What a load bollocks. You have a guy who has a direct line to someone who is part of the takeover that has been going on for over three plus months and has now switched his focus to talking about fish. Unbelievable
What a load bollocks. You have a guy who has a direct line to someone who is part of the takeover that has been going on for over three plus months and has now switched his focus to talking about fish. Unbelievable
Pollocks
Your right, we should stop this Carp-ing around an shoal some sense into proceedings.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
Be it on your head.
If they turn out to be terrible owners you can quite rightly say you warned us.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
A well argued and balanced argument, but no fish puns though
I would caution that 5 year plans aren't necessarily a sign of ambition, as
a) it depends on what the plan actually covers, a plan that sees us as a mid table Championship team after 5 years would be an improvement on our current state, but hardly very inspiring b) are the plans realistic, and proportional to the level of funding they are investing? It's easy to talk big, but in a world where there are some very rich owners splashing the cash to get in the PL, relying on Aussie sports know how and scouting as a secret weapon won't cut it.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
A well argued and balanced argument, but no fish puns though
I would caution that 5 year plans aren't necessarily a sign of ambition, as
a) it depends on what the plan actually covers, a plan that sees us as a mid table Championship team after 5 years would be an improvement on our current state, but hardly very inspiring b) are the plans realistic, and proportional to the level of funding they are investing? It's easy to talk big, but in a world where there are some very rich owners splashing the cash to get in the PL, relying on Aussie sports know how and scouting as a secret weapon won't cut it.
A plan to be a mid-table Championship club is, from an outsider perspective, simply a plan to lose a very large amount of money. So whatever their credibility, I doubt if that’s the plan.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
Has anybody else ever noticed that although there are loads of bands with fish related names, none of them are very good?
I liked Noah and the Whale and thought they were good
Sorry to be a pedant but a whale isn’t a fish.
Also, I thought you were finished on Charlton Life? You saw the fish bands and were reeled back in?
Can you show me, where I said I was finished with Charlton Life please
I think he means Seed
Thank you for that, I know I never said it
Oops a daisy! Apologies @Johnnysummers5- in my desperation to use a rubbish fish pun, I got my Johnny Summers name related Charlton Life users mixed up.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
So do I.
No one knows, they just think they do or word their comments carefully so as not to be challenged. If you ask them direct questions, they tend to disappear for the rest of the day.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
So do I.
No one knows, they just think they do or word their comments carefully so as not to be challenged. If you ask them direct questions, they tend to disappear for the rest of the day.
Blimey. I don’t get the anger Red, calm down.
You’ve read an awful lot into some simple statements.
“Just tell us exactly what you have been told” !?
I have done, that’s the point.
And above I’ve answered a question someone asked, so I gave my opinion.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
So do I.
No one knows, they just think they do or word their comments carefully so as not to be challenged. If you ask them direct questions, they tend to disappear for the rest of the day.
It is how I feel. Come the day there will be so many posts to say “I told you so” and all will conveniently forget the gaps.
We can all say I heard it will happen, but to date nobody has produced anything that would suggest that they are truly in the know. i.e. How much? For what? By when?, and finally, by whom?
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
So do I.
No one knows, they just think they do or word their comments carefully so as not to be challenged. If you ask them direct questions, they tend to disappear for the rest of the day.
It is how I feel. Come the day there will be so many posts to say “I told you so” and all will conveniently forget the gaps.
We can all say I heard it will happen, but to date nobody has produced anything that would suggest that they are truly in the know. i.e. How much? For what? By when?, and finally, by whom?
@PopIcon didn’t ask how much the club cost and the make up of the consortium.
And as I’ve said no-one is in the know. You’re never going to get all the facts on a plate during a takeover. You just have to go with the info that you’ve got unfortunately.
I wonder whether all you pun specialists try them out on your other halves first before you submit them just to check how hilarious they are. Of course for anyone wanting to catch up on probably the most important period of our clubs history since the homecoming, they're not funny at all and you come across as a bunch of wankers.
Has anybody else ever noticed that although there are loads of bands with fish related names, none of them are very good?
I liked Noah and the Whale and thought they were good
Sorry to be a pedant but a whale isn’t a fish.
Also, I thought you were finished on Charlton Life? You saw the fish bands and were reeled back in?
Can you show me, where I said I was finished with Charlton Life please
I think he means Seed
Thank you for that, I know I never said it
Oops a daisy! Apologies @Johnnysummers5- in my desperation to use a rubbish fish pun, I got my Johnny Summers name related Charlton Life users mixed up.
@JamesSeed why do you have so much faith in the Aussies?
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
If it helps, the Aussies tried to reduce the offer from the agreed price about a month ago - there were also a few terms still to be agreed. That was the case a month ago and I've heard nothing different since. If anything significant had happened since, I'm sure I would know about it. That is the position in a nutshell - I don't know what the figures are or what the terms are but I know rd wants shot and everyone wants the takeover to happen.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
So do I.
