Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Three cheers for the ex-Directors
Comments
-
This is a classic. The silly Old Scrote must have known this would come out. If Meire were still here I would say she has been deliberately misinforming him. However, I can't blame here her and I don;'t think there's anyone else we can put it on other than Duchatelet himself. Let's all sit back and watch the rest off his ridiculous message unravel. Amazing there are still people who think this was a reasonable message.Airman Brown said:5 -
Murray?Cardinal Sin said:
This is a classic. The silly Old Scrote must have known this would come out. If Meire were still here I would say she has been deliberately misinforming him. However, I can't blame here her and I don;'t think there's anyone else we can put it on other than Duchatelet himself. Let's all sit back and watch the rest off his ridiculous message unravel. Amazing there are still people who think this was a reasonable message.Airman Brown said:3 -
No expert, but I understand this is an accounting nicety and has no impact on the amount that is actually repaid.6
-
I guess he's probably the only one who could spin it but Murray isn't as stupid or out-of-touch as Duchatelet and he would definitely know he would be quickly contradicted and exposed.LenGlover said:
Murray?Cardinal Sin said:
This is a classic. The silly Old Scrote must have known this would come out. If Meire were still here I would say she has been deliberately misinforming him. However, I can't blame here her and I don;'t think there's anyone else we can put it on other than Duchatelet himself. Let's all sit back and watch the rest off his ridiculous message unravel. Amazing there are still people who think this was a reasonable message.Airman Brown said:1 -
Out to stiff the buyers with a ridiculously high price whilst trying to embarrass some ex-Directors into accepting less than they are entitled to under the terms of their loans. I am sure under normal circumstances the ex-Directors might be prepared to take less or even drop their entitlement but why the hell should they when the owner is a billionaire and he's clearly out to fills his owns pockets at their expense.5
-
A double agent within the cloob ?Cardinal Sin said:
This is a classic. The silly Old Scrote must have known this would come out. If Meire were still here I would say she has been deliberately misinforming him. However, I can't blame here her and I don;'t think there's anyone else we can put it on other than Duchatelet himself. Let's all sit back and watch the rest off his ridiculous message unravel. Amazing there are still people who think this was a reasonable message.Airman Brown said:
Never trust a tea lady.....0 -
This directors' loan thing is a red herring or should it be haddock?Fanny Fanackapan said:
I would be prepared to wait but it would probably mean that the Rat had not increased Bow's contract offer and none of the players out of contract would have received one either....Cardinal Sin said:According to Duchatelet, three ex-Directors are holding up completion of a takeover by not accepting offers to settle outstanding loans (four ex-Directors possibly if we include David White).
These are the men who loaned the club money in the past under better ownership because the club were desperate for it. They did so on zero percent interest and on the basis that the loans would only ever be repayable if the club hit the Premier League jackpot. Hardly the action of greedy or grasping individuals compared to Duchatelet himself who charges the club 3% on his loans and who is demanding a ridiculously unrealistic price to sell.
I am as desperate for a takeover as anyone but I am more than prepared to wait another 6 months or longer if it means the ex-Directors get what they want in settling these loans and Duchatelet has to suck-up ongoing losses . Duchatelet didn't bother with Due Diligence when he bought the club because he was arrogant enough to assume his wealth would enable him to deal with any problems and because he didn't want to pay for it or wait until it was concluded. So it's entirely his own fault that he is now having to settle this. The issue was exposed years ago when the protests started but still he didn't bother about it, until now.
I am sure most of our supporters will back the ex-Directors here in them getting what they want to settle their loans. Another loss Duchatelet should be forced to pay for.
So, with no guarantee that in 6 months or longer this Directors' loans fiasco would be concluded successfully, we could
be left without our manager and most, if not all of our current squad.
There are those at the top of the Club who have a degree in mendaciousness in my opinion and this is all about trying to deflect the understandable ire of the fans at Bowyer, JJ etc and the key players not being signed up elsewhere.
Richard Murray said the Club would be sold at the end of February back in 2018.
That gives you an idea of the personal integrity of the participants in this affair, again in my opinion. I am not including any ex directors in that for the sake of clarity.
1 -
Yes. Essentially it is "discounting" the value of £7M owed because the owners assume that it will take so long to get to the PL that by the time we do, the purchasing power of the sum will be at best, £6M. Such confidence by our owner!
1 -
Until any sale is confirmed and the price revealed the significance of these loans is all speculation.
I want want to believe that RD won’t want to continue to incur operating losses if a sale price can be agreed when he himself highlights that the future financial position for all Championship clubs is unsustainable I.e. he needs and wants out. It’s only ever about price and we just don’t know what that price is now.0 -
I am sure I wont be popular for saying this but I am slightly perplexed that the 3 ex-directors here are lauded for not accepting a haircut on their loans whilst Richard Murray who is owed the most and has apparently agreed to take a haircut to get Roland out is demonised. That doesn't seem logical to me.
