There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Of course it would have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf. Maybe fans are being naive, but it sends a clear signal that the club was in the hands of new owners.
No, it sent a clear signal that he'd bought or been given a scarf. Anything more was wishful thinking on the part of the fans.
When he attended the game wearing a scarf he was deliberately sending a signal to fans that he was close to buying the club. To try and spin any other meaning to that event is an insult to the intelligence of every Charlton fan.
And maybe he was and still is close to buying the club.
We all knew he was and is trying to buy the club and had been for many months.
I'm really not getting why the £10 scarf suddenly made that somehow different or why he's being pilloried for doing so.
It was just a scarf. Being seen at the game was far more significant imho than what he wore but it still didn't mean the deal was down as time has shown.
My guess is he expected it do be done by now but it's not.
The reasons for that aren't clear.
WIOTOS
I am reminded Henry of the following: "when you are in a hole, stop digging" -:)
They should only accept any less than full settlement if it’s part of a contract for the sale process of the whole club and not a way of separating the club and ground..
Edit: perhaps they could convert the remainder of their loans to club unsecured debt or equity? But I guess in that circumstance they’d be expected to invest further
Why would they convert secure debt to unsecured debt?
Might be a preferable compromise, to losing the money. From what AB says unless I’ve misunderstood, the Aussies want all debts cleared though so i guess not.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
RD hasn’t reached agreement with the former directors. If the Aussies insist on clean title, which I’m assured they are, the deal can’t be closed until he does.
So is the deal with former directors, if made (and let's hope so if it's stopping completion), going to confirm the lease of ground and training ground scenario?
My understanding is that 1) it’s been RD pushing the lease scenario, which would require the loans to be cleared 2) the Aussies want the freehold and the loans cleared.
RD made a very low offer to clear the loans, which was rejected by at least three former directors.
None of this info comes from the Aussies, but make of it what you will.
So still trying to save afew Euro at the expense of real charlton people(the 7 directors) Thank goodness for real fans of the club...……
Roland just call it aday pay in full and leave us to get our lives back.
25% offer to former Directors - no wonder they told him to shove it.
I expect the Aussies have gone back with a £7m discount on his price so they can pay off the Directors and he's choked on that.
If thats the case no wonder the deal has not gone thru…..Tell you what Roland if we only payed 25% of the ticket price to get in at charlton would you be happy....
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
25% offer to former Directors - no wonder they told him to shove it.
I expect the Aussies have gone back with a £7m discount on his price so they can pay off the Directors and he's choked on that.
If thats the case no wonder the deal has not gone thru…..Tell you what Roland if we only payed 25% of the ticket price to get in at charlton would you be happy....
He probably would - As 25% of the price is better than 100% of fuck all
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
This is what I can't understand. If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.
Maybe I'm misreading the signals (not for the first time) but I get the distinct impression that because of the delay there is animosity building against Muir.
Andrew Muir is a well respected businessman with a very good reputation for collaboration and philanthropic activity. Two Sheds is by most estimates a brick short of a full load.
I know where my money is in terms of the blame game.
I think its more desperation to get rid of the curse that's been hanging over the club more than anything else.
after the last two lots of owners we've had I don't think anyone can be blamed for worrying.
This is what I can't understand. If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.
That's £3,500,000.00 each - that's in no way a small amount.
This is what I can't understand. If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.
That's £3,500,000.00 each - that's in no way a small amount.
It is absolutely a small amount when you think of the cost of buying a club.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
One reason might be that the Aussies don't want to be compromised by any of the ex directors and there is a certain person who we know would just love to keep his seat at the top table don't we eh?
I mentioned a week or so ago that there may be ex-directors who are both playing a straight bat in all this, and also acting in a way that is trying to keep the club whole. I might be wrong, but when this sorry mess gets sorted it may be the story emerges that some people have been rather heroic.
25% offer to former Directors - no wonder they told him to shove it.
I expect the Aussies have gone back with a £7m discount on his price so they can pay off the Directors and he's choked on that.
If thats the case no wonder the deal has not gone thru…..Tell you what Roland if we only payed 25% of the ticket price to get in at charlton would you be happy....
