Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1…16721673167516771678…2262

Comments

  • soapboxsam
    soapboxsam Posts: 23,231
    edited June 2019
    Covered End said:
    cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Did this come from a spokesman for the Aussies ?

  • Fumbluff
    Fumbluff Posts: 10,134
    soapboxsam said:
    Covered End said:
    cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    soapboxsam said:
    Covered End said:
    cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Pages 59, 93, 412-467, 660-792, 994, 1023-1211, 1409-1572, 1637-onwards

    You're welcome 
  • clb74
    clb74 Posts: 10,824
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    edited June 2019
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
    Please believe me, he isn’t.
    I’m sure more details will come out soon. 
  • roseandcrown
    roseandcrown Posts: 7,588
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
    Please believe me, he isn’t. 
    Is he looking for them to wipe them completely then? 
  • Addickted
    Addickted Posts: 19,456
    JamesSeed said:

    If you wait a few days I imagine all will be revealed about the directors’ loans. The Roland discount issue is not applicable. 
    JamesSeed said:

    They’d be happy to wait til the Premier League. But if someone wants to pay them off in order to obtain clean title, then they can either accept a discount, or ask for the full amount. 

    Somone? So either RD or the potential purcahsers then.

    My uderstanding is that LdT is the one who's been in contact with the ex Directors. Is he moonlighting for Muir now then?
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,815
    edited June 2019
    Oh ffs.

    Anyone on here up for lending us a million on the never never?

    Got this great new plan where I’ll give you a tenner for the debt. Better than nowt discounted?

    Got a lame greyhound out the back I’ll chuck in for a tenner back. Be a winner when she gets back to full fitness. 

  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,019
    soapboxsam said:
    Covered End said:
    cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Plus by whom ?
    Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies.
    The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
    The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
    So it's common sense.
  • Red_in_SE8
    Red_in_SE8 Posts: 5,961
    I vaguely remember the term "haircut" from when I used to have to sit basic financial exams 25 years ago when I worked in IT in the city. Its use in this thread did not make sense to me so I checked on Google. Unless the directors are planning to use these loans as collateral then the use of the term in this thread is completely wrong. 
  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    Addickted said:
    JamesSeed said:

    If you wait a few days I imagine all will be revealed about the directors’ loans. The Roland discount issue is not applicable. 
    JamesSeed said:

    They’d be happy to wait til the Premier League. But if someone wants to pay them off in order to obtain clean title, then they can either accept a discount, or ask for the full amount. 

    Somone? So either RD or the potential purcahsers then.

    My uderstanding is that LdT is the one who's been in contact with the ex Directors. Is he moonlighting for Muir now then?
    Well he might work for Roland, but his job is to handle the sale. 

  • Sponsored links:



  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    roseandcrown said:
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
    Please believe me, he isn’t. 
    Is he looking for them to wipe them completely then? 
    No. 
  • clb74
    clb74 Posts: 10,824
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
    Please believe me, he isn’t.
    I’m sure more details will come out soon. 
    I suppose if nothing's in writing Roland can move the goalposts as much as he wants.

  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,019
    Red_in_SE8 said:
    I vaguely remember the term "haircut" from when I used to have to sit basic financial exams 25 years ago when I worked in IT in the city. Its use in this thread did not make sense to me so I checked on Google. Unless the directors are planning to use these loans as collateral then the use of the term in this thread is completely wrong. 
    In finance, a haircut is the difference between the market value of an asset used as loan ... creditors, or, in other words, a reduction in the face value of a troubled borrower's debts, as in "to take a haircut": to accept or receive less than is owed.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
    Please believe me, he isn’t. 
    i think people (might just be me) are reluctant to believe in any way that

    1. The issue of the o/s loans is holding up the deal
    2. that a consortium talking about investment plans of approx 150M would endanger a deal for 7M
    3. that patience with both RD and the Australian consortium has worn thin because of the stories that have been put out by both of the above parties have turned out to be 100% BS.


