on a deb if it went wrong. Especially as said Directors clearly show that their loyalty is not money driven.
A bank would not touch it with a barge pole. So who would buy a business that you can’t run as a business? Roland was his own bank so it did not matter to him, but normal banking would be prudent.
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.
And you can tell that to GM !!
And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.
Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.
Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.
In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.
What is holding it up then?
New CEO is just waiting for the next DFS sale to start..
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.
I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
So if this is such a sticking point with the Aussies, shouldn't we be a bit concerned about what they intend to with the land?
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.
I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
So what are the other issues then?
Roland fell over trying to put his kecks on in his bedroom, broke his fall with his arms but fractured both wrists which are now in plaster and he can't sign the contract.
The ex-directors don't have a say whether the loans are rolled over - so none of the 7 are unilaterally holding up the deal. They do not need to be consulted.
The amount to be repaid is sometime in the future.....maybe never. When it is repaid it is at a time when (all thing being equal) the amount to be repaid is a small amount of what would be then available.
Good. Glad thats settled.
Plus whoever takes us over and gets us to the Premier League would easily afford the 7 million when the rewards would be sailing through the 150 million barrier.
The ex-directors don't have a say whether the loans are rolled over - so none of the 7 are unilaterally holding up the deal. They do not need to be consulted.
The amount to be repaid is sometime in the future.....maybe never. When it is repaid it is at a time when (all thing being equal) the amount to be repaid is a small amount of what would be then available.
Good. Glad thats settled.
Let’s say you were buying a house and agreed to pay 200k. Just before exchange of contracts you discovered that the owner owes a family member 50k and wants you to also pay that debt back. However you can do so any time in the next ten years, whenever it’s most convenient for you. Be happy with that would you?
That’s not an accurate comparison at all. It would be more accurate to say that you have to agree to pay the current owners family member £50K only after you win the jackpot on the lottery.
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.
I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
So if this is such a sticking point with the Aussies, shouldn't we be a bit concerned about what they intend to with the land?
I don't come on this thread very often. Whilst I don't know what deal the Aussies may or may not have agreed to and I don't know whose fault the delay is, BUT wouldn't you pull out of the deal given the fact that it is 29 July and RD is squeezing the club out of existence?
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.
And you can tell that to GM !!
And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.
Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.
Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.
In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.
What is holding it up then?
RD is gonna sell all our players first to leave us in the shite! That will be his revenge!!!
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Logical argument, but I suspect they set up the consortium with a few simple rules, and former directors loans may be complications that break those rules. Just a guess though.
Time they changed the rules then I would suggest.......either shit or get off the pot.
And you can tell that to GM !!
And if they changed the rules and some of the investors walked away then that would leave us where?
No different to where we are currently I would say. Some investors have (apparently) already walked away......in so much as they failed the Fit & proper test & it doesn't appear that they are troubling the scorers in trying to sort it out.
Currently it appears to be a Mexican stand-off....and the only losers at the moment is us poor fans. We know RD doesn't give a toss. Looks like the Aussies aren't too far behind.
I really don't know if you understand the world of finance but the assets are tied up when a debenture/charge/lien is given. That is to say permission has to be given by the debenture holders when such things as leases etc are granted.
Why would anybody buying the club want that restriction, regardless of when that debt becomes due for payment.
In any case my understanding is this is not the issue holding things up so a complete red herring in any case.
What is holding it up then?
RD is gonna sell all our players first to leave us in the shite! That will be his revenge!!!
On one level, I completely agree with golf addick, who says why should the ex directors loans be an issue, given the rewards of reaching the Premiership.
On another level, I also completely see why new owners would baulk at taking on the debt on a number of different levels.
They are already over paying & Duchatelet is busy deconstructing the squad that looks like making this season a write off in terms of anything but preparing for a promotion push next season. If the settlement of ex directors loans wasn’t clear (find this difficult to believe) or goal posts moved ( more believable) it is 7 million on an already over inflated price. I would worry about the financial acumen of the new owners.
Then I am reading that the ex directors is a red herring & not the only or even main issue. It is some unstated thing that I am presuming no one can talk about due to commercial confidentiality or non disclosure agreements.