He probably would - As 25% of the price is better than 100% of fuck all
One reason might by that the Aussies don't want to be compromised by any of the ex directors and there is a certain person who we know would just love to keep his seat at the top table don't eh?
Well if you pay him off he has no say in the matter
25% offer to former Directors - no wonder they told him to shove it.
I expect the Aussies have gone back with a £7m discount on his price so they can pay off the Directors and he's choked on that.
If thats the case no wonder the deal has not gone thru…..Tell you what Roland if we only payed 25% of the ticket price to get in at charlton would you be happy....
He probably would - As 25% of the price is better than 100% of fuck all
One reason might by that the Aussies don't want to be compromised by any of the ex directors and there is a certain person who we know would just love to keep his seat at the top table don't eh?
Well if you pay him off he has no say in the matter
Exactly but Vff (who I meant to quote not Suede sorry) wanted a reason why the loans ought not be rolled over by the Aussies.
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
If they agreed for that to be rolled on, with agreement with the Directors, then they would not have to spend £7million. What’s the big deal with clean title ?
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
If they agreed for that to be rolled on, with agreement with the Directors, then they would not have to spend £7million. What’s the big deal with clean title ?
There's no way the Aussies didn't know about the multiple ownerships rules. From what we know there were 2 issues raised by the EFL, we don't know if that was with one investor or with 2 investors. We do know from James Seed that one investor stepped out as a result and has now been replaced.
The most likely reason being that they knew about the issue, but thought it would be resolved before the fit and proper tests were completed. It wasn't resolved, and isn't going to be resolved imminently, so they stepped away from the deal. That fits all the facts we know and makes logical sense. Of course there are lots of other possibilities, but them not know about that rule seems by far the least likely, yet people keep saying it and using as some sort of stick to beat the Aussies with.
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source. I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
If the directors loans are holding things up, would they consider rolling over the loans to the Aussies, if the Aussies bid is credible to reach the Premiership (easy for me to propose I know, over what is a large sum of not my money). If the Aussies plan is solid then there may be a better chance to get their money back than with Duchatelet ?
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believe
Thanks @razil. What’s the big deal for the Aussies in clear title if they are trying to spend only the required amount ? Surely the Directors would be easier to deal with. Wouldn’t be worth it to seal the deal & no longer have to deal with Duchatelet ?
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.
If they agreed for that to be rolled on, with agreement with the Directors, then they would not have to spend £7million. What’s the big deal with clean title ?
Would you not want a clean break from this shit show? Can imagine they were open minded coming into the process but with RD (it seems) constantly moving the goal posts, I can imagine they just want rid and a blank canvass to create there own legacy & not having to deal with the leftovers of RDs legacy.
Well if that is all that is holding up the deal I despair. We are losing in the region of 10 million per year. A five year plan will cost us 50 million. 75 if Napa does the maths.
So if the pissing amount owed to the directors is truly holding up the deal I am gobsmacked.
Comments
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
Yeah - two sheds and stone were the complete wasters on Netaddicks
So neither of you put your fortunes into gold then?
Yeah - two sheds and stone were the complete wasters on Netaddicks
So neither of you put your fortunes into gold then?
He got on the gold thing right at the start.....I seem to remember, those were the days LOL
I’ve misunderstood, the Aussies want all debts cleared though so i guess not.
Or is Duchatelet trying to pay them off, so he can do his own rolling on money owed with keeping hold of the ground ?
(Apologies if this has been covered in the last 200 pages of this sometimes difficult to follow thread : puns / fighting / out & out BS with the occasional relevant bit of news).
Roland just call it aday pay in full and leave us to get our lives back.
If the total of money owed the directors is 7 million that is a small amount when you think of the cost of buying the club.
Why not come to an agreement where Roland and the buyers pay half each.
That's 3.5 million each and if that is what is causing the hold up ups fuckin pathetic tbh.
after the last two lots of owners we've had I don't think anyone can be blamed for worrying.
Just sell the club and FUCK OFF
I might be wrong, but when this sorry mess gets sorted it may be the story emerges that some people have been rather heroic.
We are losing in the region of 10 million per year.
A five year plan will cost us 50 million.
75 if Napa does the maths.
So if the pissing amount owed to the directors is truly holding up the deal I am gobsmacked.