Can we be Liquidated? what would this mean? Could RD do this??@AirmanBrown??
No, we won't be liquidated/go into administration.
This generally happens when companies can't pay their debts to creditors and end up having the debts written off or only pay at let's say 1p in the £1 owed (as an example).
As all the debt is owed to RD. He's not going to put Charlton into administration, in order to avoid paying the money owed to himself.
We could be liquidated but the main creditor would be Mr Ducktape so wouldn't make much sense. Planning for the ground would be against the previous attempt which formed the Valley Party, so is unlikely to happen. Once done RD doesn't get to choose who buys the assets so the Ozzies would buy the club for significantly less than £40m (or £47m for the intellectually challenged)
But what if the Aussie bid has fallen apart and there are no other suitors waiting in the wings?
Under those circumstances might it make sense to put the club into administration, take a big haircut on the debt (especially as the ex-directors need to get their £7M before RD would see a penny) rather than continue to fund Charlton’s losses by throwing good money after bad?
I don’t think that makes any sense. Why would Roland take a haircut on debt owed to himself?
Isn’t he going to be taking a hit either way? If the Aussies (or whom ever) pay circa £40M and he retains/writes off debts of circa £60M?
The Staprix debt is circa £65m - some of it is dubious as it is made up of notional interest, so we can debate whether it is real money. It also includes his purchase price as set out in the accounts of £18.6m. In the real world he has loaned the club about £40m ignoring the interest (which Staprix may have paid out). Someone will have to deal with the £7m ex-directors debt one way or another.
He is going to take a hit whatever he does, but the total amount in play is a long way shy of £100m.
There was 2 people in press gantry Saturday getting very animated about the game. They were far to keen and excited about Charlton to be regular fans.
They were not reporters and at the end of the game made there way over to the directors box leaned over and was making conversation with someone below.
Sounds like Scooby and his less intelligent mate getting in for free, dressed up as St John's Ambulance again.....
Can we be Liquidated? what would this mean? Could RD do this??@AirmanBrown??
No, we won't be liquidated/go into administration.
This generally happens when companies can't pay their debts to creditors and end up having the debts written off or only pay at let's say 1p in the £1 owed (as an example).
As all the debt is owed to RD. He's not going to put Charlton into administration, in order to avoid paying the money owed to himself.
We could be liquidated but the main creditor would be Mr Ducktape so wouldn't make much sense. Planning for the ground would be against the previous attempt which formed the Valley Party, so is unlikely to happen. Once done RD doesn't get to choose who buys the assets so the Ozzies would buy the club for significantly less than £40m (or £47m for the intellectually challenged)
But what if the Aussie bid has fallen apart and there are no other suitors waiting in the wings?
Under those circumstances might it make sense to put the club into administration, take a big haircut on the debt (especially as the ex-directors need to get their £7M before RD would see a penny) rather than continue to fund Charlton’s losses by throwing good money after bad?
I don’t think that makes any sense. Why would Roland take a haircut on debt owed to himself?
Isn’t he going to be taking a hit either way? If the Aussies (or whom ever) pay circa £40M and he retains/writes off debts of circa £60M?
The Staprix debt is circa £65m - some of it is dubious as it is made up of notional interest, so we can debate whether it is real money. It also includes his purchase price as set out in the accounts of £18.6m. In the real world he has loaned the club about £40m ignoring the interest (which Staprix may have paid out). Someone will have to deal with the £7m ex-directors debt one way or another.
He is going to take a hit whatever he does, but the total amount in play is a long way shy of £100m.
Right.
So if he can’t find a buyer, then a viable option would be to put the club into administration and stop adding to the debt pile which must grow larger every month and then, once the administrators have sold the assets and the ex-directors have taken their cut, deduct whatever he gets as the next creditor in line from the £40M debt that’s been run up and that’s his haircut. He’ll still take a hit, but he won’t be saddled with the ongoing costs anymore.
I’m not saying the above will happen, it’s more likely he’ll find a buyer, but I don’t think it’s as unlikely that we could end up going down that route as others seem to believe.
Surely he can't put the club into administration? That would be like taking court action against himself.
