I agree - just saying that we shouldn't assume SS is a chancer - He has made his move and from what I have been told - he has a plan and certainly should be respected. We just have to wait and see what follows and try to be neutral. Agree that it's reassuring to know that Murray won't just sell to anybody. Also expect there to be a role for Murray in SS's plans.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Not good for the squad all this public rumour planting and hyped up speculation. Not good for us either. But unsettling the squad, yet again, seems to be a very good tactic for anyone wanting to drive the price down. I'm not liking this at all, way too Machiavellian for my tastes.
mate spot on i am sick to death of the speculation surrounding us i can not see how it is helpful at all
Maybe Dan Roan is trying to save his reputation as a "respected journalist". I suspect that Sainsbury told Roan a "deal was close" and Roan swallowed it. Now Roan has to have an excuse to fall back on.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Cutting edge journalism.
Read the club website and write an article.
The only suprise is that it takes two of them!
Rafa would say something about Priests and Sugar Mountains :-
A lot of posturing appears to have been going on through the two Beeb journos over the past week. Who has been feeding who though is starting to look a little clearer.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]i did ask my contact whether he thought SS would be good for us, bad or neutral and he said definitely good.
That is entirely your decision Muttley, which you are perfectly entitled to make. My view, for what it is worth, would be that of the complete opposite.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Cutting edge journalism.
Read the club website and write an article.
The only suprise is that it takes two of them!
Except that most of what's in the article isn't on the club website.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]
he has a plan and certainly should be respected.
We just have to wait and see what follows and try to be neutral.
Also expect there to be a role for Murray in SS's plans.
No offence Muttley, and please don't take this personally. But it is very much coming from a 'neutral' view that you are either involved a lot more on the Sainsbury side than you making out, or you know from a third party a great deal more detail on on the Sainsbury side that you are making out.
Either way, that is heavily impacting my view when searching for a neutral one.
Why would anyone who is a rumoured 'supporter' and who is ' definitely good for us', subject the club to all these shennanigans? If Muttley could successfully explain that, I might return to neutral.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]
Except that most of what's in the article isn't on the club website.
It appears to be an amalgam of their previous posturings archived on the BBC website, with a reaction to our club statement plus a dose of Sooty and Sweep.
Hopefully who Matthew Corbett will end up being will be revealed one day
The thing is.When you're in the position we find ourselves and you continually bang on about how desperate you are for new investment, then chancers are going to be banging on the door every day. I've said it before and i'll say it again,all the time we find ourselves in this pit of a league no credible investor would touch us.Suggest we forget about rich arabs,supermarket magnates and any other tom dick or harry with a few quid and concentrate on moving up and out of this league.
To be honest I am neutral - I can only go by what I've been told - that may be true or false but contact is a friend and stated their view when I asked. AFKA - it wasn't my view although I would guess people were more pro any sort of takeover after the Brighton game than they are now with the team seemingly turning a corner. It also doesn't mean that my friend and contact is right. Basically, I don't know whether SS would be good or bad. What I am saying is we shouldn't be assuming he will be bad for the club and ther is a solid business plan in place. We just have to let those involved get on with things and take comfort from the fact that RM will need to be sure any future backer can support the club before he sells.
[cite]Posted By: carly burn[/cite]Suggest we forget about rich arabs,supermarket magnates and any other tom dick or harry with a few quid and concentrate on moving up and out of this league.
I'm sure that's what Parky and the players are doing.
Yes, a SS takeover if it were to happen would have less impact on the players than an Arab one. Parkey's job was under threat under Murray - if he gets the team competing his job will be no more at risk. There is no manager in place, ready to take over from him from what I can gather. The players need to focus on getting us out of this league and it would upset me if they did otherwise.
Murray has put the club up for sale so we have to expect people will want to buy. SS has been planning this bid for a while and like I have said- there may be more developments to come.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Am I right in assuming that Dan Roan was being used by somebody to further their cause?
