Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1106310641066106810692262

Comments

  • se9addick said:

    JamesSeed said:

    Redhenry said:

    Why have others walked away and they are still here? I don't have any inside info but it just smells wrong.

    I'm not claiming to have a great business mind, but I've been saying it a while, if these are the same outfit who were sniffing round for more investment in the City to even make the initial offer, it should ring alarm bells imo.

    I think the Aussies have thought they've had the upper hand all along and basically went along with everything to get to the point where RD was so desperate to offload, that He would agree to a couple of small concessions to get the deal over the line, the £7 million charge being one, but they never took into account what a greedy stubborn old goat he is. Whoever was responsible for paying this £7 million off shoulda / woulda been agreed months ago, surely. So why is it a sticking point now, when the deal is supposedly so close? Someone ain't being honest and I personally don't think its all RD meself.

    Queue the LOLs from the sheeple on here who won't have nothing bad said about the Aussies, but look at the bigger picture ffs, even if the deal goes through on Monday, there's still a couple of quite large question marks over certain things that have gone on over the last few months.
    Sheeple? Bit harsh. To say something bad about the Aussies you need to have some evidence that they’ve done something wrong. If we find out something bad about the Aussies I’m sure opinions will shift. You’ve speculated a lot here, but I’m not sure what it’s based on, is all.

    What are these question marks? There’s been lots of speculation about them bidding high, or bidding low, or paying off directors or not paying off directors, when the truth is no one knows what’s going on in the negotiations because they’re between Gerard Murphy and Roland’s money man, and neither are saying a word. If you’re implying something shady is going on, I’d like to see your evidence of that!

    GM has said zero to me since our beer, except to deny rumours put out by agitators.

    So what is your evidence, or where are you hearing these rumours?
    It's taken them well over a year to get their hands on a tin pot league one club.

    Alarm bells have pretty much rung themselves out. Something seriously wrong with their plan imo.
    You can bang their drum all you like. The fact that they still haven't managed to get this over the line at point critical speaks volumes.
    Any group with proper business savvy would have walked away long ago imo.

    Don't tell me. They're just trying to help us out and are hanging in there for the good of the club.
    Total bollox if you ask me.
    JamesSeed said:

    Clean title would also be essential were you wishing to undertake any redevelopment or relocation exercise

    Posted without really reading everything, so apologies if it’s old ground, but clean title would probably also be essential if you are not actually planning on putting the cash up front but intended to borrow the money against the assets you were taking over
    Just an opinion, but I believe the investors are there to put up the money for the five year plan, and the investors are wealthy individuals who shouldn’t need to borrow the money from banks.
    You've mentioned the "five year plan" before @JamesSeed . What does this plan account for? Five years in L1? Five years until we're in the Prem (which is presumably when they make their money back)?
    Is this a serious question, or do the quotation marks imply sarcasm?
  • It was a serious question and it was quoted as it was based on what you said.

    I’ll answer for you, it was to get into the Premier League @se9addick
  • HarryLime said:

    razil said:

    Never in the field of Charlton Life conflict has so little been said by so many. Isn’t anyone else very bored of all of this now? Get a new hobby, do some work, read a book, talk to your family, it’s Charlton get a life now folks..

    It's Charlton Life Jim, but not as we know it
    Jim who?
  • edited July 2018

    It was a serious question and it was quoted as it was based on what you said.

    I’ll answer for you, it was to get into the Premier League @se9addick

    How do you know It was a serious question? Let the fella answer for himself Barters.
  • JamesSeed said:

    se9addick said:

    JamesSeed said:

    Redhenry said:

    Why have others walked away and they are still here? I don't have any inside info but it just smells wrong.

    I'm not claiming to have a great business mind, but I've been saying it a while, if these are the same outfit who were sniffing round for more investment in the City to even make the initial offer, it should ring alarm bells imo.

    I think the Aussies have thought they've had the upper hand all along and basically went along with everything to get to the point where RD was so desperate to offload, that He would agree to a couple of small concessions to get the deal over the line, the £7 million charge being one, but they never took into account what a greedy stubborn old goat he is. Whoever was responsible for paying this £7 million off shoulda / woulda been agreed months ago, surely. So why is it a sticking point now, when the deal is supposedly so close? Someone ain't being honest and I personally don't think its all RD meself.

    Queue the LOLs from the sheeple on here who won't have nothing bad said about the Aussies, but look at the bigger picture ffs, even if the deal goes through on Monday, there's still a couple of quite large question marks over certain things that have gone on over the last few months.
    Sheeple? Bit harsh. To say something bad about the Aussies you need to have some evidence that they’ve done something wrong. If we find out something bad about the Aussies I’m sure opinions will shift. You’ve speculated a lot here, but I’m not sure what it’s based on, is all.

