|
Post by Mundell on May 19, 2020 9:32:46 GMT
I’d be very surprised if the sale is voided. I posted this comment on April 4th.
“A number of former directors have an aggregate of £7m in loans which are repayable if the club reaches the Premier League at some point in the future. They are not repayable otherwise.
These loans are secured on the assets of the ‘club’. I assume there were two reasons they insisted on this security. First, as protection in the event the club reneged on its commitment and, second, to ensure they were repaid if the club was wound up.
The key to the dispute, as I understand it, lies in the question of what is meant by ‘club’. While it’s true that Staprix (Duchâtelet) now has charges on the assets of Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd.(CAFC), it’s not clear why that would be an issue. Duchâtelet’s loans should be subordinated to those of the former directors (i.e. behind them in the queue if the club is wound up) and if there is any ambiguity about this it ought to be relatively easy to resolve.
What’s potentially much more problematic is the fact that the directors’ loan agreement almost certainly didn’t envisage the ownership of CAFC and the Holding Company, which owns the freehold, being separated. CAFC owes the directors their £7m, but their charges are across the assets of both companies. It follows that their position has potentially been compromised as a result of Duchâtelet selling CAFC, but retaining Holdings.
It’s not clear how this gets resolved. I’m no expert, but I’d be very surprised if the sale was reversed. The ‘damage’ to the former directors is that their charges may have been compromised. The solution would, presumably, be to find a way to address that. In extremis, it’s possible that they could get their money back early, though it’s not clear who would be ordered to pay them, ESI or Staprix.
However, what this dispute might do is get Duchâtelet and Nimer to the table. It might serve to bang heads together. What might make that parlez even more promising would be the presence of a potential buyer for the club. A White Knight. Hopefully, that’s the motivation of the former directors. They’ll make a deal easier to strike if they are prepared to roll their loans once again. If, instead, their objective is to get their money back it will all be a lot more complicated.”
In short, while it’s very hard to see how this dispute might lead to the sale to ESI being voided it might bring all parties to the table and that’s probably our best hope.
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on May 19, 2020 10:13:01 GMT
I’d be very surprised if the sale is voided. I posted this comment on April 4th. “A number of former directors have an aggregate of £7m in loans which are repayable if the club reaches the Premier League at some point in the future. They are not repayable otherwise. These loans are secured on the assets of the ‘club’. I assume there were two reasons they insisted on this security. First, as protection in the event the club reneged on its commitment and, second, to ensure they were repaid if the club was wound up. The key to the dispute, as I understand it, lies in the question of what is meant by ‘club’. While it’s true that Staprix (Duchâtelet) now has charges on the assets of Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd.(CAFC), it’s not clear why that would be an issue. Duchâtelet’s loans should be subordinated to those of the former directors (i.e. behind them in the queue if the club is wound up) and if there is any ambiguity about this it ought to be relatively easy to resolve. What’s potentially much more problematic is the fact that the directors’ loan agreement almost certainly didn’t envisage the ownership of CAFC and the Holding Company, which owns the freehold, being separated. CAFC owes the directors their £7m, but their charges are across the assets of both companies. It follows that their position has potentially been compromised as a result of Duchâtelet selling CAFC, but retaining Holdings. It’s not clear how this gets resolved. I’m no expert, but I’d be very surprised if the sale was reversed. The ‘damage’ to the former directors is that their charges may have been compromised. The solution would, presumably, be to find a way to address that. In extremis, it’s possible that they could get their money back early, though it’s not clear who would be ordered to pay them, ESI or Staprix.
However, what this dispute might do is get Duchâtelet and Nimer to the table. It might serve to bang heads together. What might make that parlez even more promising would be the presence of a potential buyer for the club. A White Knight. Hopefully, that’s the motivation of the former directors. They’ll make a deal easier to strike if they are prepared to roll their loans once again. If, instead, their objective is to get their money back it will all be a lot more complicated.” In short, while it’s very hard to see how this dispute might lead to the sale to ESI being voided it might bring all parties to the table and that’s probably our best hope. That's an interesting point! Who would be responsible? Staprix for selling, whilst knowing that this was splitting the assets from the club, or ESI for agreeing to buy, for the same reason! Given that ESI have not yet proved that they have anything more than the original £1 used to purchase the football club, there must be a serious doubt, whether or not they will be able to afford to make any early repayments on the loans. The Ex-Directors only realistic alternative in that scenario, would be to go to Staprix.
