Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
I reckon Andrew Muir isn't the only person to have turned up at the Valley with a Charlton scarf on and ended up a few weeks later not being the club's owner.
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Of course it would have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf. Maybe fans are being naive, but it sends a clear signal that the club was in the hands of new owners.
They should only accept any less than full settlement if it’s part of a contract for the sale process of the whole club and not a way of separating the club and ground..
Edit: perhaps they could convert the remainder of their loans to club unsecured debt or equity? But I guess in that circumstance they’d be expected to invest further
Why would they convert secure debt to unsecured debt?
Apologies if this has been answered somewhere else - but who is paying for the team trip to Portugal? And, who authorised the signing /negotiating of salary of the Wimbledon lad?
I guess Harry Lennon paid for the trip to Portugal
Doesn't inspire confidence even if the Aussies complete the takeover with all this messing around. Embarrassing being seen with pictures with scarves at the Shrewsbury game for it then to not happen.
They may well be back by the time if the next home game. From what I've heard.
They should only accept any less than full settlement if it’s part of a contract for the sale process of the whole club and not a way of separating the club and ground..
Edit: perhaps they could convert the remainder of their loans to club unsecured debt or equity? But I guess in that circumstance they’d be expected to invest further
Why would they convert secure debt to unsecured debt?
Apologies if this has been answered somewhere else - but who is paying for the team trip to Portugal? And, who authorised the signing /negotiating of salary of the Wimbledon lad?
I guess Harry Lennon paid for the trip to Portugal
I reckon Andrew Muir isn't the only person to have turned up at the Valley with a Charlton scarf on and ended up a few weeks later not being the club's owner.
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Of course it would have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf. Maybe fans are being naive, but it sends a clear signal that the club was in the hands of new owners.
No, it sent a clear signal that he'd bought or been given a scarf. Anything more was wishful thinking on the part of the fans.
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Of course it would have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf. Maybe fans are being naive, but it sends a clear signal that the club was in the hands of new owners.
No, it sent a clear signal that he'd bought or been given a scarf. Anything more was wishful thinking on the part of the fans.
When he attended the game wearing a scarf he was deliberately sending a signal to fans that he was close to buying the club. To try and spin any other meaning to that event is an insult to the intelligence of every Charlton fan.
I personally can't understand why Airman knows most of the conditions of the loan agreements and charges, but the people and advisors behind a multi million pound take over appear to have only just found out - would this be down to botched DD, or maybe RD's mob withholding information? (Because he was too stupid to spot it)
Same with the alleged 2 senior backers, who only relatively recently (FA fit and proper person test?) found out that they can't have financial interest in 2 different football clubs.
It all just strikes me as a bit Heath Robinson and does rings alarm bells after the last few years...
I personally can't understand why Airman knows most of the conditions of the loan agreements and charges, but the people and advisors behind a multi million pound take over appear to have only just found out - would this be down to botched DD, or maybe RD's mob withholding information? (Because he was too stupid to spot it)
Same with the alleged 2 senior backers, who only relatively recently (FA fit and proper person test?) found out that they can't have financial interest in 2 different football clubs.
It all just strikes me as a bit Heath Robinson and does rings alarm bells after the last few years...
that has not been confirmed by anyone as far as I can recall, just speculated that that is the reason why.
I personally can't understand why Airman knows most of the conditions of the loan agreements and charges, but the people and advisors behind a multi million pound take over appear to have only just found out - would this be down to botched DD, or maybe RD's mob withholding information? (Because he was too stupid to spot it)
Same with the alleged 2 senior backers, who only relatively recently (FA fit and proper person test?) found out that they can't have financial interest in 2 different football clubs.
It all just strikes me as a bit Heath Robinson and does rings alarm bells after the last few years...
that has not been confirmed by anyone as far as I can recall, just speculated that that is the reason why.
Hope that is case mate, but is it true, do we know, if two people have walked away for any reason at all?
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Of course it would have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf. Maybe fans are being naive, but it sends a clear signal that the club was in the hands of new owners.
No, it sent a clear signal that he'd bought or been given a scarf. Anything more was wishful thinking on the part of the fans.
When he attended the game wearing a scarf he was deliberately sending a signal to fans that he was close to buying the club. To try and spin any other meaning to that event is an insult to the intelligence of every Charlton fan.
Especially as he was happy to meet fans and pose for photos (rather than sneaking in and out), it was a very public appearance at the club which sent out a clear message of intent
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Of course it would have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf. Maybe fans are being naive, but it sends a clear signal that the club was in the hands of new owners.
No, it sent a clear signal that he'd bought or been given a scarf. Anything more was wishful thinking on the part of the fans.