Matthew Corbett may well have been playing him like a puppet.
4 possible angles as to who it was - one of the three parties who have already spoken, or a current unknown, but possible future investor
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Am I right in assuming that Dan Roan was being used by somebody to further their cause?
don't know if you are right or not but I think the same and that that person was Sainsbury.
time to move on and wait for the next instalment, hopefully featuring this US consortium briefly mentioned above. Then again that was Roan so not sure if I believe that either.
So you know what. When I see a new owner pictured on the OS holding a Charlton scarf over his head against the backdrop of the "THE VALLEY" spelt out in the East Stand seats then I'll believe it.
what I don't get is that if Sainsbury is alledged to be a Charlton fan then why havn't we heard from him before? Is he in VG ? Has he been in any of the VIP schemes? Has he bought shares ? How does he get eligibility for away tickets? Is he the sole member of the CASC Greenwich & Bexley Branch ? etc etc
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]What I am saying is we shouldn't be assuming he will be bad for the club and there is a solid business plan in place.
Are you aware of any details within this business plan and/or does it involve moving the club down the road a little ?
A lot of talk on here about a takeover. It's my understanding that RM is actively looking for investment. That suggests the club is not actually for sale. My guess is that RM wants to be at our club for for the foreseeable future but is looking for added investment to take us forward. Ok, there's nothing which can prevent a takeover but I suspect that RM is not going to let the club go at a cut down price to anybody.
[cite]Posted By: Jayajosh[/cite]A lot of talk on here about a takeover. It's my understanding that RM is actively looking for investment. That suggests the club is not actually for sale. My guess is that RM wants to be at our club for for the foreseeable future but is looking for added investment to take us forward. Ok, there's nothing which can prevent a takeover but I suspect that RM is not going to let the club go at a cut down price to anybody.
Don't read it that way.
Investment could mean a complete buy out or someone taking 50% or some other portion of the shares.
Don't think RM is going to just let the club go at a cut down price to JUST anyone rather than not sell the club to any one at all.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]what I don't get is that if Sainsbury is alledged to be a Charlton fan then why havn't we heard from him before? Is he in VG ? Has he been in any of the VIP schemes? Has he bought shares ? How does he get eligibility for away tickets? Is he the sole member of the CASC Greenwich & Bexley Branch ? etc etc
Large
I know you are half joking, but it is still a puzzle I'd like to get to the bottom of
if you check the Sainsbury thread, his Charlton credentials seem to come from one Lifer , "stopshouting" who thought he had met him in a bar in Switzerland. However when he saw the photo AFKA put up of Sainsbury, stopshouting said that was not the same guy. So I dont think he was there at Selhurst, even in the Sainsbury end
I presume it is true that we have rejected a bid from Sainsbury's consortium , as the BBC story quotes a senior club source confirming it.
Yet all we were told on the OS is that the club is holding ''constant conversations with interested parties'' .
Nobody expects negotiations to be conducted in public. But the rejection of a bid is surely something that should be in the public domain? Indeed, it now is, due to the BBC story. Is it possible the club's reticence is because the rejection isn't necessarily final?
I think the BBC quotes a club source saying it was rejected on the grounds that there was no evidence of sufficient funds.
So what if SS comes back with evidence that he has got access to the required funds?
[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]I think the BBC quotes a club source saying it was rejected on the grounds that there was no evidence of sufficient funds.
So what if SS comes back with evidence that he has got access to the required funds?
If he doesn't have the funds now and suddenly comes back with the funds next week that's not really the point as next week's funds won't be his. CAFC seems to be concerned about borrowing and more specifically the ratio of SS's pounds to the pound he's sourced from elsewhere. That is implicit from the statement on the website and set in stone in the BBC piece. Any money he comes back with won't be his unless he's sold off the family silver to get the liquid capital.
I'll only believe we have a new owner when he says we have entered into an agreement with a Premier League club to take their young stars on loan. . . . .
