Without the fans any football club is nothing even the likes of barcelona or man united. This club more so considering what the older generation did when we went back to the valley and that era.
Whilst i appreciate the need for confidentiality from the current board and the speculative new owners the prospective new owners (if they have any understanding of what Charlton means to its fans) should at least allow the club to make a minimal statement saying "yes we are currently in ongoing negotiations regarding a takeover but as youll understand post- zabeel we are reluctant to publically release further details".
The fact that neither the club (or as people have pointed out on this thread the prospective new owners) have obviously acknowledged the speculation that has appeared on numerous charlton forums and other media over the past few months whilst at the same time making people redundant, selling off the training ground and making no concrete statement about parkinsons future is bizarre.
Ok so we have been lucky to have a recent history of having board members who are charlton first and businessmen second when it has come to the club however we the ordinary fans (shareholders or not) are just as important in the bigger scheme of things as those fortunate enough to have the money to invest in something they love (Im sure if we were millionaires many of us would be sat on the board as we would choose to plough money in).
And we are certainly MORE important to the club than any new owners who are just arriving now....ok they may have the bucks becuase they can see a good potential investment to be realised but there is more to life and football than money even if we are made to believe different.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Miserableold-ish git[/cite][quote aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0][cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: All_Thaid_Up[/cite]I would have thought it the other party involved is a public company (and the deal is not done), any information RM might have divulged could have had ramifications on their share price, as such the lawyers would be have advised to cancel.
As someone mentioned earlier I had a funny thought it might be Zabeel again.[/quote]
Bloody Hell............ We gotta go thru all that Due Dill bollox again ?
The fact that neither the club (or as people have pointed out on this thread the prospective new owners) have obviously acknowledged the speculation that has appeared on numerous charlton forums and other media over the past few months whilst at the same time making people redundant, selling off the training ground and making no concrete statement about parkinsons future is bizarre.
...........
Why should any prospective buyer announce their interest? Would you? Nothing is a done deal until the paperwork has been signed and the cheque cleared, so the club are correct not to make any statement. Until all is signed off t'board are correct to carry on running the club as if nothing is going to happen. If they hadn't made laods of people redundant at the end of the season and hadn't gone through the belt tightening process and if negotiations broke down then it's now that they'd start laying people off and as we are about to start a new season then it's exactly the wrong time and a sure fire way to get the season off to a bad start.
That a T/O is in the offing has been the worst kept secret in football this summer, we know the club are in talks, the club knows we know, but can't make an official announcement, even of the "be patient" variety, perhaps only another day or so to wait...
A great pity that Richard and his directors did not speak to the fans earlier this year. Have to say that frustration is leading to anger in the respect that having a dialogue with the fans is a heathly thing for the club, especially a club like Charlton. Yet again a missed opportunity, the reason....... more speculation and rumour!
[quote][cite]Posted By: KBslittlesis[/cite]What a shame, was really looking forward to catching some fish, flipping my tail & spinning that ball on my nose. Heh hoh![/quote] Do you need to go to a Q&A session in SE7 to do that then
If we are being taken over but no-one is allowed to talk about it, why was the Q and A arranged in the first place? Seems to me that all the club have done is wasted everyone's time.
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite]If we are being taken over but no-one is allowed to talk about it, why was the Q and A arranged in the first place? Seems to me that all the club have done is wasted everyone's time.
Yet another PR own goal!
Maybe because the FF asked them, maybe cos they thought the deal would be done or dead by now.
Agree it is a PR "own goal but a takeover would count as a hat trick in time added on so we still win 3 - 1 ; - )
In answer to the due dilligence point earlier, I suspect that it has been completed (or is in the final stage of completion) now. This is different to the Zabeel deal where they asked for their interest to be made public prior to the start of the DD period. I understand this is because they wanted to be seen to be a serious bidder. The end came as a result of financial problems in Dubai as a result of the credit crunch (basically Abu Dhabi bailed out their economy).
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]
Author CommentTime53 minutes ago quote# 275
Posted By: McLovin
Go onto FT.com and pick a story about a company involved in an acquisition. What you'll almost definitely notice in there is that there is (public) communication with their shareholders, the market, customers (in some cases) and the press. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of it, but are we now saying that all of these organisations failing to comply with company law? Implying that this is the reason for the cancellation is frustrating: if they're saying that they're in the latter stages of takeover talks then they should say that and not just imply something that is not true; at a time when your customer base is feeling confused and unhappy.
