The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
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....Addickted said: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.
2 -
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).0 -
He probably would - As 25% of the price is better than 100% of fuck allLewis Coaches said:
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....Addickted said: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.0 -
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).3 -
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.1 -
I think its more desperation to get rid of the curse that's been hanging over the club more than anything else.bobmunro said: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.
after the last two lots of owners we've had I don't think anyone can be blamed for worrying.0 -
Oh and
Just sell the club and FUCK OFF10 -
That's £3,500,000.00 each - that's in no way a small amount.blackpool72 said: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.5 -
It is absolutely a small amount when you think of the cost of buying a club.bobmunro said:
That's £3,500,000.00 each - that's in no way a small amount.blackpool72 said: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.0 -
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?vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
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.13 -
Well if you pay him off he has no say in the matterRedChaser said:
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?SuedeAdidas said:
He probably would - As 25% of the price is better than 100% of fuck allLewis Coaches said:
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....Addickted said: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.0 -
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.blackpool72 said:
Well if you pay him off he has no say in the matterRedChaser said:
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?SuedeAdidas said:
He probably would - As 25% of the price is better than 100% of fuck allLewis Coaches said:
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....Addickted said: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.0 -
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 ?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).0 -
See my post ^vff said:
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 ?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).1 -
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.vff said:
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 ?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).3 -
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.0 -
Is there some kind of deadline today ? How’s that going ?0
-
It's a flexible deadline.vff said:Is there some kind of deadline today ? How’s that going ?
0 -
A five year plan is currently costing circa £60 million. I would suggest a five year plan would be nearer £150m, total cost £200m, for a Premier league team. It's a big gambleblackpool72 said: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.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think everyone accepts that, but why has such a large hidden "cost", only come to light now and not at any time in the last 10 odd months?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).0 -
The deadline is tomorrow. And, by agreement, it's reconfirmed every morning.0
-
If the Club is worth £40m. The Aussies should pay Rolly £33m and the others the £7m. I think the problem is that Rolly wants the £40 for himself.
If I was investing on the slim chance of getting into the Prem, I would want my full share of any profit. Not my share after £7m has been paid out to someone else.3 -
Its been common knowledge for years. What seems to be the issue is RD still not being able to pay down the loans and offer the buyers clear title.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I think everyone accepts that, but why has such a large hidden "cost", only come to light now and not at any time in the last 10 odd months?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).
Questions should be aimed at him. Like, "if you've agreed a price to sell something you don't fully own, when are you going to sort out the mess"?4 -
Think I would like to hear Belgium side of the what is causing hold up. Last week it was stated as a fact that the Aussies were holding it up, now we are being told presumably by the Aussie side it’s the Belgium side. Wonder what we will hear next week?1
-
-
I know that!, but why has it only come up now and not at any time previously?Chizz said:
Its been common knowledge for years. What seems to be the issue is RD still not being able to pay down the loans and offer the buyers clear title.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I think everyone accepts that, but why has such a large hidden "cost", only come to light now and not at any time in the last 10 odd months?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).
Questions should be aimed at him. Like, "if you've agreed a price to sell something you don't fully own, when are you going to sort out the mess"?
0 -
Totally agree with you mate.Cafc43v3r said:
A five year plan is currently costing circa £60 million. I would suggest a five year plan would be nearer £150m, total cost £200m, for a Premier league team. It's a big gambleblackpool72 said: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.
That's what makes it so hard to believe a piddling little amount owed to the directors is truly holding up the deal .2 -
This seems madness and I struggle to believe this is an issue with serious businessmen. They are only repayable in the Prem where they will be tbe equivalent of change down the back of the sofa. Meanwhile we face another two years in L1 due to weak squad and only 40 days to re-enforce, which I am sure is not in their 5 year plan.JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.5 -
Thanks @king addick & @RedChaser. I can follow what you saying @king addick. Is it enough to break the whole deal though ?king addick said:
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.vff said:
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 ?alangee said:
Because that would cost them £7M over and above what they have offered, and it is Rolands debt not theirs.vff said:
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 ?razil said:
As above but AB also said the Aussies want clear title and no debts or words to that effect I believevff said:
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 ?JamesSeed said:
Pretty sure, but didn't hear this from GM, but from another source.randy andy said: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.
I agree with Airman that it's the directors loans issue that is holding things up.
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).
I also find it difficult to understand how the issue of the directors loans would not have been picked up in due diligence. Its not like its a secret. This takeover thing & Aussie interest has been going on for nearly as long as an elephant's pregnancy.
Regading rolling on of the loans. Some of the Directors may be a bit more annoying, but surely they would not be able to have any particular say in the running of the team going forward ? Murray had a nominal title but had no specific influence on things, I could see. I can still remember the conscending look of Duchatelet & incredulous look Meire gave Murray in the beginning when Murray was blathering on about Charlton not having to sell any of the young players.0
