Am I right in saying the two people the EFL are not keen on were Alisher Usmanov of Arsenal and Mr Moshiri of Everton? Did I read that somewhere?
Roland can have multiple interests in different countries but couldn't in Belgium hence he got rid of Liege - but over here you apparently can't have interests in multiple clubs that could, in theory, play each other.
Am I right in saying the two people the EFL are not keen on were Alisher Usmanov of Arsenal and Mr Moshiri of Everton? Did I read that somewhere?
Roland can have multiple interests in different countries but couldn't in Belgium hence he got rid of Liege - but over here you apparently can't have interests in multiple clubs that could, in theory, play each other.
Shame because both are absolutely minted
I've heard one name, and it's neither of them.
... and the name is?
My guess is it's a close business associate of this chap...
Am I right in saying the two people the EFL are not keen on were Alisher Usmanov of Arsenal and Mr Moshiri of Everton? Did I read that somewhere?
Roland can have multiple interests in different countries but couldn't in Belgium hence he got rid of Liege - but over here you apparently can't have interests in multiple clubs that could, in theory, play each other.
Shame because both are absolutely minted
I've heard one name, and it's neither of them.
... and the name is?
My guess is it's a close business associate of this chap...
Am I right in saying the two people the EFL are not keen on were Alisher Usmanov of Arsenal and Mr Moshiri of Everton? Did I read that somewhere?
Roland can have multiple interests in different countries but couldn't in Belgium hence he got rid of Liege - but over here you apparently can't have interests in multiple clubs that could, in theory, play each other.
Shame because both are absolutely minted
If that's true did they really think they could get away with that!
Conspiracy theorists suggest that a major stakeholder in one top flight club might fund a proxy at a slightly smaller rival club in the same division. Sounds like piffle to me...
Is it not the case that if somebody's stake in a club is under 10% of equity with no rights to appoint/remove directors, then football regulators do not consider that body to hold effective influence over that club? Theoretically permitting investors to hold multiple <10% stakes? Quite why anyone would put money into a football club without having influence over how that club was run, is beyond me. Apart from the obvious few; small equity stakes in football clubs are immediately lost cos of the monumental losses they all run, there can never be a realistic expectation of a return on capital, even a return of the initial stake. This is the chief issue to grind roly's gears - he got it wrong (doesn't do failure) about FFP and his network model, thus pissing away every centime he ploughed into this fucktarded notion, sadly the deluded cunt still thinks he can get much/any of his wasted wonga back.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Am I right in saying the two people the EFL are not keen on were Alisher Usmanov of Arsenal and Mr Moshiri of Everton? Did I read that somewhere?
Roland can have multiple interests in different countries but couldn't in Belgium hence he got rid of Liege - but over here you apparently can't have interests in multiple clubs that could, in theory, play each other.
Shame because both are absolutely minted
If that's true did they really think they could get away with that!
Conspiracy theorists suggest that a major stakeholder in one top flight club might fund a proxy at a slightly smaller rival club in the same division. Sounds like piffle to me...
Is it not the case that if somebody's stake in a club is under 10% of equity with no rights to appoint/remove directors, then football regulators do not consider that body to hold effective influence over that club? Theoretically permitting investors to hold multiple <10% stakes? Quite why anyone would put money into a football club without having influence over how that club was run, is beyond me. Apart from the obvious few; small equity stakes in football clubs are immediately lost cos of the monumental losses they all run, there can never be a realistic expectation of a return on capital, even a return of the initial stake. This is the chief issue to grind roly's gears - he got it wrong (doesn't do failure) about FFP and his network model, thus pissing away every centime he ploughed into this fucktarded notion, sadly the deluded cunt still thinks he can get much/any of his wasted wonga back.</p>
Don't be too sure about that now. The Football a League are making life a lot tougher these days. Take the example below which happened this month when Port Vale's owner wanted to buy Non leagues Nuneaton ground.
A new owner has been found for Nuneaton Town's football ground.
Norman Smurthwaite, who owns Stoke-on-Trent club Port Vale, will be the new owner of the Borough ground, Liberty Way , after the deal was approved by the EFL.
CoventryLive reported earlier this month that the Coventry-born businessman was looking to buy the ground, which has been on the market since the end of the season
Smurthwaite was approached by Nuneaton 's chairman Lee Thorn to buy the stadium to help the club through financial problems.