I wasn't told he was a supporter but that he was very enthusiatic and passionate about taking the club forwards - apparently that did come across. The press seem to be quite loose as to what they class a supporter.
Comments
mate spot on i am sick to death of the speculation surrounding us i can not see how it is helpful at all
Rafa would say something about Priests and Sugar Mountains :-
A lot of posturing appears to have been going on through the two Beeb journos over the past week. Who has been feeding who though is starting to look a little clearer.
That is entirely your decision Muttley, which you are perfectly entitled to make. My view, for what it is worth, would be that of the complete opposite.
Except that most of what's in the article isn't on the club website.
No offence Muttley, and please don't take this personally. But it is very much coming from a 'neutral' view that you are either involved a lot more on the Sainsbury side than you making out, or you know from a third party a great deal more detail on on the Sainsbury side that you are making out.
Either way, that is heavily impacting my view when searching for a neutral one.
It appears to be an amalgam of their previous posturings archived on the BBC website, with a reaction to our club statement plus a dose of Sooty and Sweep.
Hopefully who Matthew Corbett will end up being will be revealed one day
I've said it before and i'll say it again,all the time we find ourselves in this pit of a league no credible investor would touch us.Suggest we forget about rich arabs,supermarket magnates and any other tom dick or harry with a few quid and concentrate on moving up and out of this league.
Murray has put the club up for sale so we have to expect people will want to buy. SS has been planning this bid for a while and like I have said- there may be more developments to come.
Looks that way he should just log on here and get the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Matthew Corbett may well have been playing him like a puppet.
4 possible angles as to who it was - one of the three parties who have already spoken, or a current unknown, but possible future investor
don't know if you are right or not but I think the same and that that person was Sainsbury.
time to move on and wait for the next instalment, hopefully featuring this US consortium briefly mentioned above. Then again that was Roan so not sure if I believe that either.
So you know what. When I see a new owner pictured on the OS holding a Charlton scarf over his head against the backdrop of the "THE VALLEY" spelt out in the East Stand seats then I'll believe it.
photographer booked for 2 pm
see you there me and mate sheik Mustafa lotofdosh will be there at 1
Just don't bugger up the deal by offering him a pint and a bacon sarnie like you did with the last lot.
Just digging the old CAFC tie out of the wardrobe and I'll be there.
DOH!!!!!!!!
Didn't your Rabbi tell you you shouldn't mix meat and milk products?
That would explain why we've never seen him around then : - )
Are you aware of any details within this business plan and/or does it involve moving the club down the road a little ?
Don't read it that way.
Investment could mean a complete buy out or someone taking 50% or some other portion of the shares.
Don't think RM is going to just let the club go at a cut down price to JUST anyone rather than not sell the club to any one at all.
Large
I know you are half joking, but it is still a puzzle I'd like to get to the bottom of
if you check the Sainsbury thread, his Charlton credentials seem to come from one Lifer , "stopshouting" who thought he had met him in a bar in Switzerland. However when he saw the photo AFKA put up of Sainsbury, stopshouting said that was not the same guy. So I dont think he was there at Selhurst, even in the Sainsbury end
Yet all we were told on the OS is that the club is holding ''constant conversations with interested parties'' .
Nobody expects negotiations to be conducted in public. But the rejection of a bid is surely something that should be in the public domain? Indeed, it now is, due to the BBC story. Is it possible the club's reticence is because the rejection isn't necessarily final?
I think the BBC quotes a club source saying it was rejected on the grounds that there was no evidence of sufficient funds.
So what if SS comes back with evidence that he has got access to the required funds?
If he doesn't have the funds now and suddenly comes back with the funds next week that's not really the point as next week's funds won't be his. CAFC seems to be concerned about borrowing and more specifically the ratio of SS's pounds to the pound he's sourced from elsewhere. That is implicit from the statement on the website and set in stone in the BBC piece. Any money he comes back with won't be his unless he's sold off the family silver to get the liquid capital.