    What are these question marks? There’s been lots of speculation about them bidding high, or bidding low, or paying off directors or not paying off directors, when the truth is no one knows what’s going on in the negotiations because they’re between Gerard Murphy and Roland’s money man, and neither are saying a word. If you’re implying something shady is going on, I’d like to see your evidence of that!

    GM has said zero to me since our beer, except to deny rumours put out by agitators.

    So what is your evidence, or where are you hearing these rumours?
    It's taken them well over a year to get their hands on a tin pot league one club.

    Alarm bells have pretty much rung themselves out. Something seriously wrong with their plan imo.
    You can bang their drum all you like. The fact that they still haven't managed to get this over the line at point critical speaks volumes.
    Any group with proper business savvy would have walked away long ago imo.

    Don't tell me. They're just trying to help us out and are hanging in there for the good of the club.
    Total bollox if you ask me.
    JamesSeed said:

    Clean title would also be essential were you wishing to undertake any redevelopment or relocation exercise

    Posted without really reading everything, so apologies if it’s old ground, but clean title would probably also be essential if you are not actually planning on putting the cash up front but intended to borrow the money against the assets you were taking over
    Just an opinion, but I believe the investors are there to put up the money for the five year plan, and the investors are wealthy individuals who shouldn’t need to borrow the money from banks.
    You've mentioned the "five year plan" before @JamesSeed . What does this plan account for? Five years in L1? Five years until we're in the Prem (which is presumably when they make their money back)?
    Is this a serious question, or do the quotation marks imply sarcasm?
    Of course it was a serious question - you mentioned a five year plan and I was interested in what that plan envisaged.

    I'd be more interested in what the plan determines happens if we haven't made the Premier League in five years, which is a big ask.

    It was a serious question and it was quoted as it was based on what you said.

    I’ll answer for you, it was to get into the Premier League @se9addick

    Cheers.
  • It was a serious question and it was quoted as it was based on what you said.

    I’ll answer for you, it was to get into the Premier League @se9addick

    Well if it was based on what i said he could have quoted the next bit which was "to get to the Premier League".

    I've given up taking things people say at face value ages ago tbh.
  • What really is the value of anybodies face?
  • JamesSeed said:

    It was a serious question and it was quoted as it was based on what you said.

    I’ll answer for you, it was to get into the Premier League @se9addick

    Well if it was based on what i said he could have quoted the next bit which was "to get to the Premier League".

    I've given up taking things people say at face value ages ago tbh.
    Eh, you said - "Just an opinion, but I believe the investors are there to put up the money for the five year plan, and the investors are wealthy individuals who shouldn’t need to borrow the money from banks"
  • edited July 2018
    se9addick said:

    JamesSeed said:

    Redhenry said:

    Why have others walked away and they are still here? I don't have any inside info but it just smells wrong.

    I'm not claiming to have a great business mind, but I've been saying it a while, if these are the same outfit who were sniffing round for more investment in the City to even make the initial offer, it should ring alarm bells imo.

    I think the Aussies have thought they've had the upper hand all along and basically went along with everything to get to the point where RD was so desperate to offload, that He would agree to a couple of small concessions to get the deal over the line, the £7 million charge being one, but they never took into account what a greedy stubborn old goat he is. Whoever was responsible for paying this £7 million off shoulda / woulda been agreed months ago, surely. So why is it a sticking point now, when the deal is supposedly so close? Someone ain't being honest and I personally don't think its all RD meself.

    Queue the LOLs from the sheeple on here who won't have nothing bad said about the Aussies, but look at the bigger picture ffs, even if the deal goes through on Monday, there's still a couple of quite large question marks over certain things that have gone on over the last few months.
    Sheeple? Bit harsh. To say something bad about the Aussies you need to have some evidence that they’ve done something wrong. If we find out something bad about the Aussies I’m sure opinions will shift. You’ve speculated a lot here, but I’m not sure what it’s based on, is all.

    What are these question marks? There’s been lots of speculation about them bidding high, or bidding low, or paying off directors or not paying off directors, when the truth is no one knows what’s going on in the negotiations because they’re between Gerard Murphy and Roland’s money man, and neither are saying a word. If you’re implying something shady is going on, I’d like to see your evidence of that!

    GM has said zero to me since our beer, except to deny rumours put out by agitators.

    So what is your evidence, or where are you hearing these rumours?
    It's taken them well over a year to get their hands on a tin pot league one club.

    Alarm bells have pretty much rung themselves out. Something seriously wrong with their plan imo.
    You can bang their drum all you like. The fact that they still haven't managed to get this over the line at point critical speaks volumes.
    Any group with proper business savvy would have walked away long ago imo.