|
|
|
Post by AndyAddick on May 19, 2020 10:19:59 GMT
In answer to kings hill addict, I think the point is Roland could not split the club from its assets without gaining consent from the ex director's, he did not do this so with that in mind it may make the sale illegal. I also do not think it is in Roland's best interest for the club to go into administration. The ex director's are likely to be first in line for payback which may fall to Roland if Nimer doesn't have the funds as has been muted. Yes Roland would be left with the ground and training ground but their value is £25m, and probably depreciating in the current climate, so he is not going to get the £55m he wants by that route either. as LAND value your estimate of 25 mill is WAY off ! While it is difficult to obtain consistent data on land values, residential values in London are estimated to be on average 3.2 times higher than industrial land values. Within the residential sector, land values can range between £7.3 million per hectare in East London to £93.3 million per hectare in Westminster.. In the industrial market, there is a narrower range of between £2.5 million per hectare in East London to £6.2 million per hectare in key industrial areas like Park Royal and around Heathrow, and up to £7.4 million in central London areas www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/chapter4-economic-evidence-base-2016.pdf
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 19, 2020 10:21:36 GMT
Good post, and as I see it. As things currently stand the ex director's winning the case would be the best outcome for the club but the timescale is against us and we can't afford to wait for this to happen, and they may not win anyway. So, we have two options, Nimer proves source of funds etc or he sells to a new buyer (unfortunately Southall probably gets a pay off to take him out of the equation), who can strike a deal with Roland that also satisfies the ex director's. None of this looks particularly promising although there are strong rumours that potential buyers are waiting in the wings! This court case is likely to be expensive so I imagine that the ex-Directors are expecting some kind of pay out (even if it’s only to cover their legal fees). Mundell touches on it above but it is my belief that this action will result in leaving Roland and Nimer with a problematic situation that can be solved by paying out the loans, that would, otherwise, potentially never be repaid. Thus the ex-Directors get back the money (that they allowed Dowie and/or Pardew to waste, let’s remember) and the club is unaffected, other than having to pay for a predecessor’s failures. What I find I am uncomfortable with is the repeated comments that Roland shouldn’t get his money back as he wasted it, all the while there is a £7m debt that ‘should’ be repaid that was, actually, run up in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by AndyAddick on May 19, 2020 10:26:57 GMT
I’d be very surprised if the sale is voided. I posted this comment on April 4th. “A number of former directors have an aggregate of £7m in loans which are repayable if the club reaches the Premier League at some point in the future. They are not repayable otherwise. These loans are secured on the assets of the ‘club’. I assume there were two reasons they insisted on this security. First, as protection in the event the club reneged on its commitment and, second, to ensure they were repaid if the club was wound up. The key to the dispute, as I understand it, lies in the question of what is meant by ‘club’. While it’s true that Staprix (Duchâtelet) now has charges on the assets of Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd.(CAFC), it’s not clear why that would be an issue. Duchâtelet’s loans should be subordinated to those of the former directors (i.e. behind them in the queue if the club is wound up) and if there is any ambiguity about this it ought to be relatively easy to resolve. What’s potentially much more problematic is the fact that the directors’ loan agreement almost certainly didn’t envisage the ownership of CAFC and the Holding Company, which owns the freehold, being separated. CAFC owes the directors their £7m, but their charges are across the assets of both companies. It follows that their position has potentially been compromised as a result of Duchâtelet selling CAFC, but retaining Holdings. It’s not clear how this gets resolved. I’m no expert, but I’d be very surprised if the sale was reversed. The ‘damage’ to the former directors is that their charges may have been compromised. The solution would, presumably, be to find a way to address that. In extremis, it’s possible that they could get their money back early, though it’s not clear who would be ordered to pay them, ESI or Staprix.
However, what this dispute might do is get Duchâtelet and Nimer to the table. It might serve to bang heads together. What might make that parlez even more promising would be the presence of a potential buyer for the club. A White Knight. Hopefully, that’s the motivation of the former directors. They’ll make a deal easier to strike if they are prepared to roll their loans once again. If, instead, their objective is to get their money back it will all be a lot more complicated.” In short, while it’s very hard to see how this dispute might lead to the sale to ESI being voided it might bring all parties to the table and that’s probably our best hope. That's an interesting point! Who would be responsible? Staprix for selling, whilst knowing that this was splitting the assets from the club, or ESI for agreeing to buy, for the same reason! Given that ESI have not yet proved that they have anything more than the original £1 used to purchase the football club, there must be a serious doubt, whether or not they will be able to afford to make any early repayments on the loans. The Ex-Directors only realistic alternative in that scenario, would be to go to Staprix. where were either teams lawyers , they have worked around the charges deliberately ! Surly the Dirs should have a legal team in place prior to the sale and access to the deal ?