    to this ill add a fourth. without Lee Bowyer last season I have a feeling there is a large chance we would be facing liquidation this post-season as we would now be League 2. if you spent all this time and money on due diligence, as claimed, why would you let the target asset liquidate? its not a restaurant chain where u can TUPE-transfer the workforce, extend the ground rents and carry on under a new brand. The failure to complete would mean:

    1. Now in League 2
    2. Lost all sorts of assets on the playing side
    3. lost all sorts of supporters who got fed up with it
    4. 15-30 point deduction

    still no evidence to rebutt @nladdick who is no doubt correct when he states, while they may have enough money personally, they havent the cash to buy the club.

    if we had any credible prospective owner with a long-term plan, we would have been sold by now. all we have is people looking to speculate on the assets and make a little coin as they don't think we have hit rock bottom yet and their is still more value to leverage. personally, i think this is massively incorrect.

  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
    Please believe me, he isn’t.
    I’m sure more details will come out soon. 
    I suppose if nothing's in writing Roland can move the goalposts as much as he wants.

    It’s not that. 
    Tbh I can’t remember what’s in the public domain. 
  • clb74
    clb74 Posts: 10,824
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 
    Of course he is.
    If the Aussies want a clean slate surely they made an offer and said that includes the directors loans
    Please believe me, he isn’t.
    I’m sure more details will come out soon. 
    I suppose if nothing's in writing Roland can move the goalposts as much as he wants.

    It’s not that. 
    Tbh I can’t remember what’s in the public domain. 
    Roland and the Aussies are expecting the directors to take the hit then.
  • Redmidland
    Redmidland Posts: 44,700
    @JamesSeed thanks for the info given so far. However I have a question, if RD isn't paying off the loans and the Aussies arn't, we surely have an impasse and any deal will be off? Unless I'm missing something!
  • Red_in_SE8
    Red_in_SE8 Posts: 5,961
    Covered End said:
    Red_in_SE8 said:
    I vaguely remember the term "haircut" from when I used to have to sit basic financial exams 25 years ago when I worked in IT in the city. Its use in this thread did not make sense to me so I checked on Google. Unless the directors are planning to use these loans as collateral then the use of the term in this thread is completely wrong. 
    In finance, a haircut is the difference between the market value of an asset used as loan ... creditors, or, in other words, a reduction in the face value of a troubled borrower's debts, as in "to take a haircut": to accept or receive less than is owed.
    No. It is the difference between the market value of an asset and the value ascribed to that asset when it is being used as collateral.
  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    Redmidland said:
    @JamesSeed thanks for the info given so far. However I have a question, if RD isn't paying off the loans and the Aussies arn't, we surely have an impasse and any deal will be off? Unless I'm missing something!
    I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t   
  • Ferryman
    Ferryman Posts: 2,921
    We'll probably find a crotchless gorilla suit that he's been using on Thomas!

  • Sponsored links:



  • Elthamaddick
    Elthamaddick Posts: 15,823
    so the previous directors made a bet (ie CAFC back in the prem)

    the chances of that actually happening are relatively slim

    they are now waiting on the best 'cash out' offer.....and realistically alot depends on how good that offer is.

    like anyone of us who's made an on-line bet and keeps an eye on the cash out price.
  • Bedsaddick
    Bedsaddick Posts: 24,762
    JamesSeed said:
    Redmidland said:
    @JamesSeed thanks for the info given so far. However I have a question, if RD isn't paying off the loans and the Aussies arn't, we surely have an impasse and any deal will be off? Unless I'm missing something!
    I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t   

    So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
  • soapboxsam
    soapboxsam Posts: 23,231
    Covered End said:
    soapboxsam said:
    Covered End said:
    cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Plus by whom ?
    Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies.
    The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
    The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
    So it's common sense.

    Common sense and normal business practice yet the present incumbent and the owners before didn't insist on this. I know Duchatelet didn't do DD but what about Jimenez and co ?