Whilst all this goes on, Duchatelet downgrades the squad & replaces stronger players with weaker ones with incomprehensible dumb player deals. The club being spun closer to league 2 than getting out of league 1.
I don't come on this thread very often. Whilst I don't know what deal the Aussies may or may not have agreed to and I don't know whose fault the delay is, BUT wouldn't you pull out of the deal given the fact that it is 29 July and RD is squeezing the club out of existence?
The theory is that Muir &co have a 5-year plan to get Charlton into the Premier League, so they are not too worried about marking time this season. If this is true it makes me doubt their knowledge of what they are doing. Firstly because of the strong possibility being deep in relegation trouble before too long, and second because football isn't predictable enough at this level to make a 5-year plan, which would presumably become a six-year plan if we go down. The Aussies don't look a good bet, but since Roland refused to speak to Reg's Kuwaitis or the Saudis they are all that we have left. If they pull out Roland will find out there is not a Lookman or a Gomez any more to balance the books, and at some point he will have to drop the price, especially if we are in L2.
Think we can all agree the way things stand at the moment nothing is going to change for the better.
We all have our reasons why the club has not changed hands but as fans we are helpless.
The ship that is Charlton has run-aground. For fans that can remember this is even worst than waiting for that container ship with the rubber onboard.
If i could have one wish it would be to get ALL parties into one room lock the door and not let anyone out until this mess was sorted out ,oneway or another…..
This has gone on too long now,deal with it .After all its our Charlton we are talking about its in our blood,its in our lives and it will go to the grave with us.
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.
I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
So if this is such a sticking point with the Aussies, shouldn't we be a bit concerned about what they intend to with the land?
Behave.
Or they literally are only in this for 5 years. If they make the premiership the loans do mean a great deal as they can get out with a large profit! However if they dont (more likely) and they want out in 5 years the only real concrete assets are the ground and training facilities. Having a 7 mill exposure against them erodes their worth and thus consequently they will pay as it will affect any sale price and will reduce their ability to recoup a chunk of their losses! Just a thought
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Do the ex-directors have to agree to have their loans rolled over to a new party on the same conditions (no pay until Prem) or can Roland do it unilaterally?
No they don’t have to agree. But they can make life difficult for the new owner by obstructing leases or other disposal of land and they hold the first charge - over the owner - if things go pear-shaped financially.
I don’t personally think they are the only issue.
So if this is such a sticking point with the Aussies, shouldn't we be a bit concerned about what they intend to with the land?
Behave.
Or they literally are only in this for 5 years. If they make the premiership the loans do mean a great deal as they can get out with a large profit! However if they dont (more likely) and they want out in 5 years the only real concrete assets are the ground and training facilities. Having a 7 mill exposure against them erodes their worth and thus consequently they will pay as it will affect any sale price and will reduce their ability to recoup a chunk of their losses! Just a thought
The sale of The Valley and Sparrows wouldn’t even get them back their initial investment.
I don't come on this thread very often. Whilst I don't know what deal the Aussies may or may not have agreed to and I don't know whose fault the delay is, BUT wouldn't you pull out of the deal given the fact that it is 29 July and RD is squeezing the club out of existence?
The theory is that Muir &co have a 5-year plan to get Charlton into the Premier League, so they are not too worried about marking time this season. If this is true it makes me doubt their knowledge of what they are doing. Firstly because of the strong possibility being deep in relegation trouble before too long, and second because football isn't predictable enough at this level to make a 5-year plan, which would presumably become a six-year plan if we go down. The Aussies don't look a good bet, but since Roland refused to speak to Reg's Kuwaitis or the Saudis they are all that we have left. If they pull out Roland will find out there is not a Lookman or a Gomez any more to balance the books, and at some point he will have to drop the price, especially if we are in L2.
I'm sure this is the absolute truth. How many football club chairmen/CEOs, anywhere, have the slightest clue what they are doing football-wise? Very few.
So, just to be clear, neither Muir nor Murphy have the slightest idea about what it's like running a League One football club. They also have not the slightest idea about player selection or what experts they need to employ and how much that will all cost. This is readily demonstrated by the "five-year plan" nonsense.