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on May 19, 2020 10:30:19 GMT
That's an interesting point! Who would be responsible? Staprix for selling, whilst knowing that this was splitting the assets from the club, or ESI for agreeing to buy, for the same reason! Given that ESI have not yet proved that they have anything more than the original £1 used to purchase the football club, there must be a serious doubt, whether or not they will be able to afford to make any early repayments on the loans. The Ex-Directors only realistic alternative in that scenario, would be to go to Staprix. where were either teams lawyers , they have worked around the charges deliberately ! Surly the Dirs should have a legal team in place prior to the sale and access to the deal ? Exactly! It gets murkier, each and every way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by essexaddick on May 19, 2020 10:34:14 GMT
Does anyone know if the former Directors have actually commenced any legal action and if not whether they will? Because as stated elsewhere it could be a long process and expensive. They have started the legal process but it is going at the pace of a snail. That's being a bit unfair to Snails
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 19, 2020 10:37:21 GMT
I’d be very surprised if the sale is voided. I posted this comment on April 4th. “A number of former directors have an aggregate of £7m in loans which are repayable if the club reaches the Premier League at some point in the future. They are not repayable otherwise. These loans are secured on the assets of the ‘club’. I assume there were two reasons they insisted on this security. First, as protection in the event the club reneged on its commitment and, second, to ensure they were repaid if the club was wound up. The key to the dispute, as I understand it, lies in the question of what is meant by ‘club’. While it’s true that Staprix (Duchâtelet) now has charges on the assets of Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd.(CAFC), it’s not clear why that would be an issue. Duchâtelet’s loans should be subordinated to those of the former directors (i.e. behind them in the queue if the club is wound up) and if there is any ambiguity about this it ought to be relatively easy to resolve. What’s potentially much more problematic is the fact that the directors’ loan agreement almost certainly didn’t envisage the ownership of CAFC and the Holding Company, which owns the freehold, being separated. CAFC owes the directors their £7m, but their charges are across the assets of both companies. It follows that their position has potentially been compromised as a result of Duchâtelet selling CAFC, but retaining Holdings. It’s not clear how this gets resolved. I’m no expert, but I’d be very surprised if the sale was reversed. The ‘damage’ to the former directors is that their charges may have been compromised. The solution would, presumably, be to find a way to address that. In extremis, it’s possible that they could get their money back early, though it’s not clear who would be ordered to pay them, ESI or Staprix.
However, what this dispute might do is get Duchâtelet and Nimer to the table. It might serve to bang heads together. What might make that parlez even more promising would be the presence of a potential buyer for the club. A White Knight. Hopefully, that’s the motivation of the former directors. They’ll make a deal easier to strike if they are prepared to roll their loans once again. If, instead, their objective is to get their money back it will all be a lot more complicated.” In short, while it’s very hard to see how this dispute might lead to the sale to ESI being voided it might bring all parties to the table and that’s probably our best hope. That's an interesting point! Who would be responsible? Staprix for selling, whilst knowing that this was splitting the assets from the club, or ESI for agreeing to buy, for the same reason! Given that ESI have not yet proved that they have anything more than the original £1 used to purchase the football club, there must be a serious doubt, whether or not they will be able to afford to make any early repayments on the loans. The Ex-Directors only realistic alternative in that scenario, would be to go to Staprix. The alternative would be to apply a charge on all assets of all the companies. That way the loans would only have to be repaid if their transfer was to someone that insisted an a free title. That way there would be no need to repay the loans unless the club reached the Premier League. It doesn’t answer, however, what happens if the club folds. I assume that would have been covered in the loan agreements, but in any event the loans would still be secure and Roland wouldn’t be able to sell off The Valley without repaying the loans, or offering another source of security. He could, for example, put the value of the loans in a secure account that he can’t touch but can earn interest from and leave it until Premier League promotion is achieved, or not as the case may be. It would seem very unlikely that a £7m loan that is quite possibly never repayable, would be allowed to dictate what someone does with £50m of land. If it gets to court, and I can’t see Roland rolling over and paying out, then I guess we’ll find out. It could take many months though and if no new owner can take control of the club before then there probably won’t be a club left. That would beg the question as to where the ex-Directors priorities lie?
|
|
|
Post by AndyAddick on May 19, 2020 10:37:40 GMT
where were either teams lawyers , they have worked around the charges deliberately ! Surly the Dirs should have a legal team in place prior to the sale and access to the deal ? Exactly! It gets murkier, each and every way you look at it. I'm really starting to think RD knew full well what was going on and wanted shot of the footballing side, after all , its worth fuk all ! Sold for a quid , pay me for the rest in 5 years if you can, if you cant lets flatten the lot , quids in !
