The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules. Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ? Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules. Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ? Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
Or alternatively if we go back to the cryptic comments from GM posted by JamesSeed 11 days ago on July 24th:
GM anticipating ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’.
But also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’.
As the ‘two weeks’ mentioned by GM coincide with the end of the transfer window on August 9th, it would seem to be an improbable coincidence if he was referring to some other unrelated internal difficulty with the negotiations that involved ‘two weeks’?
So is the ‘difficulty’ that the Aussies have accepted or agreed that Duchatelet can sell players during that ‘difficult’ two weeks; possibly either to cover his running costs while their search for further investors continues, or to fund his buyout of the ex-Directors’ loans in order to give the Aussies ‘clean title’, or perhaps even to give them a lower buying price by by being in a position to lease some of the assets to them?
The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules. Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ? Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
Or alternatively if we go back to the cryptic comments from GM posted by JamesSeed 11 days ago on July 24th:
GM anticipating ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’.
But also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’.
As the ‘two weeks’ mentioned by GM coincide with the end of the transfer window on August 9th, it would seem to be an improbable coincidence if he was referring to some other unrelated internal difficulty with the negotiations that involved ‘two weeks’?
So is the ‘difficulty’ that the Aussies have accepted or agreed that Duchatelet can sell players during that ‘difficult’ two weeks; possibly either to cover his running costs while their search for further investors continues, or to fund his buyout of the ex-Directors’ loans in order to give the Aussies ‘clean title’, or perhaps even to give them a lower buying price by by being in a position to lease some of the assets to them?
I'd take whatever GM tells jamesSeed with a big pinch of salt.
The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules. Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ? Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
Or alternatively if we go back to the cryptic comments from GM posted by JamesSeed 11 days ago on July 24th:
GM anticipating ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’.
But also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’.
As the ‘two weeks’ mentioned by GM coincide with the end of the transfer window on August 9th, it would seem to be an improbable coincidence if he was referring to some other unrelated internal difficulty with the negotiations that involved ‘two weeks’?
So is the ‘difficulty’ that the Aussies have accepted or agreed that Duchatelet can sell players during that ‘difficult’ two weeks; possibly either to cover his running costs while their search for further investors continues, or to fund his buyout of the ex-Directors’ loans in order to give the Aussies ‘clean title’, or perhaps even to give them a lower buying price by by being in a position to lease some of the assets to them?
I'd take whatever GM tells jamesSeed with a big pinch of salt.
Why?
Granted he's not said much (presumably due to an NDA) - but then it's reasonable to assume that he's careful about what he does say?
So why would he bother to say ‘a difficult two weeks ahead' when it would have been much easier to say 'Sorry nothing new to report'?
You can be the richest man and chuck money at a team and hope they do well but I think if there is no plan laid out then it will ultimately fail...if the Aussies get in then a steady plan is what we need.
The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules. Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ? Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
Or alternatively if we go back to the cryptic comments from GM posted by JamesSeed 11 days ago on July 24th:
GM anticipating ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’.
But also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’.
As the ‘two weeks’ mentioned by GM coincide with the end of the transfer window on August 9th, it would seem to be an improbable coincidence if he was referring to some other unrelated internal difficulty with the negotiations that involved ‘two weeks’?
So is the ‘difficulty’ that the Aussies have accepted or agreed that Duchatelet can sell players during that ‘difficult’ two weeks; possibly either to cover his running costs while their search for further investors continues, or to fund his buyout of the ex-Directors’ loans in order to give the Aussies ‘clean title’, or perhaps even to give them a lower buying price by by being in a position to lease some of the assets to them?
I'd take whatever GM tells jamesSeed with a big pinch of salt.
Why?
Granted he's not said much (presumably due to an NDA) - but then it's reasonable to assume that he's careful about what he does say?
So why would he bother to say ‘a difficult two weeks ahead' when it would have been much easier to say 'Sorry nothing new to report'?
Who knows. Why would Murray come out and say it would be done in February/March?
It's two groups trying to get their opposite number to blink.
