Musing over our problem in the shower this morning & wondered whether there is any way we could uncover the "hidden debt" which some think may be the real reason that potential buyers walk away ( shaking their heads) once they have conducted due diligence.
We know that the Rat was highly negligent in his haste to get his hands on a prime piece of London land. And as such, could barely control his excitement when shaking on the deal with the Spivs....
To uncover what he failed to find & share it with the press ( and potential buyers if there are still any out there) would surely hurt him substantially both in the business world and as far as his ego is concerned.
What better way to embarrass him AND ensure that those potential buyers are cognisant of the true financial implications of purchasing our famous football club ?
( OOps ! Should have posted this on the Sale of Charlton thread!)
Yesterday felt pretty depressing but I’ve been convinced for s while now that he ain’t selling. I wonder whether Bowyer and Gallen laying the stark financial realities on the line to him prompted his appearance on talksport - I’m not sure how he can claim to be a socialist yet know that 10,000 fans are going to suffer a miserable season if he doesn’t release a small proportion of his vast wealth in order to give us half a chance next season - a socialist when it suits.
He doesn't claim to be a socialist and as far as I can tell never has. The party he formed have now merged with the equivalent of the Liberal Democrats and in British terms he would be somewhere around the Nick Clegg space. He's like a lot of rich people who think we should listen to their ideas simply because they're rich.
Agreed. He believes his view is absolutely rationale from the standpoint of a business model and the rest of the world has gone mad. He is probably right but anyone buying a football club should go into it expecting they will likely lose money unless they are in the Premier League.
The problem is, he wants out but appears to expect any potential buyer to pay for the ongoing errors made on his watch in terms of management rotations, poor player acquisitions, handling of outgoing player valuations and as he moved up the learning curve on English football economics. As has been said, he had the option to get out as soon as he realised the EFL had moved the goalposts as regards FFP. However, if he can keep the club on life support by breaking even, despite relegations back to League 1 or even 2, at least it isn’t costing him money.
Whilst I concede having a reasonable level of current operating costs to outline to potential buyers is good, they will have their view on their appetite for annual losses over the near term. They are however more likely to be interested in a reasonable upfront purchase price and what might be considered reasonable for a Championship club is unlikely to be considered reasonable the further down the leagues the club goes.
Promotion back to the Championship was probably his best chance of extricating himself with a reasonable price to defray some of his investment and it looks like he is closing the window on that.
It may not make any difference in terms of changing his stubbornness but I think in the Fans Forum, CAST communications, interaction with the press etc there has to be continued emphasis on his quotes above and the fact that he has no footballing ambition for the club and that he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he is holding out for a price that covers his aggregate losses for the past 5 years. It would be good if any of the buyers who have walked away would reveal the exact price they had offered.
I don't totally agree with this as it may be considered too commercially sensitive and may not be the real problem as a price seems to get agreed. However, it would be interesting to know what he uses to increase the price. Eg does he throw in a percentage of the sale price of any youngsters in the academy ?
Yes, commercially sensitive, with NDAs still Potentially binding if a deal not finally agreed.
This is the bit I don't understand.
You approach RD to buy the Club, part of the negoatiations is to agree a NDA.
You pull out of the deal due to the irrational behaviour of the seller, so surely the NDA becomes null and void. The seller cannot prevent you from telling the World about your approach, offer and reasons for withdrawing.
Does Mrs RD have to sign a NDA when they're discussing what to have for dinner tonight?
Your guess is as good as mine. I was really just hypothesising that buyers may have been asked to sign an NDA that is binding regardless of whether or not a deal is concluded. You would think some snippets would leak but not really so far.
Under an NDA there is normally a clause which states the buying party are legally obliged to keep the information they find out private for 2 years (some 1 year but 2 years is standard).
Source - my job working in mergers & acquisitions.
Also trust me I've joked to my partners constantly to try get us involved with the sale for the last 11 months (since I started) and they saw our Business Plan before Roland acquired the club and said there was some dodgy debt he'd stay a mile away from
Debt that was exposed in the Jimenez v Khakshouri case.
Is there really “hidden debt” that nobody on here has managed to identity before ? If that’s the case and we really do owe a significant sum to person or persons unknown apart from the rat then we really could be completely screwed. We definitely need to get to the bottom of this.
In fairness, and this in no way whatsoever sticking up for the rat, purely from the playing side of things....Luton won the league and they cashed in on their main men and have only replaced with frees. We are not the only ones and off the pitch we are in by far a worse position to them!