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 19, 2020 10:41:50 GMT
Exactly! It gets murkier, each and every way you look at it. I'm really starting to think RD knew full well what was going on and wanted shot of the footballing side, after all , its worth fuk all ! Sold for a quid , pay me for the rest in 5 years if you can, if you cant lets flatten the lot , quids in ! To be fair, that very situation was suggested years ago. In Roland’s radio appearance, where he demanded the EFL took on the club, he as good as said as much. He only wanted paying what the land was worth. I, personally, can’t see Roland losing out, financially. All the while he owned the club he had a problem. Now he doesn’t. He is just a landlord who owns valuable land, and sooner or later he will sell it for market value.
|
|
|
Post by clarky on May 19, 2020 11:24:22 GMT
I’d be very surprised if the sale is voided. I posted this comment on April 4th. “A number of former directors have an aggregate of £7m in loans which are repayable if the club reaches the Premier League at some point in the future. They are not repayable otherwise. These loans are secured on the assets of the ‘club’. I assume there were two reasons they insisted on this security. First, as protection in the event the club reneged on its commitment and, second, to ensure they were repaid if the club was wound up. The key to the dispute, as I understand it, lies in the question of what is meant by ‘club’. While it’s true that Staprix (Duchâtelet) now has charges on the assets of Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd.(CAFC), it’s not clear why that would be an issue. Duchâtelet’s loans should be subordinated to those of the former directors (i.e. behind them in the queue if the club is wound up) and if there is any ambiguity about this it ought to be relatively easy to resolve. What’s potentially much more problematic is the fact that the directors’ loan agreement almost certainly didn’t envisage the ownership of CAFC and the Holding Company, which owns the freehold, being separated. CAFC owes the directors their £7m, but their charges are across the assets of both companies. It follows that their position has potentially been compromised as a result of Duchâtelet selling CAFC, but retaining Holdings. It’s not clear how this gets resolved. I’m no expert, but I’d be very surprised if the sale was reversed. The ‘damage’ to the former directors is that their charges may have been compromised. The solution would, presumably, be to find a way to address that. In extremis, it’s possible that they could get their money back early, though it’s not clear who would be ordered to pay them, ESI or Staprix. However, what this dispute might do is get Duchâtelet and Nimer to the table. It might serve to bang heads together. What might make that parlez even more promising would be the presence of a potential buyer for the club. A White Knight. Hopefully, that’s the motivation of the former directors. They’ll make a deal easier to strike if they are prepared to roll their loans once again. If, instead, their objective is to get their money back it will all be a lot more complicated.” In short, while it’s very hard to see how this dispute might lead to the sale to ESI being voided it might bring all parties to the table and that’s probably our best hope.
|
|
|
Post by clarky on May 19, 2020 11:28:32 GMT
I agree that our best hope is to bring both parties together, but if like the ex director's Roland has been advised he has a strong case then he will probably sit back and won't do anything, and as the legal wrangles continue Nimer will be long gone.
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 19, 2020 14:03:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 19, 2020 20:32:43 GMT
If RD is somehow forced to take the club back he’ll just liquidate it l fear. He’ll probably sell the assets, pay off the ex-directors and be done with it. In his position, given everything that has occurred in the last few years, that's exactly what I would do. He has no love for the club and has no incentive to resume responsibility for paying its bills. Most of the players and staff will soon be out of contract and it would cost relatively little to pay up contracts and shut the club down. The former directors can secure their position by their action but this would not guarantee the future of the club at all. I cannot envisage anyone backing Southall to finance a deal that ensures the future of the club and guarantees the security of the former directors. Even if he somehow raises the money it is unlikely that Nimer would sell his share. Nimer seems unable to raise money from sources that satisfy the EFL (if the money actually exists, which is far from clear) and even if he does satisfy the EFL he has to deal with Southall who will demand a substantial buy-off. My call is that sooner rather than later ESI will walk away because their problems are incapable of being resolved, and RD will just shrug his shoulders. I am more convinced than ever that we will not see football at The Valley again.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 19, 2020 20:42:20 GMT
In answer to kings hill addict, I think the point is Roland could not split the club from its assets without gaining consent from the ex director's, he did not do this so with that in mind it may make the sale illegal. I also do not think it is in Roland's best interest for the club to go into administration. The ex director's are likely to be first in line for payback which may fall to Roland if Nimer doesn't have the funds as has been muted. Yes Roland would be left with the ground and training ground but their value is £25m, and probably depreciating in the current climate, so he is not going to get the £55m he wants by that route either. Something that tends to get overlooked is that RD is not really suffering financially. His companies turn a healthy profit. The money he has put into CAFC is a lot less than the profits his companies have made so he still makes money every year. It's not a lot different to running his companies during a recession with reduced profits. The asset value of the land is substantial, the only variable is what he will accept against what he has put in. As such he could take any offer against his financial input. He is simply playing hardball, which he is entitled to do although I am not sure that it is the right way to get anything resolved.
|
|
|
Post by northlondonaddict on May 20, 2020 7:41:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by northlondonaddict on May 20, 2020 7:42:10 GMT
sorry seen this on Twitter this morning not sure the right place to post
|
|