The way stuff is set up and with the lower leagues FFP rules, unless a club has extraordinary match-day income, merely getting out of the league we are in (in an upwards direction) is pretty much a matter of good fortune (a couple of decent up-and-coming players and general lack of injuries). From where we are it would take two years absolute minimum.
But getting out of the Championship is a whole different ball-game altogether. Obviously, the competition is much better funded and then there's the parachute payments.
If the Aussies think they are going to swan up to the promised land by leapfrogging the current incumbents in the Championship - at least 15/16 of the clubs there can readily claim to be bigger and better than us (and that doesn't include the likes of Bristol City and Swansea) - they are not domiciled in Australia but Fantasy Island.
I would guess that the loans have a simple change of control clause which will require the loans to either be repaid in full on change of control or rolled over when the change of control happens. It would appear that the Aussies do not want to have the debt and have suggested that RD pays it off out of the consideration that they will pay. RD has to negotiate a fair value for the loans and the former directors are not giving away the potential right to future repayment on the cheap. Be clear, the former directors will have loaned the £7m and for them to take anything less than £7m back they will be making a personal loss The former directors will be unhappy about being nickle and dimed by RD particularly since, when they agreed the last rollover, we were a championship club with the potential to get into the premier league when the loans would have become due. RD is therefore attempting to increase his return on sale by reducing the value of loans made by the former directors at a time when the club was in dire straights. Possible to describe this as a vulture picking the bones clean.
Wolves have just won Promotion to the Premier with a wind fall of 200 million because of TV rights etc.
If the ex directors payments are 7 million for promotion to the promise land then WHY is this such a stumbling block, as in that unlikely senario it would be 3.5% of said windfall.
7 million is a fortune to a struggling league 1 club who are penny pinching and buying at Poundland, BUT not to a newly promoted Premier club buying at Harrods.
Do the payments to the ex directors go up pro rata on the monies received from TV, increased crowds and merchandising etc when premier status is achieved ?
I'm still believe Duchatelet is to blame for this impasse but i can't see why this has become such a problem ?
I think some people are getting a little ahead of themselves. If the Aussies do manage to buy us, what makes you think it is a given that we will get to the Championship let alone the top flight?
£7m would represent a huge transfer budget at this level and to have to pay this money out unnecessarily makes no business sense at all.
It makes complete sense that Roland would clear the debt to make the sale though. As we know though Roland isn't known for making sensible business choices around football matters.
You haven't read what I said !
In the unlikely event of Cafc getting into the premier( it ain't going to happen)
Then and only then will the 7 million need to be paid. Wolves will make 200 million for getting into the premier. 3.5% if they had a similar issue of 7 million to be paid.
I would guess that the loans have a simple change of control clause which will require the loans to either be repaid in full on change of control or rolled over when the change of control happens. It would appear that the Aussies do not want to have the debt and have suggested that RD pays it off out of the consideration that they will pay. RD has to negotiate a fair value for the loans and the former directors are not giving away the potential right to future repayment on the cheap. Be clear, the former directors will have loaned the £7m and for them to take anything less than £7m back they will be making a personal loss The former directors will be unhappy about being nickle and dimed by RD particularly since, when they agreed the last rollover, we were a championship club with the potential to get into the premier league when the loans would have become due. RD is therefore attempting to increase his return on sale by reducing the value of loans made by the former directors at a time when the club was in dire straights. Possible to describe this as a vulture picking the bones clean.
Not to forget that the Ex Directors also owned around 80% of the original equity that was written off approximately £25mn and wrote off a Convertible Bond worth £14mn when they walked away and left that £7mn Debenture, so they have written off almost £40mn between the 7 of them already. Now Roland wants more than he paid for the Club and them to take a discount? No wonder they told him where to go!
£7m is a substantial sum in L1 and a premium of 20% on the asking price if around £35m. But personally think the issue is less to do with the sum of money than the power that the debenture holders have, their preference in the event of insolvency and the fact that clean title will be required to obtain further loans or investment especially if obtained against assets. Sorry for a logical post.