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
Not sure why you needed to repost that again @PragueAddickbut I don't think you can pick and choose quotes from Roland to suit arguments. Its been proven he's bonkers and many feel tells lies, half truths and twists on situations, so i wouldn't equally accept a quote that suits your agenda as being factually correct.
Equally, your view is influenced by what you are told by the Standard Socios, who will naturally not downplay their involvement.
When Roland eventually does sell the club on, those who have been active in protesting in Belgium will say it is down to their actions, those active in protesting in the UK will say its down to them. Jim White will say it was the pressure he put on Roland, Dreisen will say it was on his recomendation etc...We've been protesting in the UK for 4 years and in Belgium for 3 1/2 years. As further time goes on while there is no sale, no slashing of demands (let alone desperation to exit), the less and less credibility any of those claims will hold.
Of course they add to the backdrop and create publicity and difficulty to him, but my key point is that absolutely none of that publicity or difficulty has led to him attempting to escalate his exit in any way over the last couple of years (even less so if the rumours of raising the price are true). i don't understand why that view is perceived as contraversial.
So we can all bang the drum and engage in 'we will fight them on the beaches' rally-rousing stuff about previous 'fan victories', it can serve a purpose in lifting those engaged and providing them hope and it can give off the view of Charlton fans being passionate, creative, determined and many other positive things.
But if you evaluate the last four years its clear he is a steely determined individual only ever influenced by his own mindset, which in his mind rarely wrong. And while other aspects clearly succeed in annoying him and in many cases provoke a reaction, it has never steered him any nearer to hastening his exit by making the sale more viable. Worryingly, no one can categorically say either that everytime Charlton fans annoy him in some way it doesn't make him more determined in his own mind to ensure he doesn't concede on his stance, can they?
What do i think his mindset is saying? Who knows with him. My best interpretation is that he seperates this into three categories, potentially four; the club, the assets, the directors debt and potentially his own debt.
In his mind, he is giving the club away. The problem is the accumulation of the valuation of the assets, and the other debt take the acquisition away from what is a viable fair value for a purchaser. But he just can't see that, as he sees land value as something he should not have to haircut. Why should he sell a house for less than its worth? He can't discount the club any further as he's attaching no valuation to it, and probably accepts he's not going to get all his debt back (how much his red line is on this is anyone's guess).
But in my mind that land value is key and why i have had so little confidence over the last two years of a sale as i can't see anyone willing to pay that to take on a loss-making club and i can't see him lowering. I thought there was a chance in the immediate weeks following Wembley of either an interested party biting the bullet and raising it a bit more, or Roland seeing that opportunity to get out while the focus and interest was there, but neither happened and it was clear weeks ago that this window of opportunity had now sadly passed.
So your belief is that if there had been no protests whatsoever he would have acted in exactly the same way throughout, Fraeye would have been removed in January 2016, British managers culminating in Bowyer would have been appointed, Meire would still have left and he would have moved from his 2017 position that the club was not for sale to negotiating with a whole stream of interested parties while spending hundreds of thousands on professional fees?
Reminds me of the late Bill Treadgold, who argued that the Valley campaign had no impact on the return to The Valley because the directors were always going to bring the club back anyway, a view which just happened to justify his do-nothing position as chairman of the supporters' club.
Posted earlier by @clive - I wonder if the long drawn out process has anything to do with the promise implicit in there for a future share of any land deal.
It might be that a certain time period must elapse - or there will be a price to pay....just a thought.
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
So roughly:
£1 for the club £30 Million for the ground and Sparrows lane and the cost that Roland paid for the club in the first place £59,999,999 to cover Roland's own debt debt
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
£60m+ owed to RD, interest on top, former directors loans and club, The Valley and training ground valued at around £20 to £30m or so.
Sounds about right, but no one will pay £30m as well as taking on or paying off Roland’s loans and interest.
He needs to agree a deal that works for a buyer and not just himself.
Final point. Yeah, I've got an "agenda". It is to not just sit at my keyboard moaning about Duchatelet but to work with others to get him out, as soon as possible. If you have a superior alternative plan to smart well thought out activities in Belgium then, trust me I will drop my "agenda" in a heartbeat and get behind it in any practical way.
To be fair, he didn't accuse you of having an "agenda", he said he didn't think it was suitable to pick RD quotes and apply to them your agenda i.e. your argument or POV. Seemed harmless to me.
