Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
O/S statement
Comments
-
I think you may underestimate how many people would have been involved in any kind of statement let alone this one which is of high interest and one that will be scrutinised by fans. The more time they spend dealing with fans questions, phonecalls and making statements they are doing less negotiating and running of the club. quote... suzi sausage
I am afraid that comes with running any organisation Charlton are not alone in this, in fact I think the majority of fans have been very patient!
Perhaps there was a need to diffuse this situation before we got to this stage eh Suzi!..... It is something we agreed way back, as you claimed 'they wanted to' but never did.....
Now, it is beyond that, formal statements have to be made as you state, because yes they will be examined and raked over, once they go through the lawyers and pr machine the type of statement issued that we had is about right. Think we now have to wait and hold tight, looking for emphasis and hidden meanings are not going to be shown in these type of statements now.....0 -
We wanted an official statement we got an official statement. Now we wait.0
-
[cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]We wanted an official statement we got an official statement. Now we wait.
this type of statement could have been issued on july 1st when afka sent his open letter to derek chappell which i guess was borne out of weeks of not hearing anything from the board.
we weren't asking for much and the season did end on 3rd of may.0 -
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite][cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]We wanted an official statement we got an official statement. Now we wait.
this type of statement could have been issued on july 1st when afka sent his open letter to derek chappell which i guess was borne out of weeks of not hearing anything from the board.
we weren't asking for much and the season did end on 3rd of may.
Total Agreement.
Out of interest, why do people ask for a NDA ?0 -
lets be careful to analyse rather than criticise, without the full facts the latter is difficult.
The statement is quite intruiging, I am guessing its a majority buy-out offer which by leaving some minority ownership in the hands of some of the current board allows them to recoup some of their assets later.0 -
Guys guys guys....do we 'really' need to analise word for word this staement...it now bloody painful....it's a simple straight forward statement (that many of you were clamouring for...don't include me in that by the way)...you've got what you wanted, let's leave it at that shall we without disecting it piece by piece,word by word and trying to find every little nuance that can conceivably be construed..........lord help us!0
-
[cite]Posted By: Miserableold-ish git[/cite][cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite][cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]We wanted an official statement we got an official statement. Now we wait.
this type of statement could have been issued on july 1st when afka sent his open letter to derek chappell which i guess was borne out of weeks of not hearing anything from the board.
we weren't asking for much and the season did end on 3rd of may.
Total Agreement.
Out of interest, why do people ask for a NDA ?
Disagree that it could have been issued on 1st July. It might have been but there may have been an NDA or no firm offer or the potential owners had a different view.
Don't know why, or even if, there was an NDA in this case. The Legal advice would suggest there was.
Generally NDA's might be in place to stop the game being given away to rival bidders.
It might be that the potential buyer doesn't want to be seen to be trying to buy a company and then fail publicly. That might effect shares or future bids for other businesses. It could be to protect the co. being sold from speculation (ie about to go into Admin/be taken over/redundancies) which might upset creditors/suppliers/customers/workers)
As I said in this case we don't know.0 -
PV got back to you yet (Sir) Henry ?
;-)0 -
[cite]Posted By: Miserableold-ish git[/cite]PV got back to you yet (Sir) Henry ?
;-)
No, I'm sure it's just a problem with his phone or maybe he is busy but you'd have thought that one of the 300 texts/emails and voice messages would have reached him by now : - )0 -
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]once they go through the . . . pr machine
LOL - in my CAFC experience statements like this are run past the interested parties/lawyers and then given to the communications staff to publish as is, which is why they usually read as if they have been written by people who do not write for a living.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Guys guys guys....do we 'really' need to analise word for word this staement...it now bloody painful....it's a simple straight forward statement (that many of you were clamouring for...don't include me in that by the way)...you've got what you wanted, let's leave it at that shall we without disecting it piece by piece,word by word and trying to find every little nuance that can conceivably be construed..........lord help us!
course we don''t need too, but we don't need to be on a football forum either
0 -
Regarding analysis and straightforwardness of the statement. If it really was so straightforward, then it should have been issued long before it was. Lawyers advise against talking to supporters, RM is supposed to have rocked the boat talking to the SLP, Mick Collins gets unattributable 'statements' that puts the cat amongst.....so it is naive to think that the official statement is an innocent crumb to mollify supporters. Absolutely regard the differentiation of the plc and the football club, absolutely notice the idea that 'some' assets and liabilities are up for grabs as opposed to all, the statement may seem to be simple at first, but it is full of ambiguity, and to issue a statement, and not to expect it to be crawled over, especially with the current mood of Charlton support, is unrealistic.