As a result, it is believed the club has been able to pay off debts which in turn mean it is able to stay in the National League North.
The deal had to be approved by the EFL because of rules which limit the involvement one person can have in two clubs.
However, Smurthwaite has revealed they have this month approved the deal.
Not having a go at anyone here but Im not sure it’s fair to keep saying the Aussie bid may have failed, just hours after GM has said it hasn’t. What’s the source of that info? He’s said they’re still in it a few hours ago.
I’m also not sure we should be using the Saudi bid as a yardstick, because we don’t know it’s 100% correct, as again we don’t know the source of the info. The £40 may be totally wrong for all we know.
In fact I would treat any info with extreme caution unless we know the source. There’s lots of unverified stuff flying around from all over the shop, and it’s doing everyone’s heads in. My critics will say I’m being used, but GM isn’t putting out figures or any info at all, other than they haven’t pulled out. It’s the third or fourth time he’s told me that, and they do still appear to be in the game.
If they’ve walked they’ve walked, and pretending they haven’t would be silly.
Any info that other bidders are waiting in the wings holding huge bundles of cash I’d treat with caution. RD is desperate to sell on his own terms, so it’s probable that everything he does is designed to get the Aussies to meet those terms, and it would be in his interests to put as much pressure on them as he can. He can afford to take a hit, but he won’t want to, in order not to lose face. I genuinely think he sees Charlton fans as the enemy to be defeated.
If there is a Brit consortium waiting in the wings (fronted by Murray possibly) hoping to get a bargain if the Aussies deal collapses, then again it would be in their best interests to undermine the Aussies’ bid. So both the leader of the Brit consortium and Duchâtelet have motives for making the Aussies look bad i.e. no money, Aussie nursery, buying the club, leaving Roland with the property titles, Rolf Harris etc etc. So any rumours involving those things I’d say treat with extreme caution. Except for Harris.
By all accounts players are being recruited in the background, possibly financed by the sale of Konsa, the boys are off to Portugal possibly financed by a sold player, so perhaps it isn’t all doom and gloom.
The message from GM yesterday was ‘Don’t believevthe rumours.’ I’m sticking with that. If they pull out we’ll know soon enough.
Of course the delays could be engineered to get the Pediction Thread up to 25 glorious pages ;-)
Just an off-topic question... Is a foreign trip nowadays a necessary part of preseason preparation? Regardless of the club's financial condition?
No, it's a waste of money.
I think you'd have to ask a couple of the players. Do thy want to play a
''Funding was 100% in place on 18th May, so no reason to believe it can't be in place again."
There might be loads of 'reasons'...Two knocked back 'major backers' could be one reason alone.
But as I said, there's no reason to believe funding can't (and actually might already) be in place again. Yes, if they were major backers it could well been why it's taking a few weeks to replace them. Speculation only, I've heard nothing about it. All I'm doing is saying temporary lack of funds doesn't mean they can't find funds, if indeed that is the issue.
The fact that it's dragged on for months suggest otherwise.
Over simplistic. If there was a genuine issue about funding they would have been shown the door ages ago. Duchatelet isn't a complete fool, and there are lawyers and accountants involved at each stage.
You saying that funds were ''100% in place on 18th May, so no reason to believe they can't be in place again" is also over simplistic.
We've already heard of 'reasons' why funds are not not in place, and there could be a load more.
Powerful rich wannabee owners would have rubbed RD out by now...
Not in today's world of conservatively spreading your investment risk. More often than not that's how powerful wannabee owners became rich .
Thought most people agreed that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...So if someone wants the Club bad enough...
The sort of money that's being talked about on here is nothing but chicken feed for some people.
Well that's correct, something is only worth what someone will pay for it...….. at a given point in time. Whether it's chicken feed or not is irrelevant though if the main investors looking to acquire the club, wish to spread their risk. To some people, every pound is a prisoner that's how a lot of them operate and amassed their wealth like it or not.
Incidentally The Douchbag doesn't seem to be treating the debt mountain he has built up as chicken feed does he?
You miss the point...'chicken feed' is relative to the wallet your looking at.
Somebody wants something bad enough they often stump up more than expected...
No I think you're missing the point, they don't go against their general principles 'because they want it bad enough' in my experiences of having dealt with such people for a living. Anyway you stick to your opinion and we'll just have to beg to differ on this one.
I'm fully aware of the types you mention, but you want to ignore the fact that there are other types out there.
People have paid well over the top for things they want.