______________________________________________________
Are you saying that the lawyers advising RM/The Board don't know what they are doing? Come on. lets be adult about this, I do not believe they cancelled this out of convenience or avoidence of the issues, they are perfectly capable of dodging the questions if they need to. No the lawyers have made it clear that it would be folly for them to meet in a public forum at this stage in developments.
No, I didn't say that at all. To spell it out basically, I'm saying that lawyers involved in much bigger and more complicated takeovers wouldn't give that advice under normal circumstances. If they did they would back up the specifics of the decision and they would not wait until 2 days' before a long-planned and eagerly anticipated event because they know that such a sudden move is likely to be negatively perceived.
There is absolutely no legal basis for the chairmen of a company - who are continuing to give quite revealing statements to the press - should not have a cordial meeting with some key stakeholders during an acquistion.
Personally theory only but while they may be limited in what they could answer at this stage. I believe that most of our supporters would be big enough to understand that. I just think they don't want to do it. I think they a) expected the takeover to be done by now and so always expected the event to have been cancelled or be academic OR b) don't want to do the discussion either because of perceived negativity or because of the hassle of not being able to answer some questions. To answer your point about why they'd not just be more staraightforward about it, I suspect they don't want to be seen to be dodging bullets at the moment because of the potential negative impact on renewals.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]In answer to the due dilligence point earlier, I suspect that it has been completed (or is in the final stage of completion) now. This is different to the Zabeel deal where they asked for their interest to be made public prior to the start of the DD period. I understand this is because they wanted to be seen to be a serious bidder. The end came as a result of financial problems in Dubai as a result of the credit crunch (basically Abu Dhabi bailed out their economy).
I think if you read between the lines, this appears to be a lot more further advanced than the Zabeel one was when their appearance at the Bromley meeting was cancelled.
I think if you read between the lines, this appears to be a lot more further advanced than the Zabeel one was when their appearance at the Bromley meeting was cancelled.
They have agreed the amount to buy the club, they have no doubt done the due dilligance, the club have informed the board and accepted the offer as they are prepared to come out of this with a loss, and it would suggest we are at the stage where it is at the solictors who are going through the paperwork, and giving the green light to the buyer for it to be signed, their inevietbly is a bit og haggling at the 11th hour about this clause or that clause in which but in my experience of these things they are normally signed and sealed late at night, and i would forecast Monday morning we will be reading a statement on the clubs website
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]There is absolutely no legal basis for the chairmen of a company - who are continuing to give quite revealing statements to the press - should not have a cordial meeting with some key stakeholders during an acquistion.
Isn't there? How about a confidentiality agreement that forbids either party, directly or indirectly disclosing any part of a proposed agreement or the intentions of any party to enter into such agreement.
Frankly this is all speculation as nobody knows the basis of any NDA which may exist. I have personally been involved in takeovers and there were some pretty onerous secrecy clauses. I had to work in an office away from the rest of my colleagues in order that I might not unwittingly let something slip.
I'd rather base the position on the track record of RM who has been extremely open to discussion, indeed makes a point of speaking "off the record". If he thought he could get away with this meeting. I'm certain he would have done.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]There is absolutely no legal basis for the chairmen of a company - who are continuing to give quite revealing statements to the press - should not have a cordial meeting with some key stakeholders during an acquistion.
Isn't there? How about a confidentiality agreement that forbids either party, directly or indirectly disclosing any part of a proposed agreement or the intentions of any party to enter into such agreement.
Frankly this is all speculation as nobody knows the basis of any NDA which may exist. I have personally been involved in takeovers and there were some pretty onerous secrecy clauses. I had to work in an office away from the rest of my colleagues in order that I might not unwittingly let something slip.
I'd rather base the position on the track record of RM who has been extremely open to discussion, indeed makes a point of speaking "off the record". If he thought he could get away with this meeting. I'm certain he would have done.
Again what Bing said
McLovin, both Bing and WIWALB have given what seem to me quite reasonable and legally based reasons ie an NDA for cancelling the meeting.
