Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
CL, for when you start to suspect that Rolecks datejust watch you bought in the pub may possibly be fake...North Lower Neil said:
I only popped in to the thread to check if this was 1664.happyvalley said:Kronenbourg 1664.0 -
Only a moron would pay c80m pounds for a business that loses 10m a year.SoundAsa£ said:
A moron...... why do you say that?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yes and no, the losses are being covered by loans he himself is paying, so the only way it's not going to cost him anything is if the sale price covers *all* existing debt, that would require the club to increase in value by 10/15m each year, clearly RD is going to have to write off huge amounts of money, or find a moron to buy the club.se9addick said:
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.Gillis said:harveys_gardener said:@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Am I incorrect?
I don't actually think such a person exists, which is why the club remains for sale after all this time.6 -
There is one such person.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Only a moron would pay c80m pounds for a business that loses 10m a year.SoundAsa£ said:
A moron...... why do you say that?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yes and no, the losses are being covered by loans he himself is paying, so the only way it's not going to cost him anything is if the sale price covers *all* existing debt, that would require the club to increase in value by 10/15m each year, clearly RD is going to have to write off huge amounts of money, or find a moron to buy the club.se9addick said:
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.Gillis said:harveys_gardener said:@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Am I incorrect?
I don't actually think such a person exists, which is why the club remains for sale after all this time.
Unfortunately, he already owns the club.26 -
Charlton are spending money they don’t have loaned to them with interest from Duchatelet through one of his holdings. Whichever way you paint the picture the money owed will never fully get repaid. The debt rises week on week, month on month, year on year. The only way Duchatelet can claw back some of the money owed is by selling the club and taking a haircut. I’ve no idea but doubt any of his losses can be offset against tax. Whether the money loaned to Charlton is from his own bank account or via one of his companies, it’s still costing him and when he finally goes it will have cost him a lot.se9addick said:
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.Gillis said:harveys_gardener said:@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Am I incorrect?
1 -
No it's with BullShit...bertpalmer said:Is the hold up with RedBull2 -
This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
3 -
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=2110 -
I bet Roland wouldn't do a deal with the ex-directors where they both take the same percentage haircut on the club being sold. A significantly bigger amount of loss for him but maybe a fairer perspective?harveys_gardener said:@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.1 -
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=217 -
They need to spend money to catch up - with a club that has about a dozen contracted first-team players, some of whom have never played above L1. If you say so? This is about wages, not fees.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
i think you’ll find Brentford, for example, are way ahead of us in terms of squad quality and depth. That’s why they were able to buy and pay Konsa.
7 -
Sponsored links:
-
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=2124 -
Only one of those stats matter, where we finished last season, they *all* finished above us, so no, they are not the ones with catching up to do.letthegoodtimesroll said:
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
Would you like a little wager that we won't be promoted this season, takeover or no takeover, loser pays the Upbeats?6 -
Or maybe not.JamesSeed said:
I’m hardly his biggest fanboy, but I have a feeling he might be being being fairly straightforward in this instance.Valley11 said:
That was my impression. Don’t think this is positive sadly. Sounds like petulant, spoilt brat mode, maybe because the takeover isn’t quite going how he likes it or as quickly.Henry Irving said:Lies, lies and more lies plus some more let's blame everyone but myself from Roland.
Of course it’s also the case that he might be able to sort out the loans issue by getting out his chequebook.1 -
If I have read correctly, I admit I might not have done, they made 4 million loss despite a player trading profit of about 8 million.Airman Brown said:
They need to spend money to catch up - with a club that has about a dozen contracted first-team players, some of whom have never played above L1. If you say so? This is about wages, not fees.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
i think you’ll find Brentford, for example, are way ahead of us in terms of squad quality and depth. That’s why they were able to buy and pay Konsa.