Many people on here would if they were seriously loaded.
All well and good blaming RD. The facts are the Aussies got into a bidding war and didn't have the funds. Laughable
He’d have a much easier time selling the club if he lowered the asking price. Could have been done by now and he wouldn’t be paying bills and for new signings.
Rich people tend to hate paying over the odds for anything. That's why they're rich. The only person might pay over the odds for us would be a lifelong fan who wants to have some fun in his remaining years.
I tried only buying Tesco value food but I’m not a billionaire yet. Must be more to it?
Yeah Tesco is a shithouse, peddling piss poor provender to the witless and gullible, to fund its wanton destruction of all that stands in its way towards accumulating a massive real estate portfolio, even including town centres in which it never intended to build a store, while making up fanciful accounts telling massive lies about how profitable it was(n't). Parallels between that moral vacuum and roly's mangling of CAFC are stark.
No real squad. No footballing management. No senior management. Training ground is a building site.
Who in their right mind would buy us in our current situation.
I can't help but feel The aussies are gonna pull out and we're gonna be proper fucked.
Or they'll seperate club and ground and we'll be on the road to AFC Charlton, what Roland has done to us is unforgivable.
We really need one of the previous groups to come back in, although I fear time has run out for next season and one why or another, RD will have some form of control over us next season.
For someone who's never wrong and doesn't do failure he'll be hurting though Stu and totally p*ssed off from 1.5% of his business interests giving him so much grief which I can take plenty of comfort from.
He wants out and has to bite the bullet at some point.
I bet he's not hurting as much as I am, or 95% of this forums membership.
Maybe it's my 60 years of support that has hardened me as part of the remaining 5% then. As I said the other day he can't take away all my treasured memories down those years and I won't let it get me down.
My first game was early 1958......I have supported the Addicks for more than half its existence and I will be damned if I am going to let the shit stain destroy my passion.....fuck you Goldfinger.....fuck you a million times over. 100% he has strong sociopathic traits.....just like the character Ian Fleming created, he has little or no empathy or understanding of others emotions and as such most likely doesn’t have a clue about the stress and despair caused simply because they are emotions he himself doesn’t have.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Or Roland jumped the gun with the fire sale when he thought they'd failed the fit and proper test, and now it's an argument over how much cheaper the club should be after the Roland has sold a number of assets. The Konsa sale was done (or at least initiated) whilst the fit and proper test was under way. So either Roland jumped the gun, or everything the Aussies have said since, including the joint statement on the club website, is a lie.
The aussies seemingly have nothing to gain for perpetrating this lie, whilst Roland has a history of making rash decisions since he's been at the club.
We'll find out one way or another in the next 48 hours if this talk of a deadline is to be believed.
Am I right in saying the two people the EFL are not keen on were Alisher Usmanov of Arsenal and Mr Moshiri of Everton? Did I read that somewhere?
Roland can have multiple interests in different countries but couldn't in Belgium hence he got rid of Liege - but over here you apparently can't have interests in multiple clubs that could, in theory, play each other.
Shame because both are absolutely minted
I've heard one name, and it's neither of them.
... and the name is?
My guess is it's a close business associate of this chap...
All well and good blaming RD. The facts are the Aussies got into a bidding war and didn't have the funds. Laughable
He’d have a much easier time selling the club if he lowered the asking price. Could have been done by now and he wouldn’t be paying bills and for new signings.
Rich people tend to hate paying over the odds for anything. That's why they're rich. The only person might pay over the odds for us would be a lifelong fan who wants to have some fun in his remaining years.
I tried only buying Tesco value food but I’m not a billionaire yet. Must be more to it?
Yeah Tesco is a shithouse, peddling piss poor provender to the witless and gullible, to fund its wanton destruction of all that stands in its way towards accumulating a massive real estate portfolio, even including town centres in which it never intended to build a store, while making up fanciful accounts telling massive lies about how profitable it was(n't). Parallels between that moral vacuum and roly's mangling of CAFC are stark.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Changing your story already, you said they didn't have the funds to out bid the Saudis, now your saying they did have the funds, but lost them after the fit and proper test. Which is it? They never had the funds, or the did have the funds and lost them, or (as I postulated above) they still have the funds, but Roland has lowered the value of the club through sales and now they're trying to renegotiate the price. There's no way you know which of the 3 possibilities it is, I know I don't, and nobody has released anything on here to prove any of the 3 either.