Can we be Liquidated? what would this mean? Could RD do this??@AirmanBrown??
No, we won't be liquidated/go into administration.
This generally happens when companies can't pay their debts to creditors and end up having the debts written off or only pay at let's say 1p in the £1 owed (as an example).
As all the debt is owed to RD. He's not going to put Charlton into administration, in order to avoid paying the money owed to himself.
We could be liquidated but the main creditor would be Mr Ducktape so wouldn't make much sense. Planning for the ground would be against the previous attempt which formed the Valley Party, so is unlikely to happen. Once done RD doesn't get to choose who buys the assets so the Ozzies would buy the club for significantly less than £40m (or £47m for the intellectually challenged)
But what if the Aussie bid has fallen apart and there are no other suitors waiting in the wings?
Under those circumstances might it make sense to put the club into administration, take a big haircut on the debt (especially as the ex-directors need to get their £7M before RD would see a penny) rather than continue to fund Charlton’s losses by throwing good money after bad?
I don’t think that makes any sense. Why would Roland take a haircut on debt owed to himself?
Isn’t he going to be taking a hit either way? If the Aussies (or whom ever) pay circa £40M and he retains/writes off debts of circa £60M?
The Staprix debt is circa £65m - some of it is dubious as it is made up of notional interest, so we can debate whether it is real money. It also includes his purchase price as set out in the accounts of £18.6m. In the real world he has loaned the club about £40m ignoring the interest (which Staprix may have paid out). Someone will have to deal with the £7m ex-directors debt one way or another.
He is going to take a hit whatever he does, but the total amount in play is a long way shy of £100m.
Right.
So if he can’t find a buyer, then a viable option would be to put the club into administration and stop adding to the debt pile which must grow larger every month and then, once the administrators have sold the assets and the ex-directors have taken their cut, deduct whatever he gets as the next creditor in line from the £40M debt that’s been run up and that’s his haircut. He’ll still take a hit, but he won’t be saddled with the ongoing costs anymore.
I’m not saying the above will happen, it’s more likely he’ll find a buyer, but I don’t think it’s as unlikely that we could end up going down that route as others seem to believe.
No, if he puts the club into admin, then the administrators will sell the club as a going concern for whatever they can get. That could be as little as (say) £10m, if that's all any potential buyer would offer. £7m of that would go to the first creditors (ex directors) and £3m to Staprix as the next debtor. As the Staprix debt is currently (around) £65m, RD will have taken a £62m haircut! He's not going to do that.
If he liquidated the club, he might (and all numbers are guesses) be able to rake in around £5m for players, £10m for the Valley, £5m for the training ground, and another million or so on fixtures and fittings (all against his own current £65m debt), then pay off the ex-directors, thus meaning he would only lose £51m (so not £62m when going the admin route).
We could all play with the numbers and have better guesses than I, but ultimately the best way out for him currently, is to sell the club as a going concern and if the Aussie (or anyone) is willing to pay him about £40m, that is his best option at this time.
Can we be Liquidated? what would this mean? Could RD do this??@AirmanBrown??
No, we won't be liquidated/go into administration.
This generally happens when companies can't pay their debts to creditors and end up having the debts written off or only pay at let's say 1p in the £1 owed (as an example).
As all the debt is owed to RD. He's not going to put Charlton into administration, in order to avoid paying the money owed to himself.
We could be liquidated but the main creditor would be Mr Ducktape so wouldn't make much sense. Planning for the ground would be against the previous attempt which formed the Valley Party, so is unlikely to happen. Once done RD doesn't get to choose who buys the assets so the Ozzies would buy the club for significantly less than £40m (or £47m for the intellectually challenged)
But what if the Aussie bid has fallen apart and there are no other suitors waiting in the wings?
Under those circumstances might it make sense to put the club into administration, take a big haircut on the debt (especially as the ex-directors need to get their £7M before RD would see a penny) rather than continue to fund Charlton’s losses by throwing good money after bad?
I don’t think that makes any sense. Why would Roland take a haircut on debt owed to himself?
