The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Just to clear one thing up - Has it been discussed if this new Aussie involvement has got anything at all to do with the old one? Sorry, but I've been skipping 60 odd pages at a time on this thread.

Henry Irving said:

Croydon said:

Amazing to see all the ITK folk backtrack all at once following JW's comments today. No one knows anything, as has been proved time and time again. Aussies, Usmanov, Red Bull and US investors, has anyone actually matched the over inflated price tag yet? Have they f...

Who backtracked?

White. Pay attention.

J BLOCK said:

Airman Brown said:

SoundAsa£ said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

So the Americans are now “out”

Were they ever in?

Airman means they will back off as in leaving the Australians to run the club....NOT pulling out of the deal.
FFS!

I don’t, I’m afraid. The prediction made to me is that they will back away from getting involved.

So are you saying the Americans have just decided to back out of it all at this late stage?

The speculation is that the Americans would be landlords and the Aussies would have the day to day running of the club.
That's why i speculated if that had ever worked in Pro football and been successful.

How can the fog keep getting thicker.

Airman Brown said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

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?

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.

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.

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.

Was it the Aussies or Americans who were introduced as the new owners?

Mal said:

Well as I see it, this next 3 days are defining, Monday or Tuesday - as JW said, we should of been taken over, if not, then Wednesday's fans forum should tell us something, either the same old 5 interested bullchite again, or something more Interesting. Interesting week.

AdTheAddicK said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Is Jim White still telling us not to worry, or is he saying we can worry now?

Imminent, apparently a big meeting this evening if all goes well it unlocks the money. What that means I ain't got a scobbys

It means Robert is waiting to see how he gets on in The Chase tonight to see if funds will unlock.

Airman Brown said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

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?

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.

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.

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.

How likely is a Coventry and Ricoh situation if the Americans owned the assets eventually and decide to kick us out?

The Red Robin said:

Airman Brown said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

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?

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.

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.

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.

How likely is a Coventry and Ricoh situation if the Americans owned the assets eventually and decide to kick us out?

That depends on the structure - the ex-directors have charges but they can’t kick the club out. The problem for anyone holding the asset is even if the club went bust it’s a long road to realise any value.

So two untested dimensions of ACV - loans secured against an ACV property, and a 'reverse ACV' where the asset of the club is sold and the freehold of the ground retained. Neither I would imagine were anticipated as part of the legislation, but both could represent a change in the 'ownership status'. Hard to see how they could be, but I'm no lawyer.

Henry Irving said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

se9addick said:

se9addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

The Red Robin said:

Effectively two different sets of investors owning different parts of the club/assets is a recipe for disaster.

Is the ACV still active? If so surely The Trust would have to be notified about the split of assets?

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.

Additionally, as @Airman Brown points out, it doesn’t offer much protection other than making things slightly trickier.

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...).

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.

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.

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.

The ACV was for five years and so would have now expired in November 2018. Have the Supporters' Trust renewed it?

The ACV on The Valley expired on October 10th. CAST submitted on the same day an application for it to be re-listed (You can't apply until the status has actually expired). RB Greenwich should have reached a decision within eight weeks but, apart from a couple of clarification questions, we haven't heard from them formally yet. We are chasing it up.

It does seem bizarre that any Asset of Community Value is unprotected during the period in which the new application is considered. However, although ACV status does provide some protection it is largely symbolic and would not come into force if Charlton Athletic Holdings (or Baton) was sold by one party to another.

Uboat said:

Why are we still taking about the ground? Didn't that plan depend on the now-withdrawn Americans?

There's been no confirmation of their involvement or withdrawl, the fact that it was discussed as an option is worrying enough.

looking forward to the minutes from Wednesday's Fans Forum meeting. I gather LVT will say there are now six interested parties, five have done DD, one isn't going to bother as they are minted and don't care, all six have made offers to RD but none accepted, the EFL test has yet to be passed by anyone, the Aussie/USA/New Zealand/Papua New Guinea consortium is still trying to raise cash but are hopeful now that a mate in Barbados wants in, in the last three hours he had had another approach (Red Bull) and he is now extremely confident that a deal will be concluded sometime in the future. Jim White should be attending the meeting and his arrival is imminent.

My immediate concern is whether RD is about to sell Taylor to the spanners to help towards the mounting running costs.

So if ive got this straight, we could be moving from a billionaire owner who isnt prepared to invest, to Australian owners who havent got any money to invest, and who have had to raise the money they need by selling the freehold to third party American money men, thus adding the complication of split ownership, which never seems to end well.

Is it just me who cant really see this being any great improvement.

The Australian group must like doing the Hokey Cokey, there in out, in out, Roland must be dancing with them

cafc_harry said:

Pretty simple question, are the Americans in or out? If they are out is it over?

We've never really "known" about any Americans full stop.

Just like most of this takeover process really, it's all been little nuggets of information that have emerged from certain sources, but never a complete picture.