The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
It is if buyer/buyers have said not our problem, you need to clear those charges ahead of a sale.bobmunro said:
As I understand it the loans must be repaid if we ever get back to the Premier League, or at any time before then at the club's call?Davidsmith said:
Never has,especially when buyers want clean title.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it stacks up because of RD’s valuation.Scoham said:
So if the Americans are backing off, where does that leave the takeover?Airman Brown said:
American money, based on holding the assets. Australian control, based on owning the football club. However, the same source says the Americans will now back off.carly burn said:Australian consortium according to JW.
Doesn't that contradict what Airman said the other day?
This isn’t via JW, by the way.
Roland will have to buy out Ex Directors if a deal is to be done, and from what I have heard they have not been approached since low ball bid last year.
In terms of valuation then it matters not whether or not the loans are paid off by RD or by the new owners upon taking control. Club with clean title £x million, Club without clean title £x-7 million. So it could still be sold by RD without talking to the ex-directors and become clean title very quickly after takeover.
That's if clean title is essential - if it isn't then they could buy the club for £7 million less than a clean title agreed valuation and leave the charges in tact.
I'm pretty sure it isn't the outstanding charges that is stopping the sale.
Which I believe has happened or why suddenly at last moment in deal last year did he contact Ex Directors with a low ball bid?
The only title has to be clean title, £7mn is still got to be paid sometime and even in 10years time at current interest rates paying later only saves the buyer around £1mn.
More importantly it allows them to make Loans to the club secured by assets,unlike Roland who has unsecured debt and buyers know that.1 -
We've had our chains yanked again and once again the rug is pulled from under us. Always down to the totally unrealistic price that twat wants. Oh well. Stand down everyone.Airman Brown said:
I don’t, I’m afraid. The prediction made to me is that they will back away from getting involved.SoundAsa£ said:
Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Were they ever in?ShootersHillGuru said:So the Americans are now “out”
FFS!0 -
blackpool72 said:
Oi.Callumcafc said:Comes back to Roland’s asking price once again.
As awiseman once said: just sell the club and F OFF
Put the wise back.1 -
Back to square one it is.
Ground hog day resumes.0 -
All this and I missed me shout out
Disappointed, France0 -
Because he is a dickMendonca In Asdas said:Skipped a lot of pages, why is Danny Murphy getting pelters?
1 -
Because he is a dickMendonca In Asdas said:Skipped a lot of pages, why is Danny Murphy getting pelters?
0 -
Whats the point in what? Telling people what you've been told in good faith (no doubt by someone very high up in the process)? No one cares what your flat earth theory might be, but someone with a reputation in sport like Jim White, people want to hear from.golfaddick said:
Then what's the point in doing that.J BLOCK said:Fair play to Jim White, telling us what he knows. It's not always accurate but he's giving us info in good faith and it's more than we've had in a long time.
I've been told the earth is flat. It might not be accurate but hey ho.....3 -
Laughable reallyAirman Brown said:
I don’t, I’m afraid. The prediction made to me is that they will back away from getting involved.SoundAsa£ said:
Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Were they ever in?ShootersHillGuru said:So the Americans are now “out”
FFS!
0 -
So are you saying the Americans have just decided to back out of it all at this late stage?Airman Brown said:
I don’t, I’m afraid. The prediction made to me is that they will back away from getting involved.SoundAsa£ said:
Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Were they ever in?ShootersHillGuru said:So the Americans are now “out”
FFS!0 - Sponsored links:
-
After Saturday, think I’ll just try and enjoy the competitive football that’s going on because if this nutter still owns us next season it might be the last time we see that for a while. Appreciate everyone trying to find out what’s going on including JW.14
-
SoundAsa£ said:
Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Were they ever in?ShootersHillGuru said:So the Americans are now “out”
FFS!
Awkward.Airman Brown said:
I don’t, I’m afraid. The prediction made to me is that they will back away from getting involved.SoundAsa£ said:
Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Were they ever in?ShootersHillGuru said:So the Americans are now “out”
FFS!12 -
I've felt for some time this is going to be one for his heirs to sort out. He's the sort of stubborn old fool who will carry on losing £6 million a year while holding out for an extra £1 million to show that he was successful after all.
I really hope Bowyer gets us up this season to give us a cushion from L2/non-league. We're punching above our weight at the moment and this is down to LB/JJ. Should anything go wrong, the owner may well revert to type.
2 -
So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?0
-
Aussies pulling out, not pulling out, sale on, sale off..... Gawd knows where this is all heading.
All I know is that the only pulling out I wished had happened was Roland's Dad - would have saved the world of football so much heartache both here and in Belgium.