All around my hat I will wear the green willow And all around my hat For a twelve month and a day And if anyone should ask me The reason why I'm wearing it It's all for my new owners Who're far far away
There is a certain logic to one side wanting to get their opinions/logic out where we can see it. We don't know what is going on but the idea we are being drip fed what tge Aussies want us to hear is not exactly unlikely.
The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules. Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ? Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
Or alternatively if we go back to the cryptic comments from GM posted by JamesSeed 11 days ago on July 24th:
GM anticipating ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’.
But also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’.
As the ‘two weeks’ mentioned by GM coincide with the end of the transfer window on August 9th, it would seem to be an improbable coincidence if he was referring to some other unrelated internal difficulty with the negotiations that involved ‘two weeks’?
So is the ‘difficulty’ that the Aussies have accepted or agreed that Duchatelet can sell players during that ‘difficult’ two weeks; possibly either to cover his running costs while their search for further investors continues, or to fund his buyout of the ex-Directors’ loans in order to give the Aussies ‘clean title’, or perhaps even to give them a lower buying price by by being in a position to lease some of the assets to them?
I'd take whatever GM tells jamesSeed with a big pinch of salt.
I would take anything @carly burn says with a bigger pinch of salt.
The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules. Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ? Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
Or alternatively if we go back to the cryptic comments from GM posted by JamesSeed 11 days ago on July 24th:
GM anticipating ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’.
But also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’.
As the ‘two weeks’ mentioned by GM coincide with the end of the transfer window on August 9th, it would seem to be an improbable coincidence if he was referring to some other unrelated internal difficulty with the negotiations that involved ‘two weeks’?
So is the ‘difficulty’ that the Aussies have accepted or agreed that Duchatelet can sell players during that ‘difficult’ two weeks; possibly either to cover his running costs while their search for further investors continues, or to fund his buyout of the ex-Directors’ loans in order to give the Aussies ‘clean title’, or perhaps even to give them a lower buying price by by being in a position to lease some of the assets to them?
I'd take whatever GM tells jamesSeed with a big pinch of salt.
Why?
Granted he's not said much (presumably due to an NDA) - but then it's reasonable to assume that he's careful about what he does say?
So why would he bother to say ‘a difficult two weeks ahead' when it would have been much easier to say 'Sorry nothing new to report'?
Who knows. Why would Murray come out and say it would be done in February/March?
It's two groups trying to get their opposite number to blink.
I bought a bloody inflatable kangaroo in February. I may want my money back.
I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses
Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs
It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow
It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post
I love the line “running it as a business”, which is the exact opposite of what he’s done since he arrived. A less professional approach is hard to imagine. He’s done nothing but piss money up the wall and now he’s economising on bottled water. Madman.
Todays game at Sunderland gives more weight that the club needs to be sold. Duchatelet will see Charlton into League 2. I appreciate the difficulties dealing with Roland Duchatelet and the interest is welcome but if the Aussies are not able to buy the club then they need to stand aside.
Not running it as a business chief it's an ego experiment -----never could work-----his ego told him it could-----even now he can't see the further we fall and the more he cuts back he decreases the value of the asset he is trying to sell. He won't get more money he will get less and any new owner will have to invest more----- tough two weeks ?I don't see anything but a slow death of CAFC
All around my hat I will wear the green willow And all around my hat For a twelve month and a day And if anyone should ask me The reason why I'm wearing it It's all for my new owners Who're far far away
As we all know, That man ran Charlton as part of an experiment, nothing else, a bored megalomaniac thought he could prove his theories right, that you did not need top coaches or scouts but use cheap low grade coaches and kids in bedrooms. You did not need chief executives but young untried lawyers. His idea of switching crap footballers from one of his crap low league european clubs, up the scale to Charlton and Standard and down the other way was the way to go. Once this egotistical nutjob realized that his shit experiment was failing dismally across all platforms, he threw money at some of it (as debt) just so he could say he was right. Now he is bored and has failed he wants out but also wants the money back that he chucked at his mad experiment. The lunatic has left all the clubs in the network worse off or at best stagnant. I loathe the man.