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
£60m+ owed to RD, interest on top, former directors loans and club, The Valley and training ground valued at around £20 to £30m or so.
Sounds about right, but no one will pay £30m as well as taking on or paying off Roland’s loans and interest.
He needs to agree a deal that works for a buyer and not just himself.
Lot of double counting in there. He paid for the assets in 2014 (-and took on the mortgage) and left that figure in as debt, so it’s all part of the £60m+, which will be £65m plus now. The debt figure already includes the accumulated interest.
So let’s say £65m plus the £7m. There might be something to add around the training ground, which I guess can’t be left in limbo indefinitely.
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
£60m+ owed to RD, interest on top, former directors loans and club, The Valley and training ground valued at around £20 to £30m or so.
Sounds about right, but no one will pay £30m as well as taking on or paying off Roland’s loans and interest.
He needs to agree a deal that works for a buyer and not just himself.
Lot of double counting in there. He paid for the assets in 2014 (-and took on the mortgage) and left that figure in as debt, so it’s all part of the £60m+, which will be £65m plus now. The debt figure already includes the accumulated interest.
So let’s say £65m plus the £7m. There might be something to add around the training ground, which I guess can’t be left in limbo indefinitely.
Fair enough. What about the “hidden debt”? Or is that just a nonsense rumour?
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
I think someone is yanking your chain, or your source is Napa!
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
So roughly:
£1 for the club £30 Million for the ground and Sparrows lane and the cost that Roland paid for the club in the first place £59,999,999 to cover Roland's own debt debt
Lovely
This is the delusional figure. Until he accepts this is down to his stupidity of mismanagement and decides to walk away or remove it, he will own the club.
According to a non Aussie source, anyone buying Charlton would be around £90m in the hole, if all debts, loans and cost of club & Valley etc included. Apparently there is interest to pay on the loans, but they don’t technically need to be repaid.
£60m+ owed to RD, interest on top, former directors loans and club, The Valley and training ground valued at around £20 to £30m or so.
Sounds about right, but no one will pay £30m as well as taking on or paying off Roland’s loans and interest.
He needs to agree a deal that works for a buyer and not just himself.
Lot of double counting in there. He paid for the assets in 2014 (-and took on the mortgage) and left that figure in as debt, so it’s all part of the £60m+, which will be £65m plus now. The debt figure already includes the accumulated interest.
So let’s say £65m plus the £7m. There might be something to add around the training ground, which I guess can’t be left in limbo indefinitely.
Fair enough. What about the “hidden debt”? Or is that just a nonsense rumour?
Hard to see what it is. The high-interest loans were exposed in the Khakshouri case, discussed here:
We know Khakshouri had been settled and I don't see McGlynn being current. In any case they weren't made to Baton, the UK holding company, but to the BVI entity. Always been suggested to me that undisclosed debts were more likely to relate to foreign transfers, but nothing specific.
He's not really interested in selling. It'll be up to his heirs to take the inevitable haircut, by then the debt could reach Eddie Davies' Bolton levels and they will be in a hurry to offload.
Yesterday felt pretty depressing but I’ve been convinced for s while now that he ain’t selling. I wonder whether Bowyer and Gallen laying the stark financial realities on the line to him prompted his appearance on talksport - I’m not sure how he can claim to be a socialist yet know that 10,000 fans are going to suffer a miserable season if he doesn’t release a small proportion of his vast wealth in order to give us half a chance next season - a socialist when it suits.
Glossing over the bit about him claiming to be a socialist (where on earth does that come from?) were you convinced that he isn't selling when "someone at the club" told you a few days ago that the Muir was in negotiation with the ex-directors? Or did you only become convinced when that turned out not to be true?
I said I didn't believe it and that view was reinforced by airmans post of bob whitehands comments - do keep up
Final point. Yeah, I've got an "agenda". It is to not just sit at my keyboard moaning about Duchatelet but to work with others to get him out, as soon as possible. If you have a superior alternative plan to smart well thought out activities in Belgium then, trust me I will drop my "agenda" in a heartbeat and get behind it in any practical way.
This feels a really needless exchange tbh.
Everyone has an agenda to a degree @PragueAddick. In this instance for you it was to
attempt to disprove my viewpoint, that was why you responded to this in the
first place was it not? That’s perfectly reasonable btw and the whole purpose of
discussion forums for fans to express and debate their random musings. I really don’t
understand why you would interpret that as sh*tty or with negative connotations.
My agenda from then was to respond providing greater reasoning to my viewpoint. Whether i've been successful or not with that is up to you and others.