I don’t think it’s just directors loans as I believe that could be worked through very quickly and easily with both parties pay 50% and I think both parties would agree to that and that all the directors would also
I get the feeling there’s more twists in this still to come out and that once again we are not even close to getting this over the line
I don’t think it’s just directors loans as I believe that could be worked through very quickly and easily with both parties pay 50% and I think both parties would agree to that and that all the directors would also
I get the feeling there’s more twists in this still to come out and that once again we are not even close to getting this over the line
It has to be more than just the director debt
Roland wants to keep the freehold of The Valley and/or the training ground I reckon and some of the £7m directors, God bless them, are defending our (the fans) interests by refusing to allow it.
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Stone me! I am agreeing with a Golfir post. NURSE!!!
Scratching. Please stop guessing. Golfie has provided a logical arguement. I have not even seen any evidence that the debentures have led to a charge on the Valley. Can someone do a simple Land Registry sesrch to clarify? SE7 8BL.
For the last fecking time......the ex-director loans DO NOT have to be repaid AT ALL until we reach the Premiership. There is NO OUTLAY NOW. This figure may NEVER have to be repaid EVER if we never reach thse Premiership.
Anyone buying us now could simply take on the liability in the knowledge that they will only EVER have to find £7m when the promised land is reached & if thats in the next 5-10 years then any payment from the PL will cover this many many times over.
Furthermore. The £7m does not increase over time. It is not inflation linked. Even in 20 years time it is £7m. To me as a financial man it is a very attractive type of debt. One (or more) of the loanees may wanr repaying before then anyway (divorce/ex wife/widow/retirement) and so may want to cut a deal SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
The only negative aspect (for any new owner)is that the loanees have first charge over The Valley, which could make it harder to borrow.....but if they have their funding & 5 year plan why the need to borrow against the ground ??
To me its a no brainer. IF this is the only/main reason for the delay then I would ask why ??. By delaying the takeover for months means this season is now a write off & our best bet is that we survive relegation when a properly funded squad could challenge for promotion.
So please can we put to bed the mantra of "why should The Aussies pay this debt in addition to the purchase price". They do not have to find the £7m now.....it will not detract from any current funding....its is a red herring.
Stone me! I am agreeing with a Golfir post. NURSE!!!
You are agreeing that the loans do not need to be paid until with play in the top tier of Scottish foitball ? :-)
Scratching. Please stop guessing. Golfie has provided a logical arguement. I have not even seen any evidence that the debentures have led to a charge on the Valley. Can someone do a simple Land Registry sesrch to clarify? SE7 8BL.
Wolves have just won Promotion to the Premier with a wind fall of 200 million because of TV rights etc.
If the ex directors payments are 7 million for promotion to the promise land then WHY is this such a stumbling block, as in that unlikely senario it would be 3.5% of said windfall.
7 million is a fortune to a struggling league 1 club who are penny pinching and buying at Poundland, BUT not to a newly promoted Premier club buying at Harrods.
Do the payments to the ex directors go up pro rata on the monies received from TV, increased crowds and merchandising etc when premier status is achieved ?
I'm still believe Duchatelet is to blame for this impasse but i can't see why this has become such a problem ?
I think some people are getting a little ahead of themselves. If the Aussies do manage to buy us, what makes you think it is a given that we will get to the Championship let alone the top flight?
£7m would represent a huge transfer budget at this level and to have to pay this money out unnecessarily makes no business sense at all.
It makes complete sense that Roland would clear the debt to make the sale though. As we know though Roland isn't known for making sensible business choices around football matters.
You haven't read what I said !
In the unlikely event of Cafc getting into the premier( it ain't going to happen)
Then and only then will the 7 million need to be paid. Wolves will make 200 million for getting into the premier. 3.5% if they had a similar issue of 7 million to be paid.
I did, but perhaps didn't allow enough for your emphisis, however, I assume that the Aussies will have ambitions to get into the Prem, unlike Roland. Nothing wrong with ambition.
If I were a businessman looking to get a club into the Prem, then I wouldn't want this debt to have to be paid up taking the gloss and most importantly, profit off the achievement. The debt is Roland's and he needs to clear it or reduce the fee for the club by £7m.
Take a look at the last figures for Prem clubs, there are some big profits for some clubs, but Watford only made £3m, £2m the year before. Man City didn't make a profit, others lost money. Simply getting an extra £200m income doesn't guarantee a profit. If I was in the Aussie consortium, I wouldn't take the club unless the £7m debt was cleared beforehand.