And by the way - depressingly many businesses fall by the wayside or underperform, look at Jamies Italian, Pattiserie Valerie, Arcadia, etc , etc - it wouldn't be at all unusual for loan note holders in any business of any type to have to accept a lower % of their original loans.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
RM is not demonised due to his loan, its for supporting this poisonous regime in order to keep his seat at the table.alburyaddick said:I am sure I wont be popular for saying this but I am slightly perplexed that the 3 ex-directors here are lauded for not accepting a haircut on their loans whilst Richard Murray who is owed the most and has apparently agreed to take a haircut to get Roland out is demonised. That doesn't seem logical to me.
And by the way - depressingly many businesses fall by the wayside or underperform, look at Jamies Italian, Pattiserie Valerie, Arcadia, etc , etc - it wouldn't be at all unusual for loan note holders in any business of any type to have to accept a lower % of their original loans.
I imagine its quite rare for secured creditors to take a %age, remember, if we go into admin these loans get paid before anything else.6 -
Stu - if we went into admin, there will be no money to pay their loans anyway unless the property assets are liquidated and then we are all back to the same point about the property being used as a football club with no other use.Stu_of_Kunming said:
RM is not demonised due to his loan, its for supporting this poisonous regime in order to keep his seat at the table.alburyaddick said:I am sure I wont be popular for saying this but I am slightly perplexed that the 3 ex-directors here are lauded for not accepting a haircut on their loans whilst Richard Murray who is owed the most and has apparently agreed to take a haircut to get Roland out is demonised. That doesn't seem logical to me.
And by the way - depressingly many businesses fall by the wayside or underperform, look at Jamies Italian, Pattiserie Valerie, Arcadia, etc , etc - it wouldn't be at all unusual for loan note holders in any business of any type to have to accept a lower % of their original loans.
I imagine its quite rare for secured creditors to take a %age, remember, if we go into admin these loans get paid before anything else.0 -
That doesn't really match up with my understanding of how admin works, either way why should they take a haircut to minimize RDs losses?1
-
Welcome to the forum Richardalburyaddick said:I am sure I wont be popular for saying this but I am slightly perplexed that the 3 ex-directors here are lauded for not accepting a haircut on their loans whilst Richard Murray who is owed the most and has apparently agreed to take a haircut to get Roland out is demonised. That doesn't seem logical to me.
And by the way - depressingly many businesses fall by the wayside or underperform, look at Jamies Italian, Pattiserie Valerie, Arcadia, etc , etc - it wouldn't be at all unusual for loan note holders in any business of any type to have to accept a lower % of their original loans.
5 -
Significance asserted by the owner of the club on its official website on Friday. I'm not arguing that Duchatelet should be believed, but if what the club puts on its website is "speculation" then where does that leave it?valleynick66 said:Until any sale is confirmed and the price revealed the significance of these loans is all speculation.
I want want to believe that RD won’t want to continue to incur operating losses if a sale price can be agreed when he himself highlights that the future financial position for all Championship clubs is unsustainable I.e. he needs and wants out. It’s only ever about price and we just don’t know what that price is now.0 -
I think as Stu said if Murray cuts a deal, it will because it's right for Murray and no doubt he will be looking to keep a place at the table in any new set up.alburyaddick said:I am sure I wont be popular for saying this but I am slightly perplexed that the 3 ex-directors here are lauded for not accepting a haircut on their loans whilst Richard Murray who is owed the most and has apparently agreed to take a haircut to get Roland out is demonised. That doesn't seem logical to me.
And by the way - depressingly many businesses fall by the wayside or underperform, look at Jamies Italian, Pattiserie Valerie, Arcadia, etc , etc - it wouldn't be at all unusual for loan note holders in any business of any type to have to accept a lower % of their original loans.1 -
Being brutal, they were the directors of the club at the time we appointed Dowie and Pardew and make some terrible signings, which led to 2 relegations and massive financial problems. That their money is at risk is because of the mismanagement of the club at this time, and nothing to do with RD. After all us small shareholders completely lost out. If the club had gone into administration, their outstanding balances would have been largely or completely wiped out there and then, and the new owners would have had a clean slate.Stu_of_Kunming said:That doesn't really match up with my understanding of how admin works, either way why should they take a haircut to minimize RDs losses?
Of course they as individuals may not have been responsible for the terrible mistakes, but that's for them to take up with Richard Murray!