I know you like to shoot from
the hip but I genuinely don’t understand why you would take this whole exchange
so personally, or critical. I could understand if I was say defending
Duchatelet, criticising protests, protest groups or individuals. But I’ve not
actually done any of that. I expressed, and then defended, a view that none of
the protest activities so far have been successful in getting him to lower his
demands and to hasten his exit. Taking the considerable volume and breadth of
protesting that has occurred over the last four years into consideration coupled
with my interpretation of his personality and mindset, I question whether any
further protest action will positively influence in changing his mind.
I haven’t said anyone should
stop trying, that it’s been a waste, that its wrong etc. I haven’t said ‘I’m not with you’ let
alone ‘not in my name’ stuff, I can see many good things that have come from
it. But do I think there will be any protest action that will lead to a furious
or exasperated Roland picking up the phone to LDT and saying “that’s it, take
whatever is on offer and let’s get out NOW”?, then probably not.
I personally feel differently
now to how I felt two years ago. Two years ago I felt differently to how I felt
four years ago. Surely its natural to evaluate and reassess your viewpoint over
time based from what you have learnt?
Not sure why the ‘sat behind
the keyboard’ stuff was necessary. The majority of us on here have participated
in protests. If it was aimed at me personally then I’d argue I’ve participated in more
protests than 99% of Charlton fans over the past four years, (including
yourself and every other person who has responded to my view on this thread with
the possible exception of @SE7toSG3), and I’ll continue to do so. Not that that really
matters in any way, everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint regardless of whether they've participated in 0 or a 100 protests.
All I’ve done is posted my
view on protest effectiveness on influencing Roland’s desire to exit based on
events and activities that I’ve organised, participated in or observed from
afar. It is not even a fact that can be disproved, though you naturally have a
belief that at some point in the future it may be the catalyst.
For some reason
that view seems to have been taken personally, I’ve had multiple people posting
they are surprised and disappointed in me (??) as if I’m some kind of splitter, and its
patently obvious in the responses you’ve sent me that my opinion has irked you.
I’m too young to remember Bill Threadgold (perhaps ‘me of all people’ do need
that history lesson!) but I’m guessing that wasn’t a compliment either.
I’ll happily discuss further
off the main forum if you so wish but to be honest the whole thing feels
completely unnecessary considering we are effectively on the same side and wanting of
the same outcome.
Good post AFKA, makes sense reading it like that and tbf we are dealing with a highly inflammatory subject where feelings run high. Nothing personal taken or meant from me, as you say 'We are effectively on the same side and wanting the same outcome'
From Guardian, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton. Intereesting!
The article goes on to report: "And in that sense," Jiminez's solicitor concluded, "it's not about who actually owns Charlton, it's about the friends we've all made along the way. The defence rests your Honour."
Agree there is no evidence to show that any protests have influenced the valuation or Duchâtelet’s acceptance of compromise one way or another.
i think there is a fair amount of evidence they have influenced his actions (sack Slade, try to appoint Willder, agree to sell out of football totally, make wild comments through website and talk to talkshite) with the exiting being very directly linked to the timing of the actions.
Unfortunately we cannot know the full reasons why a sale has not taken place. It does seem like the balance of evidence suggests there are issues on up front cash consideration and later conditional consideration.
If Duchâtelet wanted to sell at any price, it would be done ages ago. If he wanted to sell at a reasonable price it would also likely be done by now unless there’s a lot we don’t j is in the background.
The main conclusion seems to be that despite everything he holds onto a price well in excess of what any reasonable buyer would agree to.
Unfortunately I agree with AFKA, I struggle to see how anything we do will get this to change.
Comments
We know that the Rat was highly negligent in his haste to get his hands on a prime piece of London land. And as such, could barely control his excitement when shaking on the deal with the Spivs....
To uncover what he failed to find & share it with the press ( and potential buyers if there are still any out there) would surely hurt him substantially both in the business world and as far as his ego is concerned.
What better way to embarrass him AND ensure that those potential buyers are cognisant of the true financial implications of purchasing our famous football club ?
( OOps ! Should have posted this on the Sale of Charlton thread!)
£1 for the club
£30 Million for the ground and Sparrows lane and the cost that Roland paid for the club in the first place
£59,999,999 to cover Roland's own debt debt
Lovely
Sounds about right, but no one will pay £30m as well as taking on or paying off Roland’s loans and interest.