My two pennorth is still the internal power battle, with some previously minor stakeholders who have played the long game to get control, and now they're upping the ante. This I emphasise is my opinion, but i can't see any clues about any fresh money or resources being introduced to the club.0 -
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Regarding analysis and straightforwardness of the statement. If it really was so straightforward, then it should have been issued long before it was. Lawyers advise against talking to supporters, RM is supposed to have rocked the boat talking to the SLP, Mick Collins gets unattributable 'statements' that puts the cat amongst.....so it is naive to think that the official statement is an innocent crumb to mollify supporters. Absolutely regard the differentiation of the plc and the football club, absolutely notice the idea that 'some' assets and liabilities are up for grabs as opposed to all, the statement may seem to be simple at first, but it is full of ambiguity, and to issue a statement, and not to expect it to be crawled over, especially with the current mood of Charlton support, is unrealistic.
My two pennorth is still the internal power battle, with some previously minor stakeholders who have played the long game to get control, and now they're upping the ante. This I emphasise is my opinion, but i can't see any clues about any fresh money or resources being introduced to the club.
No way Seth. None of the current board want to take control/ have the funds.
I think Murray would like to stay in some capacity as he loves the club. IMO.0 -
I think you may well have hit the nail on the head there...[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]My two pennorth is still the internal power battle, with some previously minor stakeholders who have played the long game to get control, and now they're upping the ante. This I emphasise is my opinion, but i can't see any clues about any fresh money or resources being introduced to the club.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'takeover' came from within and the stumbling block is the 'assets' of the training ground, amongst others items, that Murray et al helped themselves to a few months back...
If this was the case it would be difficult to see where new money was coming from, unless there is another big player waiting on the sidelines...0 -
And so the guessing game continues .........0
-
Speculation..........sweeps the nation!
In finest CL fashion - sod this, I'm off down the pub.0 -
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Speculation..........sweeps the nation!
In finest CL fashion - sod this, I'm off down the pub.
Can I come ?0 -
[cite]Posted By: RedZed333[/cite]
I think you may well have hit the nail on the head there...[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]My two pennorth is still the internal power battle, with some previously minor stakeholders who have played the long game to get control, and now they're upping the ante. This I emphasise is my opinion, but i can't see any clues about any fresh money or resources being introduced to the club.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'takeover' came from within and the stumbling block is the 'assets' of the training ground, amongst others items, that Murray et al helped themselves to a few months back...
If this was the case it would be difficult to see where new money was coming from, unless there is another big player waiting on the sidelines...
So Varney went off looking for a buyer and found a Charlton director. Blimey took his time, when they were already there . LOL0 -
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]AFKA, I agree 100%.
I think this asset/liability issue is being over complicated. As far as I know there are two main subsidiaries of CAFC PLC, one is CAFC 1984 Ltd (the Football Club), and the other is the company that owns the stadium. Thus to buy the "club", you'd need to purchase the assets - The Valley owning company and the liabilities - CAFC 1984 Ltd. My guess as a non expert on this things is that the PLC will then be liquidated with the sale price divided into equal parts based on the issued share capital and then distributed to the shareholders.
so who does ACTUALLY own the valley ??0 -
What is the SLP???0
-
Sponsored links:
-
[cite]Posted By: c4fcdenmark[/cite]What is the SLP???
south london press ... local rag0 -
Thank you.0
-
sethplum, I think you are bang on, save reading that statement, I would expect a combination of present directors staying on in some capacity or another, with a controlling interest being taken by a new investor(s). That said, I think you are completely right that every single word in that statement means/reflects something...0