Isn’t he going to be taking a hit either way? If the Aussies (or whom ever) pay circa £40M and he retains/writes off debts of circa £60M?
The Staprix debt is circa £65m - some of it is dubious as it is made up of notional interest, so we can debate whether it is real money. It also includes his purchase price as set out in the accounts of £18.6m. In the real world he has loaned the club about £40m ignoring the interest (which Staprix may have paid out). Someone will have to deal with the £7m ex-directors debt one way or another.
He is going to take a hit whatever he does, but the total amount in play is a long way shy of £100m.
Right.
So if he can’t find a buyer, then a viable option would be to put the club into administration and stop adding to the debt pile which must grow larger every month and then, once the administrators have sold the assets and the ex-directors have taken their cut, deduct whatever he gets as the next creditor in line from the £40M debt that’s been run up and that’s his haircut. He’ll still take a hit, but he won’t be saddled with the ongoing costs anymore.
I’m not saying the above will happen, it’s more likely he’ll find a buyer, but I don’t think it’s as unlikely that we could end up going down that route as others seem to believe.
No, if he puts the club into admin, then the administrators will sell the club as a going concern for whatever they can get. That could be as little as (say) £10m, if that's all any potential buyer would offer. £7m of that would go to the first creditors (ex directors) and £3m to Staprix as the next debtor. As the Staprix debt is currently (around) £65m, RD will have taken a £62m haircut! He's not going to do that.
If he liquidated the club, he might (and all numbers are guesses) be able to rake in around £5m for players, £10m for the Valley, £5m for the training ground, and another million or so on fixtures and fittings (all against his own current £65m debt), then pay off the ex-directors, thus meaning he would only lose £51m (so not £62m when going the admin route).
We could all play with the numbers and have better guesses than I, but ultimately the best way out for him currently, is to sell the club as a going concern and if the Aussie (or anyone) is willing to pay him about £40m, that is his best option at this time.
I agree, that’s why I started with “So if he can’t find a buyer”.
Surely the debt shouldn't be a factor other than as an example that the club is seriously loss making. So if the plank bought the club for £18m, where has there been any increase in value? We have lost about half of our fans, Have a bare bones squad, Are playing in League One and are becoming established there with a greater risk of going lower than higher and finally we have no staff or even a full time manager or CEO. How can it be relevant how much the plank has put in the club, it surely is the sort of business you give away to stem the future losses!
I do wish people would read all the posts fully as then there wouldn't be any misunderstandings.
A previous poster had said that J Ackworth had got the info from someone at a staff meeting before the match where they had been briefed about the takeover
@Henry Irving then said that there was no staff meeting
@AFKABartram then posted that the stewards have a briefing before the match & so Ackworth could be refering to this meeting
@Airman Brown Brown then said why would the stewards be told about the takeover.
I don't think @AFKABartram meant that the stewards were being told about the takeover but simply the stewards have a briefing before every match & so hence that is where Ackworths "meeting" is related to.
chinese whispers......jeez. send three 'n fourpence, we're going to a dance.
So are you saying there’s definitely going to be a takeover today then and the new owners could be from China ?
NO! he's inviting us out to some sort of retro party. Pay attention!
Surely the debt shouldn't be a factor other than as an example that the club is seriously loss making. So if the plank bought the club for £18m, where has there been any increase in value? We have lost about half of our fans, Have a bare bones squad, Are playing in League One and are becoming established there with a greater risk of going lower than higher and finally we have no staff or even a full time manager or CEO. How can it be relevant how much the plank has put in the club, it surely is the sort of business you give away to stem the future losses!
Can we be Liquidated? what would this mean? Could RD do this??@AirmanBrown??
No, we won't be liquidated/go into administration.
This generally happens when companies can't pay their debts to creditors and end up having the debts written off or only pay at let's say 1p in the £1 owed (as an example).
As all the debt is owed to RD. He's not going to put Charlton into administration, in order to avoid paying the money owed to himself.