Am I right in saying the two people the EFL are not keen on were Alisher Usmanov of Arsenal and Mr Moshiri of Everton? Did I read that somewhere?
Roland can have multiple interests in different countries but couldn't in Belgium hence he got rid of Liege - but over here you apparently can't have interests in multiple clubs that could, in theory, play each other.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Changing your story already, you said they didn't have the funds to out bid the Saudis, now your saying they did have the funds, but lost them after the fit and proper test. Which is it? They never had the funds, or the did have the funds and lost them, or (as I postulated above) they still have the funds, but Roland has lowered the value of the club through sales and now they're trying to renegotiate the price. There's no way you know which of the 3 possibilities it is, I know I don't, and nobody has released anything on here to prove any of the 3 either.
It is a consortium, when the bid went in two of the backers were associated with other football clubs, this came to the attention of the EFL during the fit and propper process. The then two backers removed themselves from the consortium meaning that they (the consortium) halve a huge short fall to make up. Deadlines have been set to meet with the agreed price and have failed to do so. Now a case of put up or shut up.
All well and good blaming RD. The facts are the Aussies got into a bidding war and didn't have the funds. Laughable
Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?
I don't think anyone here is going to fall for that ;-)
They decided to up an offer to outbid the Arabs when they didn’t have finances in place? Secondly going to a match wearing scarfs and sitting in the directors box, Michael Knighton only topped that.
Did they really?
You're trying to get a response on here. It's not worth it. We're over the argument phase. Why are you targetting me for the wind up btw?
What are you on about targeting you ??
Well you keep replying to me or using @jamesseed with hostile comments about the Aussies. It's just a bit obvious.
I haven't posted on here for weeks. Calm down dear.
We can tell.
No one else has been able to get a word in with you.
Fair point mate. OK it looks like two investors had to pull out at the last minute. Replacements we believe have been found, but they have to pass tests and make proof of funds etc.
It's an argument that's been going round and round on here for ages, and frankly getting nowhere. If you haven't posted for weeks you wouldn't know that, so apologies.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
What I don't understand is that if the reason two pulled out was because of links to the significant control of other clubs then surely they would have known it would be an issue before the fit and proper test was instigated? The rules are quite clearly laid out.
All well and good blaming RD. The facts are the Aussies got into a bidding war and didn't have the funds. Laughable
Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?
I don't think anyone here is going to fall for that ;-)
They decided to up an offer to outbid the Arabs when they didn’t have finances in place? Secondly going to a match wearing scarfs and sitting in the directors box, Michael Knighton only topped that.
Did they really?
You're trying to get a response on here. It's not worth it. We're over the argument phase. Why are you targetting me for the wind up btw?
What are you on about targeting you ??
Well you keep replying to me or using @jamesseed with hostile comments about the Aussies. It's just a bit obvious.
I haven't posted on here for weeks. Calm down dear.
We can tell.
No one else has been able to get a word in with you.
Fair point mate. OK it looks like two investors had to pull out at the last minute. Replacements we believe have been found, but they have to pass tests and make proof of funds etc.
It's an argument that's been going round and round on here for ages, and frankly getting nowhere. If you haven't posted for weeks you wouldn't know that, so apologies.
I must have missed this, when was this mentioned? And by who?
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Not having a go at anyone here but Im not sure it’s fair to keep saying the Aussie bid may have failed, just hours after GM has said it hasn’t. What’s the source of that info? He’s said they’re still in it a few hours ago.
I’m also not sure we should be using the Saudi bid as a yardstick, because we don’t know it’s 100% correct, as again we don’t know the source of the info. The £40 may be totally wrong for all we know.
In fact I would treat any info with extreme caution unless we know the source. There’s lots of unverified stuff flying around from all over the shop, and it’s doing everyone’s heads in. My critics will say I’m being used, but GM isn’t putting out figures or any info at all, other than they haven’t pulled out. It’s the third or fourth time he’s told me that, and they do still appear to be in the game.
If they’ve walked they’ve walked, and pretending they haven’t would be silly.
Any info that other bidders are waiting in the wings holding huge bundles of cash I’d treat with caution. RD is desperate to sell on his own terms, so it’s probable that everything he does is designed to get the Aussies to meet those terms, and it would be in his interests to put as much pressure on them as he can. He can afford to take a hit, but he won’t want to, in order not to lose face. I genuinely think he sees Charlton fans as the enemy to be defeated.