I may have this wrong, but it seems to me that Jim is getting information from Murphy who is dancing around the NDA and is unable to say certain things. I don't think Jim is willingly not passing on information, it seems to me that he is passing on what he is able to and is also speculating a little in the posts. I think it's his speculation that gets people confused. I'm not sure why. The posts are always pretty clear to me as to which parts are genuine info and which parts are speculation.
If he IS getting more information that he isn't allowed to share, if he shares it, there's a good chance all information will dry up completely, so pushing him to reveal more isn't exactly useful.
I find it easier when people ITK just state what they have heard without any - 'I know something you don't and I'll tell you in a bit' posts. I used to love @Redhenry posts. Told you what he knew in one line.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
So do I.
I may have this wrong, but it seems to me that Jim is getting information from Murphy who is dancing around the NDA and is unable to say certain things. I don't think Jim is willingly not passing on information, it seems to me that he is passing on what he is able to and is also speculating a little in the posts. I think it's his speculation that gets people confused. I'm not sure why. The posts are always pretty clear to me as to which parts are genuine info and which parts are speculation.
If he IS getting more information that he isn't allowed to share, if he shares it, there's a good chance all information will dry up completely, so pushing him to reveal more isn't exactly useful.
I’m actually not holding anything back.
I certainly wouldn’t share if I was in his shoes. For example, I imagine his investors are promised anonymity if they want it, as part of the deal. He’s not going to break that for anybody @Redrobo certainly not me.
He’s not passing anything about the sale on to me other than what I post here. I wish people would believe me when I say that. I’m NOT teasing you with bits of info and holding key things back.
I don’t 100% believe any of the info that has leaked out, because it doesn’t come directly from Lieven or Gerard who are conducting the negotiations. The couple of times I have believed ‘leaks’ they been denied (correctly) by GM. That’s not to say @DOUCHER ‘s info is wrong, I just don’t know that it isn’t.
I know there’s a grouper people who don’t believe anything they read on this thread. I wouldn’t either if I was in their plaice.
If it helps, the Aussies tried to reduce the offer from the agreed price about a month ago - there were also a few terms still to be agreed. That was the case a month ago and I've heard nothing different since. If anything significant had happened since, I'm sure I would know about it. That is the position in a nutshell - I don't know what the figures are or what the terms are but I know rd wants shot and everyone wants the takeover to happen.
"First rumours appeared that following a first face to face meeting between Gerard Murphy and Roland "why don't you just feck off?" Duchatelet, that had not gone well (Roland furious and swearing when the Aussies tried to low ball him on the price at the last minute) that the deal was "as good as over" but this was refuted by those close to the antipodean camp."
I tell you what. Here's a conjecture for you. And I'm not in any way in the know...
Aussie consortium first meeting after due dilligence...
Aussie 1: "Jeez! This Belgian drongo is losing a million quid a month!"
Aussie 2: (Frantically typing into his "Good Guys" calculator...) "Christ! That's nearly ten million quid a year!"
Aussie 3, at this point, declares that he has a part share in Staines Town FC, and Aussie 4 announces he owns the Hot Dog franchise at Weston-super-Mare FC...
Aussie 1: "Strewth! We'll never find another idiot willing to bite that bullet. We'd better pull out."
Aussie 2: "Mate, we're gonna lose a lot of goodwill with the poms if we do that."
Aussie 1: "OK. Here's the plan. We'll put a lot of obstacles in the way, until the Belgian pulls the plug..."
At the first meeting between the 2 parties, Aussies say, "We're a bit worried about these ex-director loans..." Parties depart, come back a month later. RD representative:"Well, it wasn't easy but we sorted that." Aussie: "Oh... While you're here, we noticed the water in the fish tank needs changing..." Parties adjourn. Come back a week later. RD representative: "OK. Done that, and changed the water filter as well!" Aussie: "Oh... The decorating in the toilets could do with a spruce up..." Parties adjourn. Parties reconvene a couple of weeks later. RD representative: "Right, went to B&Q, bought a pot of budget paint, and got the receptionist to slap a coat of paint on the toilet walls." Aussie: "Oh... Sorry, we'd like the Boardroom table moved 6" south, please?" Etc. Etc.
A few months down the line, the Aussie consortium produce a press release: "It is with deep regret we announce that we are unable to complete the acquisition of..." blah, blah, blah. " We feel that Charlton is a club with huge potential..." blah, blah, blah. "Charlton Athletic, and it's fans deserve only the best..." blah, blah, blah. "We wish only the best for the club and it's supporters..." blah, blah, blah.
"P.S. Does anyone want to buy a second hand scarf? Worn only once..."
And my conjecture has as much chance of being right, as anyone else's has.
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance. If they actually buy the club of course.
A well argued and balanced argument, but no fish puns though
I would caution that 5 year plans aren't necessarily a sign of ambition, as
a) it depends on what the plan actually covers, a plan that sees us as a mid table Championship team after 5 years would be an improvement on our current state, but hardly very inspiring b) are the plans realistic, and proportional to the level of funding they are investing? It's easy to talk big, but in a world where there are some very rich owners splashing the cash to get in the PL, relying on Aussie sports know how and scouting as a secret weapon won't cut it.