We could be liquidated but the main creditor would be Mr Ducktape so wouldn't make much sense. Planning for the ground would be against the previous attempt which formed the Valley Party, so is unlikely to happen. Once done RD doesn't get to choose who buys the assets so the Ozzies would buy the club for significantly less than £40m (or £47m for the intellectually challenged)
But what if the Aussie bid has fallen apart and there are no other suitors waiting in the wings?
Under those circumstances might it make sense to put the club into administration, take a big haircut on the debt (especially as the ex-directors need to get their £7M before RD would see a penny) rather than continue to fund Charlton’s losses by throwing good money after bad?
I don’t think that makes any sense. Why would Roland take a haircut on debt owed to himself?
Isn’t he going to be taking a hit either way? If the Aussies (or whom ever) pay circa £40M and he retains/writes off debts of circa £60M?
The Staprix debt is circa £65m - some of it is dubious as it is made up of notional interest, so we can debate whether it is real money. It also includes his purchase price as set out in the accounts of £18.6m. In the real world he has loaned the club about £40m ignoring the interest (which Staprix may have paid out). Someone will have to deal with the £7m ex-directors debt one way or another.
He is going to take a hit whatever he does, but the total amount in play is a long way shy of £100m.
Right.
So if he can’t find a buyer, then a viable option would be to put the club into administration and stop adding to the debt pile which must grow larger every month and then, once the administrators have sold the assets and the ex-directors have taken their cut, deduct whatever he gets as the next creditor in line from the £40M debt that’s been run up and that’s his haircut. He’ll still take a hit, but he won’t be saddled with the ongoing costs anymore.
I’m not saying the above will happen, it’s more likely he’ll find a buyer, but I don’t think it’s as unlikely that we could end up going down that route as others seem to believe.
No, if he puts the club into admin, then the administrators will sell the club as a going concern for whatever they can get. That could be as little as (say) £10m, if that's all any potential buyer would offer. £7m of that would go to the first creditors (ex directors) and £3m to Staprix as the next debtor. As the Staprix debt is currently (around) £65m, RD will have taken a £62m haircut! He's not going to do that.
If he liquidated the club, he might (and all numbers are guesses) be able to rake in around £5m for players, £10m for the Valley, £5m for the training ground, and another million or so on fixtures and fittings (all against his own current £65m debt), then pay off the ex-directors, thus meaning he would only lose £51m (so not £62m when going the admin route).
We could all play with the numbers and have better guesses than I, but ultimately the best way out for him currently, is to sell the club as a going concern and if the Aussie (or anyone) is willing to pay him about £40m, that is his best option at this time.
Also, we shouldn't forget that the Administrators or Liquidators like to take a nice hefty slice of any assets and then there's the preferential creditors, like HMRC and staff redundancy costs. Insolvency Practitioners are specialists who don't come cheap. Then, in the case of the latter option, there's the Official Receiver as provisional liquidator: They like a nice slice too. On top of all that a liquidator would be obliged to provide a report(s) to The Insolvency Service and would highlight any wrongdoing by the directors. I'll leave it for Roland to decide whether that's an option he'd like to avoid.
As everybody is giving business tips to Roland, a chap that supposedly only made a mere €500 million if I read the comments on CL correctly, on what he should do if the takedown doesn’t happen, here is mine for him...make Bowyer the permanent Manager, give him the funds to sign the loan players he needs to push for promotion, then let other potential bidders consider if they want to make a move on a team that looks like it’s going up.
As everybody is giving business tips to Roland, a chap that supposedly only made a mere €500 million if I read the comments on CL correctly, on what he should do if the takedown doesn’t happen, here is mine for him...make Bowyer the permanent Manager, give him the funds to sign the loan players he needs to push for promotion, then let other potential bidders consider if they want to make a move on a team that looks like it’s going up.
There was 2 people in press gantry Saturday getting very animated about the game. They were far to keen and excited about Charlton to be regular fans.
They were not reporters and at the end of the game made there way over to the directors box leaned over and was making conversation with someone below.
Were they then escorted away by men in white coats ?
Rumour yesterday was started by a tweet saying it was said at a staff briefing. @Henry Irving later said there was no staff briefing. However, I’m sure the stewards have a briefing meeting before every game so it could well have eminated from that
No one is briefing the stewards about a takeover. Why would they?