  • Red_in_SE8
    Red_in_SE8 Posts: 5,961
    So it is the Aussies who are trying to screw the ex directors?
  • Rudders22
    Rudders22 Posts: 3,870
    James, I know you can;t say too much. Has there been significant change towards the sale of the club since Wembley? Are there a lot of things going on the background that they are negotiating towards the completion? Are we getting towards the end game now?  You mention more will be revelaed in the next few days regarding the loans. Is this something different from what Airman Brown had David White have said?   (sitting here with popcorn in one hand and a drink of coke in the other).  
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,019
    Bedsaddick said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Redmidland said:
    @JamesSeed thanks for the info given so far. However I have a question, if RD isn't paying off the loans and the Aussies arn't, we surely have an impasse and any deal will be off? Unless I'm missing something!
    I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t   

    So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
    LDT has made contact with all the ex-directors. It has to be done via the seller's side or the broker if LDT is desribed as such.
  • Rudders22
    Rudders22 Posts: 3,870
    CE when was this done as I have not seen anything other then David White's tweet within the last 2 days. 
  • robinofottershaw
    robinofottershaw Posts: 1,922
    No.1 in South London said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Folks, at the present time Roland isn’t going to be paying off the loans. 

    If he doesn't pay them off there is no deal then........ simples.

    How on earth the Aussies and that doughnut managed to think they had a deal without that important issue being resolved is amateur. Both sides have to take some of the flack as it should have been agreed before they started telling the world that they had one.
    And....how can LdT say at previous fans forums that a price (or prices with the other 2 supposed bidders) have been agreed if the former directors loans is an outstanding issue?
  • Bedsaddick
    Bedsaddick Posts: 24,762
    Covered End said:
    Bedsaddick said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Redmidland said:
    @JamesSeed thanks for the info given so far. However I have a question, if RD isn't paying off the loans and the Aussies arn't, we surely have an impasse and any deal will be off? Unless I'm missing something!
    I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t   

    So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
    LDT has made contact with all the ex-directors. It has to be done via the seller's side or the broker if LDT is desribed as such.
    So when some of the directors come out and say they have had no contact with RD they mean that literally. LDT represents RD so to say they haven’t heard from him is not strictly true.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,019
    edited June 2019
    Brunello said:
    Addickted said:
    _MrDick said:
    Addickted said:
    JamesSeed said:
    .clb74 said:
    Scoham said:
    The three directors RD has blamed for holding up the takeover are owed a total of £2.65m.

    If he for example only wants to pay them 50% then RD is delaying the takeover for the sake of £1.32m.

    Even if the clubs losses are cut to say £6m a season, the takeover dragging on another 3 months means he may have to put another £1.5m into the club.

    He’s likely to get £30m+ by selling the club and potentially further payments if we’re experience any success on the pitch.

    Have the other directors agreed to be paid a % of their loan and therefore RD is refusing to pay any of them off in full?
    That would be a kick in the b@llocks from the Aussies aswell then.
    No it's not thier debt , but after all this time and the season 2 months away the Aussies are going to mess about over £1.3 million.
    Can't see it.
    If Roland decides to settle the £1.3 million just before the start of the season the Aussies will have a few weeks to get in the players the manager wants.

    I believe it’s £7m the Aussies are dealing with now.  
    I’ve a possible solution to the current impasse, but it would involve compromise by Roland, which might be a stumbling block. 
    But it's not.

    The ex Directors are prepared to take a hair cut, as long as he sells lock, stock and barrel. RDs post suggests that he has already agreed with the majority of the ex Directors (though David White has questioned that).

    At least the position seems more fluid now that LvT has contacted them at last.
    Is that correct? Bob Whitehand has this morning said on Twitter that he’s never met or spoken to Duchatelet.  

    Are you certain he has.

    He may not have spoken to or met RD, but LvT has been in touch with all the ex Directors now.

    Rudders, read above & note that Brunello is a trusted source.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”