He needs to agree a deal that works for a buyer and not just himself.
So let’s say £65m plus the £7m. There might be something to add around the training ground, which I guess can’t be left in limbo indefinitely.
My guess - the fee from the FA for engraving the FA Cup in 1947.
Anyone else..?
http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2017-18-blogs/22-12-how-jimenez-schemed-to-leave-the-valley/
We know Khakshouri had been settled and I don't see McGlynn being current. In any case they weren't made to Baton, the UK holding company, but to the BVI entity. Always been suggested to me that undisclosed debts were more likely to relate to foreign transfers, but nothing specific.
This feels a really needless exchange tbh.
Everyone has an agenda to a degree @PragueAddick. In this instance for you it was to attempt to disprove my viewpoint, that was why you responded to this in the first place was it not? That’s perfectly reasonable btw and the whole purpose of discussion forums for fans to express and debate their random musings. I really don’t understand why you would interpret that as sh*tty or with negative connotations. My agenda from then was to respond providing greater reasoning to my viewpoint. Whether i've been successful or not with that is up to you and others.
I know you like to shoot from the hip but I genuinely don’t understand why you would take this whole exchange so personally, or critical. I could understand if I was say defending Duchatelet, criticising protests, protest groups or individuals. But I’ve not actually done any of that. I expressed, and then defended, a view that none of the protest activities so far have been successful in getting him to lower his demands and to hasten his exit. Taking the considerable volume and breadth of protesting that has occurred over the last four years into consideration coupled with my interpretation of his personality and mindset, I question whether any further protest action will positively influence in changing his mind.
I haven’t said anyone should stop trying, that it’s been a waste, that its wrong etc. I haven’t said ‘I’m not with you’ let alone ‘not in my name’ stuff, I can see many good things that have come from it. But do I think there will be any protest action that will lead to a furious or exasperated Roland picking up the phone to LDT and saying “that’s it, take whatever is on offer and let’s get out NOW”?, then probably not.
I personally feel differently now to how I felt two years ago. Two years ago I felt differently to how I felt four years ago. Surely its natural to evaluate and reassess your viewpoint over time based from what you have learnt?
Not sure why the ‘sat behind the keyboard’ stuff was necessary. The majority of us on here have participated in protests. If it was aimed at me personally then I’d argue I’ve participated in more protests than 99% of Charlton fans over the past four years, (including yourself and every other person who has responded to my view on this thread with the possible exception of @SE7toSG3), and I’ll continue to do so. Not that that really matters in any way, everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint regardless of whether they've participated in 0 or a 100 protests.
All I’ve done is posted my view on protest effectiveness on influencing Roland’s desire to exit based on events and activities that I’ve organised, participated in or observed from afar. It is not even a fact that can be disproved, though you naturally have a belief that at some point in the future it may be the catalyst.
For some reason that view seems to have been taken personally, I’ve had multiple people posting they are surprised and disappointed in me (??) as if I’m some kind of splitter, and its patently obvious in the responses you’ve sent me that my opinion has irked you. I’m too young to remember Bill Threadgold (perhaps ‘me of all people’ do need that history lesson!) but I’m guessing that wasn’t a compliment either.
I’ll happily discuss further off the main forum if you so wish but to be honest the whole thing feels completely unnecessary considering we are effectively on the same side and wanting of the same outcome.
That's what the Lookman trench was dug for, to hide it.
Option A is Roland in disguise. NOBODY with any sense would sack a successful manager this soon after their latest success.
The article goes on to report: "And in that sense," Jiminez's solicitor concluded, "it's not about who actually owns Charlton, it's about the friends we've all made along the way. The defence rests your Honour."
Wait is Roland knowingly in charge of stolen goods? Can we get him arrested and the club officially auctioned?
i think there is a fair amount of evidence they have influenced his actions (sack Slade, try to appoint Willder, agree to sell out of football totally, make wild comments through website and talk to talkshite) with the exiting being very directly linked to the timing of the actions.
Unfortunately we cannot know the full reasons why a sale has not taken place. It does seem like the balance of evidence suggests there are issues on up front cash consideration and later conditional consideration.
If Duchâtelet wanted to sell at any price, it would be done ages ago. If he wanted to sell at a reasonable price it would also likely be done by now unless there’s a lot we don’t j is in the background.
The main conclusion seems to be that despite everything he holds onto a price well in excess of what any reasonable buyer would agree to.
Unfortunately I agree with AFKA, I struggle to see how anything we do will get this to change.