I do wish people would read all the posts fully as then there wouldn't be any misunderstandings.
A previous poster had said that J Ackworth had got the info from someone at a staff meeting before the match where they had been briefed about the takeover
@Henry Irving then said that there was no staff meeting
@AFKABartram then posted that the stewards have a briefing before the match & so Ackworth could be refering to this meeting
@Airman Brown Brown then said why would the stewards be told about the takeover.
I don't think @AFKABartram meant that the stewards were being told about the takeover but simply the stewards have a briefing before every match & so hence that is where Ackworths "meeting" is related to.
chinese whispers......jeez. send three 'n fourpence, we're going to a dance.
Well, this is Duchatelet. Dance v Advance, I know what I think.
This talk of a steward briefing is a bit strange as I’ve just got off the phone to the old man who was in the north lower yesterday.
He arrived at the ground early yesterday and was chatting to a steward, who told him they “were expecting a demonstration at 3pm” my old man Noted “there weren’t enough people for a demonstration”
The steward replied “if it carries on,(?) the club will be liquidated”
Now, I am fully aware of the all the discussions on here about the charges on assets and unlikelihood of liquidation.
However, it was a very unusual comment from Dad, even speaking to a steward. Then to log on here and see all this talk about stewards, I just thought I’d share what he was told.
"if it carries on,(?)
There hasn't been a protest for over a season now?
Last I heard the Aussies were gone. Had the money to purchase the club but not enough to invest and take us forward
In the opinion of the EFL? I wonder what they make of Roland's "investment" over the last few years?
I really do find it unbelievable that once you've passed their flimsy test to become a club owner you can do what the hell you like.
It wouldn't happen in the NFL for example. The owner of the Carolina Panthers was recently ordered to sell the franchise after allegations of sexual miscodnuct and racial discrimination. If only the EFL, FA, Premier League, UEFA or FIFA had the balls to impose a rule like this.
Last I heard the Aussies were gone. Had the money to purchase the club but not enough to invest and take us forward
At the risk of starting a willy-waving contest: how do you rate your source on that?
So far, much of the info coming from those well connected inside the club have been saying that the Aussies don't have the reddies - but GM has been (softly) denying this all along.
Would anyone really be that disappointed by another ‘false dawn’ with little credibility.. the bottom of that barrel has been well and truly scraped by now.
If the Australian’s have “gone” and I’m not saying they havn’t. Surely the club ought to be making an announcement. The only reason I can see not is if CAFC are preferring to say nothing in order to gain leverage on any other lunatic interested parties.
If the Australian’s have “gone” and I’m not saying they havn’t. Surely the club ought to be making an announcement. The only reason I can see not is if CAFC are preferring to say nothing in order to gain leverage on any other lunatic interested parties.
Agreed, but surely the Aussies would put out a statement if it was definitely off ?
Comments
If he liquidated the club, he might (and all numbers are guesses) be able to rake in around £5m for players, £10m for the Valley, £5m for the training ground, and another million or so on fixtures and fittings (all against his own current £65m debt), then pay off the ex-directors, thus meaning he would only lose £51m (so not £62m when going the admin route).
We could all play with the numbers and have better guesses than I, but ultimately the best way out for him currently, is to sell the club as a going concern and if the Aussie (or anyone) is willing to pay him about £40m, that is his best option at this time.
There hasn't been a protest for over a season now?
I really do find it unbelievable that once you've passed their flimsy test to become a club owner you can do what the hell you like.
It wouldn't happen in the NFL for example. The owner of the Carolina Panthers was recently ordered to sell the franchise after allegations of sexual miscodnuct and racial discrimination. If only the EFL, FA, Premier League, UEFA or FIFA had the balls to impose a rule like this.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/18/facing-misconduct-investigation-panthers-owner-selling-team.html
So far, much of the info coming from those well connected inside the club have been saying that the Aussies don't have the reddies - but GM has been (softly) denying this all along.
You know the take...over...that all the security staff were briefed on?
Nah?
Awe nuts!
[PS How did I reply to RedChaser before he posted?]