    Don't tell me. They're just trying to help us out and are hanging in there for the good of the club.
    Total bollox if you ask me.
    JamesSeed said:

    Clean title would also be essential were you wishing to undertake any redevelopment or relocation exercise

    Posted without really reading everything, so apologies if it’s old ground, but clean title would probably also be essential if you are not actually planning on putting the cash up front but intended to borrow the money against the assets you were taking over
    Just an opinion, but I believe the investors are there to put up the money for the five year plan, and the investors are wealthy individuals who shouldn’t need to borrow the money from banks.
    You've mentioned the "five year plan" before @JamesSeed . What does this plan account for? Five years in L1? Five years until we're in the Prem (which is presumably when they make their money back)?
    I don't think they have a 5 year plan with an aim to exit when the 5 years are up. I think they aim to build a long term future for the club, not make a quick sale once we're in the Premier League, as far as I can tell.

    There's a school of thought that says sport and entertainment has good value long term growth prospects, with clubs having the potential to one day sell their own product directly to fans, without help from facilitators like Sky, BT or Amazon etc.

    Having said that, the Aussies are sports mad, and their aim to create a club that their fellow Australians can get behind is a dfferent model, but one that also has the potential to create long term stability for the Charlton Roos.

    So no, I don't think they have a 5 year plan to stay in L1, and I also don't think it's a scheme to cash in on achieving Premier League status.
  • Sponsored links:


  • se9addick said:

    JamesSeed said:

    It was a serious question and it was quoted as it was based on what you said.

    I’ll answer for you, it was to get into the Premier League @se9addick

    Well if it was based on what i said he could have quoted the next bit which was "to get to the Premier League".

    I've given up taking things people say at face value ages ago tbh.
    Eh, you said - "Just an opinion, but I believe the investors are there to put up the money for the five year plan, and the investors are wealthy individuals who shouldn’t need to borrow the money from banks"
    Sorry, I talked about the 5 year plan in the report of the meeting I had with GM on 18th May. I assume that's what you meant, as everybody seems to have read that.
  • Year 1067 (MLXVII) was a common year starting on Monday of the Julian calendar
  • JamesSeed said:

    It was a serious question and it was quoted as it was based on what you said.

    I’ll answer for you, it was to get into the Premier League @se9addick

    I've given up taking things people say at face value ages ago tbh.
    Does that include GM?


  • JamesSeed said:

    HarryLime said:

    razil said:

    Never in the field of Charlton Life conflict has so little been said by so many. Isn’t anyone else very bored of all of this now? Get a new hobby, do some work, read a book, talk to your family, it’s Charlton get a life now folks..

    It's Charlton Life Jim, but not as we know it
    Jim who?
    I'd imagine that there's a significant quantity of Whoosh!!! heading someone's direction....
  • Fumbluff said:

    What really is the value of anybodies face?

    £77m isn’t it?

  • Another Groundhog Day looms.
  • Another Groundhog Day looms.

    Great news!
    A sequel after only 25 years.
  • @JamesSeed does this 5 year plan include the 2 years so far invested
  • edited July 2018
    Cast iron fact, I’ve just learned that Simon Walton is NOT the mysterious British consortium and therefore he is not our saviour...
  • Sponsored links:


  • Can I offer the following statement for the bite sized thread:

    Both parties, namely CAFC and an Oz Consortium, have confirmed via a "Statement of Intent" on the OS, a possible sale of the club.

    Anything else is pure conjecture and unconfirmed.
  • PeterGage said:

    Can I offer the following statement for the bite sized thread:

    Both parties, namely CAFC and an Oz Consortium, have confirmed via a "Statement of Intent" on the OS, a possible sale of the club.

    Anything else is pure conjecture and unconfirmed.

    Quite - conjecture is the point of the thread.
  • edited July 2018

    @JamesSeed does this 5 year plan include the 2 years so far invested

    No, I think the investors' part in this starts with the purchase of the club. I'd imagine Muir is most likely to be footing the initial expenses. One question I'll ask when I get the chance is whose idea was it to buy Charlton, Muir's or Murphy's?
  • I heard that Wednesday will be a key step towards completion then by Sunday evening we could be celebrating.

    #itscominghome

    Sorry..my mind is off this Takeover talk because I’m simply bored of it. This Takeover is just as bad as the Brexit negotiations with the EU.
  • edited July 2018
    JamesSeed said:

    @JamesSeed does this 5 year plan include the 2 years so far invested

    No, I think the investors' part in this starts with the purchase of the club. I'd imagine Muir is most likely to be footing the initial expenses. One question I'll ask when I get the chance is whose idea was it to buy Charlton, Muir's or Murphy's?
    And were they drunk when they thought it was a good idea? ;)
  • Scoham said:

    Colin's now saying Wednesday isn't the takeover being completed but a major step forward.

    And he's never wrong.
  • Mystic Colin -------nah
  • Scoham said:

    Colin's now saying Wednesday isn't the takeover being completed but a major step forward.

    And he's never wrong.
    Impossible to be wrong if you give vague details and a new deadline every week.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!