If there is a Brit consortium waiting in the wings (fronted by Murray possibly) hoping to get a bargain if the Aussies deal collapses, then again it would be in their best interests to undermine the Aussies’ bid. So both the leader of the Brit consortium and Duchâtelet have motives for making the Aussies look bad i.e. no money, Aussie nursery, buying the club, leaving Roland with the property titles, Rolf Harris etc etc. So any rumours involving those things I’d say treat with extreme caution. Except for Harris.
By all accounts players are being recruited in the background, possibly financed by the sale of Konsa, the boys are off to Portugal possibly financed by a sold player, so perhaps it isn’t all doom and gloom.
The message from GM yesterday was ‘Don’t believevthe rumours.’ I’m sticking with that. If they pull out we’ll know soon enough.
Of course the delays could be engineered to get the Pediction Thread up to 25 glorious pages ;-)
Just an off-topic question... Is a foreign trip nowadays a necessary part of preseason preparation? Regardless of the club's financial condition?
No, it's a waste of money.
I think you'd have to ask a couple of the players. Do thy want to play a
''Funding was 100% in place on 18th May, so no reason to believe it can't be in place again."
There might be loads of 'reasons'...Two knocked back 'major backers' could be one reason alone.
But as I said, there's no reason to believe funding can't (and actually might already) be in place again. Yes, if they were major backers it could well been why it's taking a few weeks to replace them. Speculation only, I've heard nothing about it. All I'm doing is saying temporary lack of funds doesn't mean they can't find funds, if indeed that is the issue.
The fact that it's dragged on for months suggest otherwise.
Over simplistic. If there was a genuine issue about funding they would have been shown the door ages ago. Duchatelet isn't a complete fool, and there are lawyers and accountants involved at each stage.
You saying that funds were ''100% in place on 18th May, so no reason to believe they can't be in place again" is also over simplistic.
We've already heard of 'reasons' why funds are not not in place, and there could be a load more.
Powerful rich wannabee owners would have rubbed RD out by now...
Not in today's world of conservatively spreading your investment risk. More often than not that's how powerful wannabee owners became rich .
Thought most people agreed that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...So if someone wants the Club bad enough...
The sort of money that's being talked about on here is nothing but chicken feed for some people.
Well that's correct, something is only worth what someone will pay for it...….. at a given point in time. Whether it's chicken feed or not is irrelevant though if the main investors looking to acquire the club, wish to spread their risk. To some people, every pound is a prisoner that's how a lot of them operate and amassed their wealth like it or not.
Incidentally The Douchbag doesn't seem to be treating the debt mountain he has built up as chicken feed does he?
You miss the point...'chicken feed' is relative to the wallet your looking at.
Somebody wants something bad enough they often stump up more than expected...
No I think you're missing the point, they don't go against their general principles 'because they want it bad enough' in my experiences of having dealt with such people for a living. Anyway you stick to your opinion and we'll just have to beg to differ on this one.
I'm fully aware of the types you mention, but you want to ignore the fact that there are other types out there.
People have paid well over the top for things they want.
Many people on here would if they were seriously loaded.
So because Muir for example won't throw his money around and dance to RDs tune by paying for all his cock ups, you're not a happy bunny and the Aussies are not endearing themselves to you.
I've not said that there aren't investors out there who will pay over the odds and Muir given his wealth could do the deal off his own bat if he wanted to (assuming he has the liquid funds available) but would appear to be sticking to the limit of his preferred involvement at this juncture.
I don't know the full details of the financial arrangement for the consortium and neither does anyone else but maybe it's a case of, get the purchase price together from the investors first and foremost and then Muir bankrolls the working capital up to the limit of his intended exposure. And why shouldn't he adopt such an approach? Lets not be too quick to judge without all facts unless you are ITK?
Thanks for increasing the lol count by the way I've reciprocated
All well and good blaming RD. The facts are the Aussies got into a bidding war and didn't have the funds. Laughable
Actually I do blame Roland. Even though there have been many rumors on here that the Aussie bid had funding issues, Roland chased the last pound, instead of accepting a lower, but presumably fully funded bid from the Saudi group.