10 -
So the reputation of Jim White is now in the gutter alongside 'Done Deal' gate.3
-
Sounds Fishy.addick1965 said:Please disperse...nothing to see here..all get back to what you were doing before.
It seems like Jim White has fallen into Shark infested waters by getting overexcited like a school boy who has found out a rumour.
I bet he had a Whale of a time, just a shame it appears to be a red Herring.
I shall Harbour no Eel feelings towards him.5 -
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?The Red Robin said:Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.0 -
The splitting of club and its assets is very bad if true. I fear that would start the beginnings of the end for us. If that was the deal RD was trying to get over the line I hope it fails.10
-
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).se9addick said:
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?The Red Robin said:Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Not if he sells the whole thing (Baton) to one entity. It just depends on how the business was structured going forward.se9addick said:
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).se9addick said:
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?The Red Robin said:Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.0 -
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.The Red Robin said:So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
2 -
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.se9addick said:
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).se9addick said:
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?The Red Robin said:Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.0 -
Jim WhitebaitDazzler21 said:
Sounds Fishy.addick1965 said:Please disperse...nothing to see here..all get back to what you were doing before.
It seems like Jim White has fallen into Shark infested waters by getting overexcited like a school boy who has found out a rumour.
I bet he had a Whale of a time, just a shame it appears to be a red Herring.
I shall Harbour no Eel feelings towards him.7 -
Totally agree, as much as I can't stand RD, I think you're be the the devil you know. As some have been saying for quite a while nowStu_of_Kunming said:
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.se9addick said:
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).se9addick said:
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?The Red Robin said:Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.0 -
As I said about 60 pages back and 6 days ago.charltonkeston said:Next stage is; The documents are waiting/are with the football league. Which will then be batted around for a few more weeks with the league saying they haven't seen them and the club saying oh yes you have and the silent buyers leaking that a deal is close to completion and that they have completed all relevant documents and agreed a price.
While simultaneously two bit hacks on two bit news programmes and two bit newspapers release vague messages, pretending they have the ear of the purchasers or the inside mole at the club. They might as well look at pine cones, they would be just as accurate as has been proved by their past predictions.
The Aussies/whoever didn't want to stump up the cash in the past or didn't have the cash in the past, nothing much has changed from last season when we were play off material to this year when we are play off material once more. That's about as much as most really know or can conclude from what has not happened.
Only my speculation about the next stage looks like wishful thinking now.0 -
My understanding was that ACV was about preventing or at least giving the public time to oppose a change of use ie a pub being turned into flats rather than the pub changing landlord.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I thought the holders of The ACV would then have to be given a 6month window to match the bid for the stadium, wasn't the the point of the original application.se9addick said:
Hold on - just seen that the speculation is over one party buying the stadium and another the club, my response above assumed that Roland would retain the Valley. If he sells the Valley then I’m pretty sure he would have to notify the Trust first under the ACV legislation (that’s not to say the Trust could actually stop him...).se9addick said:
The ACV is attached to the stadium, so if he sold another asset (the Club for instance) then I don’t think there would be any requirement to notify the Trust under the ACV legislation. I’d be astonished if anyone at Charlton knows there’s an ACV or what they have to do to fulfil the requirements of the legislation anyway.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?The Red Robin said:Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.
I also remember reading about it expiring, I really hope that didn't happen as I'd rather have RD around than Charlton not own The Valley.
The ACV was for five years and so would have now expired in November 2018. Have the Supporters' Trust renewed it?0 -
Is Jim White still telling us not to worry, or is he saying we can worry now?2
-
Only a hypothesis, but in effect the Aussies buy Baton - the club and the assets - with US backing which is secured with a new charge over the assets. The land isn’t going anywhere and as we know is a good long-term bet, even though it’s not prime development land or anything like.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Regardless of which one, if true and correct, it sounds like the Aussies (or at the least the Aussies who are left from the original line up), are expecting heavy investment and are offering little to no security. It seems they want people to chuck em money and leave them to it to try and make a return.The Red Robin said:So do the Americans want the ground to sell it then? Or as security if they're helping the Aussies fund a takeover? Or both?
All then hinges on whether their valuation of the land is sufficient to meet RD’s price, including the £7m, because I don’t think the Aussies have currently got much more than working capital between them.
On this scenario the ACV doesn’t ever come into play, because the club owns the land, and the ex-directors are gone. But the Aussies would likely have no ability to borrow further against the assets.0 -
Imminent, apparently a big meeting this evening if all goes well it unlocks the money. What that means I ain't got a scobbysMuttleyCAFC said:Is Jim White still telling us not to worry, or is he saying we can worry now?
0