The summer they bought Konsa they sold about £30 millions worth of players. They are a great example of data driven recruitment, maybe Roland should send little Tommy there on work experience. He could help make the tea or something.0 -
You've got to be on a wind up surely?letthegoodtimesroll said:
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
What on earth have attendances got to do with anything? Did you not see Luton winning the league whilst Sunderland finished 5th?11 -
Cue: fifty cups of tea. All cold. None with milk in. Very few with water. Or tea.Cafc43v3r said:
If I have read correctly, I admit I might not have done, they made 4 million loss despite a player trading profit of about 8 million.Airman Brown said:
They need to spend money to catch up - with a club that has about a dozen contracted first-team players, some of whom have never played above L1. If you say so? This is about wages, not fees.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
i think you’ll find Brentford, for example, are way ahead of us in terms of squad quality and depth. That’s why they were able to buy and pay Konsa.
The summer they bought Konsa they sold about £30 millions worth of players. They are a great example of data driven recruitment, maybe Roland should send little Tommy there on work experience. He could help make the tea or something.
One of them doesn't taste like coffee and is presented as a complete triumph.
Tommy has his picture taken with a large urn.1 -
So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?0 -
So are you saying Luton are a bigger club than Sunderland ?Chris_from_Sidcup said:
You've got to be on a wind up surely?letthegoodtimesroll said:
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
What on earth have attendances got to do with anything? Did you not see Luton winning the league whilst Sunderland finished 5th?0 -
No, he's saying size doesn't equal success.letthegoodtimesroll said:
So are you saying Luton are a bigger club than Sunderland ?Chris_from_Sidcup said:
You've got to be on a wind up surely?letthegoodtimesroll said:
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
What on earth have attendances got to do with anything? Did you not see Luton winning the league whilst Sunderland finished 5th?5 -
Obviously not.letthegoodtimesroll said:
So are you saying Luton are a bigger club than Sunderland ?Chris_from_Sidcup said:
You've got to be on a wind up surely?letthegoodtimesroll said:
So we gave them a head start last season and they are still no higher than us. Our biggest home crowd last season was probably bigger than theirs. The biggest crowd we played in front of last season was probably bigger then theirs. The biggest home crowd at the valley next season will probably be bigger than theirs. The silverware we collected last season was probably more than most of them collected and definitely worth more financially. We are going to get promoted again next season, one or two of them will be relegated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
In what way do those clubs need to 'catch up' with us? They all finished higher than us last season.letthegoodtimesroll said:
To be fair, they are a lot smaller than us and they need to spend big to try and catch up. Spending money you haven’t got doesn’t mean success, it just means you’ve spent more and got a bigger debt to pay back. LB proved last season that there are quality players out there that you don’t need to pay a transfer fee for. I’m all for repeating that model this season and if there is any money in the kitty to pay a transfer fee then I wouldn’t mention it because prices reflect what people think you can pay.Airman Brown said:This quote from Bowyer is really quite significant - it means smaller than Millwall, Brentford, Barnsley, Preston, Wigan and Luton, for example, not exactly clubs we’d consider bigger than Charlton.
https://twitter.com/richcawleyslp/status/1136945444825784320?s=21
What on earth have attendances got to do with anything? Did you not see Luton winning the league whilst Sunderland finished 5th?
Just wondering why you started waffling on about attendances in response to your original point of other championship sides needing to "spend big to try and catch up".
Incidentally 3 of the 6 sides you mentioned who need to spend big to catch us had a higher average attendance than us last season.4 -
Sponsored links:
-
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?0 -
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?JamesSeed said:
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?4 -
It might be because they want to be able to secure loans on the ground. Or it might be because, given the choice of having clean title and not having clean title, they'd prefer the former.Cafc43v3r said:
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?JamesSeed said:
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?0 -
So basically we are nowhere nearer than what we were 12 months ago as below
https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/exclusive-andrew-muir-backed-consortium-will-see-no-wealthy-investor-with-a-controlling-stake-at-charlton-athletic/
1 -
From day one it was agreed club and grounds, and as far as I know, clean title.Chizz said:
It might be because they want to be able to secure loans on the ground. Or it might be because, given the choice of having clean title and not having clean title, they'd prefer the former.Cafc43v3r said:
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?JamesSeed said:
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?