If there were doubts on here about the Aussie funding, surely Roland knew that.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Changing your story already, you said they didn't have the funds to out bid the Saudis, now your saying they did have the funds, but lost them after the fit and proper test. Which is it? They never had the funds, or the did have the funds and lost them, or (as I postulated above) they still have the funds, but Roland has lowered the value of the club through sales and now they're trying to renegotiate the price. There's no way you know which of the 3 possibilities it is, I know I don't, and nobody has released anything on here to prove any of the 3 either.
It is a consortium, when the bid went in two of the backers were associated with other football clubs, this came to the attention of the EFL during the fit and propper process. The then two backers removed themselves from the consortium meaning that they (the consortium) halve a huge short fall to make up. Deadlines have been set to meet with the agreed price and have failed to do so. Now a case of put up or shut up.
Sounds like your contact at the EFL is more ITK than mine then.
Can you confirm who the two 'backers' are/were please?
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Changing your story already, you said they didn't have the funds to out bid the Saudis, now your saying they did have the funds, but lost them after the fit and proper test. Which is it? They never had the funds, or the did have the funds and lost them, or (as I postulated above) they still have the funds, but Roland has lowered the value of the club through sales and now they're trying to renegotiate the price. There's no way you know which of the 3 possibilities it is, I know I don't, and nobody has released anything on here to prove any of the 3 either.
It is a consortium, when the bid went in two of the backers were associated with other football clubs, this came to the attention of the EFL during the fit and propper process. The then two backers removed themselves from the consortium meaning that they (the consortium) halve a huge short fall to make up. Deadlines have been set to meet with the agreed price and have failed to do so. Now a case of put up or shut up.
Sounds like your contact at the EFL is more ITK than mine then.
Can you confirm who the two 'backers' are/were please?
Both are associated with premiership clubs, that’s all I can say.
Comments
Is it not the case that if somebody's stake in a club is under 10% of equity with no rights to appoint/remove directors, then football regulators do not consider that body to hold effective influence over that club? Theoretically permitting investors to hold multiple <10% stakes? Quite why anyone would put money into a football club without having influence over how that club was run, is beyond me. Apart from the obvious few; small equity stakes in football clubs are immediately lost cos of the monumental losses they all run, there can never be a realistic expectation of a return on capital, even a return of the initial stake. This is the chief issue to grind roly's gears - he got it wrong (doesn't do failure) about FFP and his network model, thus pissing away every centime he ploughed into this fucktarded notion, sadly the deluded cunt still thinks he can get much/any of his wasted wonga back.
A new owner has been found for Nuneaton Town's football ground.
Norman Smurthwaite, who owns Stoke-on-Trent club Port Vale, will be the new owner of the Borough ground, Liberty Way , after the deal was approved by the EFL.
CoventryLive reported earlier this month that the Coventry-born businessman was looking to buy the ground, which has been on the market since the end of the season
Smurthwaite was approached by Nuneaton 's chairman Lee Thorn to buy the stadium to help the club through financial problems.
As a result, it is believed the club has been able to pay off debts which in turn mean it is able to stay in the National League North.
The deal had to be approved by the EFL because of rules which limit the involvement one person can have in two clubs.
However, Smurthwaite has revealed they have this month approved the deal.
People have paid well over the top for things they want.
Many people on here would if they were seriously loaded.
100% he has strong sociopathic traits.....just like the character Ian Fleming created, he has little or no empathy or understanding of others emotions and as such most likely doesn’t have a clue about the stress and despair caused simply because they are emotions he himself doesn’t have.
The aussies seemingly have nothing to gain for perpetrating this lie, whilst Roland has a history of making rash decisions since he's been at the club.
We'll find out one way or another in the next 48 hours if this talk of a deadline is to be believed.
It's an argument that's been going round and round on here for ages, and frankly getting nowhere. If you haven't posted for weeks you wouldn't know that, so apologies.
I've not said that there aren't investors out there who will pay over the odds and Muir given his wealth could do the deal off his own bat if he wanted to (assuming he has the liquid funds available) but would appear to be sticking to the limit of his preferred involvement at this juncture.
I don't know the full details of the financial arrangement for the consortium and neither does anyone else but maybe it's a case of, get the purchase price together from the investors first and foremost and then Muir bankrolls the working capital up to the limit of his intended exposure. And why shouldn't he adopt such an approach? Lets not be too quick to judge without all facts unless you are ITK?
Thanks for increasing the lol count by the way I've reciprocated
If there were doubts on here about the Aussie funding, surely Roland knew that.
Unless he failed to do his due diligence again.
Can you confirm who the two 'backers' are/were please?