Comments
A bank would not touch it with a barge pole. So who would buy a business that you can’t run as a business? Roland was his own bank so it did not matter to him, but normal banking would be prudent.
On another level, I also completely see why new owners would baulk at taking on the debt on a number of different levels.
They are already over paying & Duchatelet is busy deconstructing the squad that looks like making this season a write off in terms of anything but preparing for a promotion push next season. If the settlement of ex directors loans wasn’t clear (find this difficult to believe) or goal posts moved ( more believable) it is 7 million on an already over inflated price. I would worry about the financial acumen of the new owners.
Then I am reading that the ex directors is a red herring & not the only or even main issue. It is some unstated thing that I am presuming no one can talk about due to commercial confidentiality or non disclosure agreements.
Whilst all this goes on, Duchatelet downgrades the squad & replaces stronger players with weaker ones with incomprehensible dumb player deals. The club being spun closer to league 2 than getting out of league 1.
We all have our reasons why the club has not changed hands but as fans we are helpless.
The ship that is Charlton has run-aground. For fans that can remember this is even worst than waiting for that container ship with the rubber onboard.
If i could have one wish it would be to get ALL parties into one room lock the door and not let anyone out until this mess was sorted out ,oneway or another…..
This has gone on too long now,deal with it .After all its our Charlton we are talking about its in our blood,its in our lives and it will go to the grave with us.
If that’s their plan then it’s piss poor.
So, just to be clear, neither Muir nor Murphy have the slightest idea about what it's like running a League One football club. They also have not the slightest idea about player selection or what experts they need to employ and how much that will all cost. This is readily demonstrated by the "five-year plan" nonsense.
The way stuff is set up and with the lower leagues FFP rules, unless a club has extraordinary match-day income, merely getting out of the league we are in (in an upwards direction) is pretty much a matter of good fortune (a couple of decent up-and-coming players and general lack of injuries). From where we are it would take two years absolute minimum.
But getting out of the Championship is a whole different ball-game altogether. Obviously, the competition is much better funded and then there's the parachute payments.
If the Aussies think they are going to swan up to the promised land by leapfrogging the current incumbents in the Championship - at least 15/16 of the clubs there can readily claim to be bigger and better than us (and that doesn't include the likes of Bristol City and Swansea) - they are not domiciled in Australia but Fantasy Island.
It would appear that the Aussies do not want to have the debt and have suggested that RD pays it off out of the consideration that they will pay.
RD has to negotiate a fair value for the loans and the former directors are not giving away the potential right to future repayment on the cheap. Be clear, the former directors will have loaned the £7m and for them to take anything less than £7m back they will be making a personal loss
The former directors will be unhappy about being nickle and dimed by RD particularly since, when they agreed the last rollover, we were a championship club with the potential to get into the premier league when the loans would have become due.
RD is therefore attempting to increase his return on sale by reducing the value of loans made by the former directors at a time when the club was in dire straights. Possible to describe this as a vulture picking the bones clean.
In the unlikely event of Cafc getting into the premier( it ain't going to happen)
Then and only then will the 7 million need to be paid.
Wolves will make 200 million for getting into the premier.
3.5% if they had a similar issue of 7 million to be paid.
Now Roland wants more than he paid for the Club and them to take a discount? No wonder they told him where to go!
I get the feeling there’s more twists in this still to come out and that once again we are not even close to getting this over the line
It has to be more than just the director debt
League 2 beckons if Roland continues as he has.
If they were that confident to attract investment why has Muir not fronted the money
If I were a businessman looking to get a club into the Prem, then I wouldn't want this debt to have to be paid up taking the gloss and most importantly, profit off the achievement. The debt is Roland's and he needs to clear it or reduce the fee for the club by £7m.
Take a look at the last figures for Prem clubs, there are some big profits for some clubs, but Watford only made £3m, £2m the year before. Man City didn't make a profit, others lost money. Simply getting an extra £200m income doesn't guarantee a profit. If I was in the Aussie consortium, I wouldn't take the club unless the £7m debt was cleared beforehand.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17