Plan for Prem not Championship. But totally agree it’s not going to be easy in that there are plenty of others with the same idea.
I don’t think they’re only relying on Aussie sports know how though. *If* there have been problems replacing investors it’s probably because the level of required investment is high. I hope they have a plan of action for what to do if they’re outgunned financially in the Championship.
Comments
1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.
2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.
3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.
4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.
5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.
6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.
Of course there are negatives too.
It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.
I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance.
If they actually buy the club of course.
I would caution that 5 year plans aren't necessarily a sign of ambition, as
a) it depends on what the plan actually covers, a plan that sees us as a mid table Championship team after 5 years would be an improvement on our current state, but hardly very inspiring
b) are the plans realistic, and proportional to the level of funding they are investing? It's easy to talk big, but in a world where there are some very rich owners splashing the cash to get in the PL, relying on Aussie sports know how and scouting as a secret weapon won't cut it.
I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.
If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?
The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.
At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.
So do I.
If you ask them direct questions, they tend to disappear for the rest of the day.
You’ve read an awful lot into some simple statements.
“Just tell us exactly what you have been told” !?
I have done, that’s the point.
And above I’ve answered a question someone asked, so I gave my opinion.
Stop ranting (please?)
We can all say I heard it will happen, but to date nobody has produced anything that would suggest that they are truly in the know. i.e. How much? For what? By when?, and finally, by whom?
And as I’ve said no-one is in the know. You’re never going to get all the facts on a plate during a takeover. You just have to go with the info that you’ve got unfortunately.
If he IS getting more information that he isn't allowed to share, if he shares it, there's a good chance all information will dry up completely, so pushing him to reveal more isn't exactly useful.
I certainly wouldn’t share if I was in his shoes. For example, I imagine his investors are promised anonymity if they want it, as part of the deal. He’s not going to break that for anybody @Redrobo certainly not me.
He’s not passing anything about the sale on to me other than what I post here. I wish people would believe me when I say that. I’m NOT teasing you with bits of info and holding key things back.
I don’t 100% believe any of the info that has leaked out, because it doesn’t come directly from Lieven or Gerard who are conducting the negotiations. The couple of times I have believed ‘leaks’ they been denied (correctly) by GM. That’s not to say @DOUCHER ‘s info is wrong, I just don’t know that it isn’t.
I know there’s a grouper people who don’t believe anything they read on this thread. I wouldn’t either if I was in their plaice.
Bite size thread summary 26 June
"First rumours appeared that following a first face to face meeting between Gerard Murphy and Roland "why don't you just feck off?" Duchatelet, that had not gone well (Roland furious and swearing when the Aussies tried to low ball him on the price at the last minute) that the deal was "as good as over" but this was refuted by those close to the antipodean camp."
Aussie consortium first meeting after due dilligence...
Aussie 1: "Jeez! This Belgian drongo is losing a million quid a month!"
Aussie 2: (Frantically typing into his "Good Guys" calculator...) "Christ! That's nearly ten million quid a year!"
Aussie 3, at this point, declares that he has a part share in Staines Town FC, and Aussie 4 announces he owns the Hot Dog franchise at Weston-super-Mare FC...
Aussie 1: "Strewth! We'll never find another idiot willing to bite that bullet. We'd better pull out."
Aussie 2: "Mate, we're gonna lose a lot of goodwill with the poms if we do that."
Aussie 1: "OK. Here's the plan. We'll put a lot of obstacles in the way, until the Belgian pulls the plug..."
At the first meeting between the 2 parties, Aussies say, "We're a bit worried about these ex-director loans..." Parties depart, come back a month later. RD representative:"Well, it wasn't easy but we sorted that." Aussie: "Oh... While you're here, we noticed the water in the fish tank needs changing..." Parties adjourn. Come back a week later. RD representative: "OK. Done that, and changed the water filter as well!" Aussie: "Oh... The decorating in the toilets could do with a spruce up..." Parties adjourn. Parties reconvene a couple of weeks later. RD representative: "Right, went to B&Q, bought a pot of budget paint, and got the receptionist to slap a coat of paint on the toilet walls." Aussie: "Oh... Sorry, we'd like the Boardroom table moved 6" south, please?" Etc. Etc.
A few months down the line, the Aussie consortium produce a press release:
"It is with deep regret we announce that we are unable to complete the acquisition of..." blah, blah, blah. " We feel that Charlton is a club with huge potential..." blah, blah, blah. "Charlton Athletic, and it's fans deserve only the best..." blah, blah, blah. "We wish only the best for the club and it's supporters..." blah, blah, blah.
"P.S. Does anyone want to buy a second hand scarf? Worn only once..."
And my conjecture has as much chance of being right, as anyone else's has.
I don’t think they’re only relying on Aussie sports know how though. *If* there have been problems replacing investors it’s probably because the level of required investment is high. I hope they have a plan of action for what to do if they’re outgunned financially in the Championship.