In retrospect this statement was over harsh, though I think my point about the possibility of administration is still valid, considering that the people subsequently chosen to run the club also ran out of money.1 -
They're already written off millions and millions of pounds, whilst I see the point you're getting at, I think it's harsh.1
-
The facts are they lent the club money when they needed it. Pretty sure it wasn't to pay for Dowie's flops. Repayment wasn't based on success or any other factor beyond any possibility of the club being in a position at any time in the future to repay them eg the windfall of the Premier League. I suspect no-one considered the issue of full title significant at the time but we should all be grateful that the clause is there and it's forcing Duchatelet to deal with it. It's absolutely Duchatelet's problem as the current owner. If he had done Due Diligence he might not be in this position but he didn't so tough shit. Mr Greedy shouldn't get away with anything.killerandflash said:
Being brutal, they were the directors of the club at the time we appointed Dowie and Pardew and make some terrible signings, which led to 2 relegations and massive financial problems. That their money is at risk is because of the mismanagement of the club at this time, and nothing to do with RD. After all us small shareholders completely lost out. If the club had gone into administration, their outstanding balances would have been largely or completely wiped out there and then, and the new owners would have had a clean slate.Stu_of_Kunming said:That doesn't really match up with my understanding of how admin works, either way why should they take a haircut to minimize RDs losses?
Of course they as individuals may not have been responsible for the terrible mistakes, but that's for them to take up with Richard Murray!4 -
You omitted, 'with the best intentions', regarding the ex-directors.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
In reality those loans to the club ARE worth less than face value at the moment. Unless we're taken over by very wealthy owners, promotion to the PL looks pretty remote at the moment, and indeed relegation would appear more likely than promotion, thus the £7m would be discounted by several years of RPI (or whatever) in the current "fair price". And if the club was to go into administration, they'd end up losing significant sums also, something which could have happened at the end of the Spivs era.
However the holders are perfectly entitled to hold on and wait until the club gets promotion, it's their choice
Either way, I don't entirely see why this would affect future buyers of the club when the value for getting promotion to the PL keeps rising.0 -
Not remotely over harsh - spot on actually.killerandflash said:
Being brutal, they were the directors of the club at the time we appointed Dowie and Pardew and make some terrible signings, which led to 2 relegations and massive financial problems. That their money is at risk is because of the mismanagement of the club at this time, and nothing to do with RD. After all us small shareholders completely lost out.Stu_of_Kunming said:That doesn't really match up with my understanding of how admin works, either way why should they take a haircut to minimize RDs losses?
Nonetheless, RD agreed to maintain the financial liability to them when he bought the club and he can't reasonably complain if they won't take a haircut now.2 -
If you don't pay loans off you might have a job getting people to provide future ones if needed. I know another VIP type scheme won't appeal to me having lost money on the last one!0
-
The speculation I refer to is on this forum. What RD puts in another clumsily written article is just that I.e. clumsy. Time has taught us to try and rationalise / interpret / fully believe an RD statement is flawed.Airman Brown said:
Significance asserted by the owner of the club on its official website on Friday. I'm not arguing that Duchatelet should be believed, but if what the club puts on its website is "speculation" then where does that leave it?valleynick66 said:Until any sale is confirmed and the price revealed the significance of these loans is all speculation.
I want want to believe that RD won’t want to continue to incur operating losses if a sale price can be agreed when he himself highlights that the future financial position for all Championship clubs is unsustainable I.e. he needs and wants out. It’s only ever about price and we just don’t know what that price is now.
I interpret you know a little more than you feel able to say right now which puts you at an advantage over me in commenting on this.0 -
I think a certain person referred to as 'a great guy' by Roland is at the nub of this directors' loan business and punting out allegations about the others to deflect.
I have no evidence whatsoever just a very strong hunch or feeling.
£7 million is relatively small beer in a, let's say, £50 million deal so there are other agendas at work in my opinion.5 -
http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2018-19-blogs/10-6-aussies-blame-duchatelet-price-hike/
Looks like RD has told the Aussies they now need to settle the Directors loans on top of the agreed price. They need to tell him 'no deal' then given this is his responsibility and that he has agreed a price previously.
2 -
Cardinal Sin said:http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2018-19-blogs/10-6-aussies-blame-duchatelet-price-hike/
Looks like RD has told the Aussies they now need to settle the Directors loans on top of the agreed price. They need to tell him 'no deal' then given this is his responsibility and that he has agreed a price previously.
contrary to others I am reassured that the Aussies have stuck around and appear to be doing their upmost to get a deal concluded.5 -
Frankly, I'm amazed the Australian consortium have stuck around when Duchatelet's actions, particularly those detailed in the latest VoTV article, show him to be negotiating in bad faith.Cardinal Sin said:http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2018-19-blogs/10-6-aussies-blame-duchatelet-price-hike/
Looks like RD has told the Aussies they now need to settle the Directors loans on top of the agreed price. They need to tell him 'no deal' then given this is his responsibility and that he has agreed a price previously.
0 -
£33m still looks a good price for the club. Putting up to £7m on top is a piss-take and we can only hope that no buyer would be foolish enough to agree to pay him more on top in the event of promotion or anything else simply so he can walk away even.0
-
£7m loans is new news to the consortium.Rd stop being so tight and sell.0