When he attended the game wearing a scarf he was deliberately sending a signal to fans that he was close to buying the club. To try and spin any other meaning to that event is an insult to the intelligence of every Charlton fan.
And maybe he was and still is close to buying the club.
We all knew he was and is trying to buy the club and had been for many months.
I'm really not getting why the £10 scarf suddenly made that somehow different or why he's being pilloried for doing so.
It was just a scarf. Being seen at the game was far more significant imho than what he wore but it still didn't mean the deal was down as time has shown.
My guess is he expected it do be done by now but it's not.
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.
I reckon Andrew Muir isn't the only person to have turned up at the Valley with a Charlton scarf on and ended up a few weeks later not being the club's owner.
Whilst I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the individual they are trying to purchase the club from, there is no doubt in my mind that Muir's appearance at the home play off game draped in a scarf was somewhat presumptive. I am sure that in hindsight he and his colleagues regret that.
Is it that different from this? Would it have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf?
Of course it would have been different if he hadn't worn a Charlton scarf. Maybe fans are being naive, but it sends a clear signal that the club was in the hands of new owners.
No, it sent a clear signal that he'd bought or been given a scarf. Anything more was wishful thinking on the part of the fans.
When he attended the game wearing a scarf he was deliberately sending a signal to fans that he was close to buying the club. To try and spin any other meaning to that event is an insult to the intelligence of every Charlton fan.
And maybe he was and still is close to buying the club.
We all knew he was and is trying to buy the club and had been for many months.
I'm really not getting why the £10 scarf suddenly made that somehow different or why he's being pilloried for doing so.
It was just a scarf. Being seen at the game was far more significant imho than what he wore but it still didn't mean the deal was down as time has shown.
My guess is he expected it do be done by now but it's not.
The reasons for that aren't clear.
WIOTOS
For me, the wearing of the scarf was extremely significant. At that point we assumed (as clearly did he) that the sale of the club was nailed on and only days away. The walking around talking to the fans was equally significant. The sale of the club was clearly close at that point, but at this point know one knows as to how far all that has all unravelled.
He should have waited till the docs had been signed and then did the new player equivalent of holding the scarf to the cameras.
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.
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.
He certainly is and indeed always was, right back as far as the early days of netaddicks.
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.
He certainly is and indeed always was, right back as far as the early days of netaddicks.
Yeah - two sheds and stone were the complete wasters on Netaddicks
Actually, I do think it would have been different if he had just turned up like McLeish and co and watched the game without any added fanfare.
I may be wrong (someone on here will correct if I am) but aside from wearing a scarf, didn't Andrew Muir speak to some supporters and make comments about the club needing to get the supporters back on side etc. I don't think anyone took that in the context that he was some well-healed guy just commenting on the state of a club, where he decided to take in a game whilst he was on a trip to the UK and thought he would buy a scarf.
I appreciate hindsight is a wonderful thing and I assume at that point he genuinely thought they were getting very close to completing a deal. However, here we are exactly 50 days later and still it's not over the line and is undoubtedly why you are starting to see some negative comments thrown in their direction.
Two weeks today.....July 13th is the day I chose (way back as a matter of fact), as the day for the takeover to be announced. Maybe I have a chance of being the winner and getting that long awaited and richly deserved promote!
Comments
Mark Curry’s back in
I'll even admit it's happened to me a few times.
Same with the alleged 2 senior backers, who only relatively recently (FA fit and proper person test?) found out that they can't have financial interest in 2 different football clubs.
It all just strikes me as a bit Heath Robinson and does rings alarm bells after the last few years...
We all knew he was and is trying to buy the club and had been for many months.
I'm really not getting why the £10 scarf suddenly made that somehow different or why he's being pilloried for doing so.
It was just a scarf. Being seen at the game was far more significant imho than what he wore but it still didn't mean the deal was down as time has shown.
My guess is he expected it do be done by now but it's not.
The reasons for that aren't clear.
WIOTOS
It is obviously a sign.
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.
#TeamWIOTOS
He should have waited till the docs had been signed and then did the new player equivalent of holding the scarf to the cameras.
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 may be wrong (someone on here will correct if I am) but aside from wearing a scarf, didn't Andrew Muir speak to some supporters and make comments about the club needing to get the supporters back on side etc. I don't think anyone took that in the context that he was some well-healed guy just commenting on the state of a club, where he decided to take in a game whilst he was on a trip to the UK and thought he would buy a scarf.
I appreciate hindsight is a wonderful thing and I assume at that point he genuinely thought they were getting very close to completing a deal. However, here we are exactly 50 days later and still it's not over the line and is undoubtedly why you are starting to see some negative comments thrown in their direction.
Maybe I have a chance of being the winner and getting that long awaited and richly deserved promote!
as Chizz pointed out 1000s of us have worn a scarf to a game and never owned the club