Not great PR and very frustrating as I was hoping to hear some answers myself but you can't keep going on saying that there is no legal reason when you have been given some quite logical reasons above.
Comments
;-)
Whilst i appreciate the need for confidentiality from the current board and the speculative new owners the prospective new owners (if they have any understanding of what Charlton means to its fans) should at least allow the club to make a minimal statement saying "yes we are currently in ongoing negotiations regarding a takeover but as youll understand post- zabeel we are reluctant to publically release further details".
The fact that neither the club (or as people have pointed out on this thread the prospective new owners) have obviously acknowledged the speculation that has appeared on numerous charlton forums and other media over the past few months whilst at the same time making people redundant, selling off the training ground and making no concrete statement about parkinsons future is bizarre.
Ok so we have been lucky to have a recent history of having board members who are charlton first and businessmen second when it has come to the club however we the ordinary fans (shareholders or not) are just as important in the bigger scheme of things as those fortunate enough to have the money to invest in something they love (Im sure if we were millionaires many of us would be sat on the board as we would choose to plough money in).
And we are certainly MORE important to the club than any new owners who are just arriving now....ok they may have the bucks becuase they can see a good potential investment to be realised but there is more to life and football than money even if we are made to believe different.
The club is nothing without the fans though.
As someone mentioned earlier I had a funny thought it might be Zabeel again.[/quote]
Bloody Hell............
We gotta go thru all that Due Dill bollox again ?
;-)[/quote] Would have already been done
(It's a split infinitive)
...........
Why should any prospective buyer announce their interest? Would you? Nothing is a done deal until the paperwork has been signed and the cheque cleared, so the club are correct not to make any statement. Until all is signed off t'board are correct to carry on running the club as if nothing is going to happen. If they hadn't made laods of people redundant at the end of the season and hadn't gone through the belt tightening process and if negotiations broke down then it's now that they'd start laying people off and as we are about to start a new season then it's exactly the wrong time and a sure fire way to get the season off to a bad start.
That a T/O is in the offing has been the worst kept secret in football this summer, we know the club are in talks, the club knows we know, but can't make an official announcement, even of the "be patient" variety, perhaps only another day or so to wait...
Told him what was happening then heard a BIG splash !
He's not answering his phone.............
Is also true (and by club I don't mean the owners) although without a club to follow... mind you look at wimbledon.
Yet another PR own goal!
Maybe because the FF asked them, maybe cos they thought the deal would be done or dead by now.
Agree it is a PR "own goal but a takeover would count as a hat trick in time added on so we still win 3 - 1 ; - )
There is absolutely no legal basis for the chairmen of a company - who are continuing to give quite revealing statements to the press - should not have a cordial meeting with some key stakeholders during an acquistion.
Personally theory only but while they may be limited in what they could answer at this stage. I believe that most of our supporters would be big enough to understand that. I just think they don't want to do it. I think they a) expected the takeover to be done by now and so always expected the event to have been cancelled or be academic OR b) don't want to do the discussion either because of perceived negativity or because of the hassle of not being able to answer some questions. To answer your point about why they'd not just be more staraightforward about it, I suspect they don't want to be seen to be dodging bullets at the moment because of the potential negative impact on renewals.
I think if you read between the lines, this appears to be a lot more further advanced than the Zabeel one was when their appearance at the Bromley meeting was cancelled.
Well that was what I was trying to say.
Isn't there? How about a confidentiality agreement that forbids either party, directly or indirectly disclosing any part of a proposed agreement or the intentions of any party to enter into such agreement.
Frankly this is all speculation as nobody knows the basis of any NDA which may exist. I have personally been involved in takeovers and there were some pretty onerous secrecy clauses. I had to work in an office away from the rest of my colleagues in order that I might not unwittingly let something slip.
I'd rather base the position on the track record of RM who has been extremely open to discussion, indeed makes a point of speaking "off the record". If he thought he could get away with this meeting. I'm certain he would have done.
Again what Bing said
McLovin, both Bing and WIWALB have given what seem to me quite reasonable and legally based reasons ie an NDA for cancelling the meeting.
Not great PR and very frustrating as I was hoping to hear some answers myself but you can't keep going on saying that there is no legal reason when you have been given some quite logical reasons above.