Might have been because of advice from lawyers, or perhaps it was because of the can of worms they discovered while doing DD re the ownership issues from the Jiminez era.
I think they’re trying to do the right thing.
Others who know more about takeovers than I do, say clean title tends to be the norm.0 -
1665, The Great Plague kills around a quarter of London's population.0
-
He paid less than 20 million for a championship side because the spivs needed a quick sale so forget about DD and sign on the dotted line. So not so moronic at that price. Plus he thought Fair play rules would keep his annual losses down and people would flock to the valley from all parts of London and knowing about football tourists who come to see 2 matches over a weekend would replace the over 65 fan base ! ( That was RD's logic not mine as voiced by Meire.)Henry Irving said:
There is one such person.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Only a moron would pay c80m pounds for a business that loses 10m a year.SoundAsa£ said:
A moron...... why do you say that?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yes and no, the losses are being covered by loans he himself is paying, so the only way it's not going to cost him anything is if the sale price covers *all* existing debt, that would require the club to increase in value by 10/15m each year, clearly RD is going to have to write off huge amounts of money, or find a moron to buy the club.se9addick said:
Is he really costing him money? I thought the losses were covered by loans from one of his other companies, with interest charged, and the debt these loans have created are driving the asking price for the club.Gillis said:harveys_gardener said:@JamesSeed loans by directors are costing us nowt. Don't need repaying until we get in the Prem. If I was an (older) creditor I'd bite RDs hand off for 50%.The loans aren't costing us anything, but if Roland not clearing them prevents the sale of the club, then it will cost him money, as he will have to continue to fund the running costs of the club.And it won't take long for the money that he has to put in to run the club to exceed the cost of clearing the loans. I don't have the figures, but I assume that would happen within one season.Therefore, by not clearing the loans and thus enabling the sale, he may well be costing himself more money in the long run.
Am I incorrect?
I don't actually think such a person exists, which is why the club remains for sale after all this time.
Unfortunately, he already owns the club.
In Greenwich mean time in June 2019, Roland wants between 65 to 75 million depending who's bidding.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent prick ?
(Roland Duchatelet not Sir Henry Irving)2 -
Clean title would seem to be the sensible thing if you are the buyer but I wonder where Charlton would.be if those loans hadn’t been there. If new buyers ever do come along and take over the club let’s hope they have the financial backing behind them to build on what they acquired and not be planning to asset strip, make a short term profit and fuck off leaving the club in a far worse position.JamesSeed said:
From day one it was agreed club and grounds, and as far as I know, clean title.Chizz said:
It might be because they want to be able to secure loans on the ground. Or it might be because, given the choice of having clean title and not having clean title, they'd prefer the former.Cafc43v3r said:
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?JamesSeed said:
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?
Might have been because of advice from lawyers, or perhaps it was because of the can of worms they discovered while doing DD re the ownership issues from the Jiminez era.
I think they’re trying to do the right thing.
Others who know more about takeovers than I do, say clean title tends to be the norm.0 -
Any chance it can spread to a tiny and specific part of Belgium?happyvalley said:1665, The Great Plague kills around a quarter of London's population.6 -
Luckily for us there are basically no assets left to strip, which is probably the only thing stopping your hero from doing exactly that.letthegoodtimesroll said:
Clean title would seem to be the sensible thing if you are the buyer but I wonder where Charlton would.be if those loans hadn’t been there. If new buyers ever do come along and take over the club let’s hope they have the financial backing behind them to build on what they acquired and not be planning to asset strip, make a short term profit and fuck off leaving the club in a far worse position.JamesSeed said:
From day one it was agreed club and grounds, and as far as I know, clean title.Chizz said:
It might be because they want to be able to secure loans on the ground. Or it might be because, given the choice of having clean title and not having clean title, they'd prefer the former.Cafc43v3r said:
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?JamesSeed said:
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?
Might have been because of advice from lawyers, or perhaps it was because of the can of worms they discovered while doing DD re the ownership issues from the Jiminez era.
I think they’re trying to do the right thing.
Others who know more about takeovers than I do, say clean title tends to be the norm.4
This discussion has been closed.