Not running it as a business chief it's an ego experiment -----never could work-----his ego told him it could-----even now he can't see the further we fall and the more he cuts back he decreases the value of the asset he is trying to sell. He won't get more money he will get less and any new owner will have to invest more----- tough two weeks ?I don't see anything but a slow death of CAFC
mate I know he hasn’t run it like a business I was pointing out where the player sales money is going and like a business you need to raise cash flow so that it doesn’t come out of your own back pocket
It’s not asset stripping if it’s paying the leccy bill
I don’t agree with it but it’s clear that’s been his intention since konsa
Todays game at Sunderland gives more weight that the club needs to be sold. Duchatelet will see Charlton into League 2the National League and playing their home games at Welling.. I appreciate the difficulties dealing with Roland Duchatelet and the interest is welcome but if the Aussies are not able to buy the club then they need to stand aside.
I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses
Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs
It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow
It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post
asset stripping is asset stripping. if i told you i had a ferrari for 100k then decided to take all of the interior ans engine out before you turn up to buy, how can i ask for the same money if its basically a lump of metal with a flash horse badge?
I think your right and at the same time he will sell anything and anyone that has value to fund the day to day losses
Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs
It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow
It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post
asset stripping is asset stripping. if i told you i had a ferrari for 100k then decided to take all of the interior ans engine out before you turn up to buy, how can i ask for the same money if its basically a lump of metal with a flash horse badge?
We know how much his monthly losses are all he is doing is selling to cover the running costs it’s not asset stripping
The Aussies are getting off lightly with regard to the take-over shambles. They haven't covered them selves in glory.
What can we critisize them for without knowing the details? Buying scarfs?
Once the Aussies turned up in the Directors Box, 86 days ago wearing scarfs it was only natural that supporters would assume that the deal was virtually done (+ the statements from the club)
The fact the season has now started and we have still not been sold it's only inevitable people are fed up with the situation. No one is blaming the Aussies but when they turn up like that people will get annoyed and frustrated when no deal has gone through.
Comments
RD will sell to the highest bidder.
The Aussies were the highest bidders.
The Aussies may or may not have had the funds at any point.
The Aussie funds in some way involved one or more parties that were not permitted under EFL rules.
Whether this was due to being involved with another club or not.
So why would they put in an application to the EFL, if they knew they were in breach of the rules ?
Perhaps, after taking a year desperately trying to raise the funds, they decided that the EFL may not discover the issue they did, as money/owners are often hidden in holding companies and overseas companies etc etc.
As an example look at the difficulties there were to determine who owned Charlton under the Jiminez, Slater, Cash regime.
The EFL "disqualified" one or more investors. RD wouldn't take a price reduction, I can't say I blame him if the other party try and stitch him up at the last minute.
RD says I'd rather lose let's say £5M - £10M this season than drop the price by the same figure to someone who is trying to stitch me up.
RD then cuts the costs as much as possible and here we are .
Asset stripping is not asset stripping if it’s covering running costs
It feels like it is to us as fans but he is running it as a business and the sales are cash flow
It sucks but I don’t see anything to fault in your post
GM anticipating ‘a difficult two weeks ahead’.
But also that ‘it’ll all be worthwhile’.
As the ‘two weeks’ mentioned by GM coincide with the end of the transfer window on August 9th, it would seem to be an improbable coincidence if he was referring to some other unrelated internal difficulty with the negotiations that involved ‘two weeks’?
So is the ‘difficulty’ that the Aussies have accepted or agreed that Duchatelet can sell players during that ‘difficult’ two weeks; possibly either to cover his running costs while their search for further investors continues, or to fund his buyout of the ex-Directors’ loans in order to give the Aussies ‘clean title’, or perhaps even to give them a lower buying price by by being in a position to lease some of the assets to them?
Granted he's not said much (presumably due to an NDA) - but then it's reasonable to assume that he's careful about what he does say?
So why would he bother to say ‘a difficult two weeks ahead' when it would have been much easier to say 'Sorry nothing new to report'?
It's two groups trying to get their opposite number to blink.
I will wear the green willow
And all around my hat
For a twelve month and a day
And if anyone should ask me
The reason why I'm wearing it
It's all for my new owners
Who're far far away
As Steely Dan aptly predicted.
I loathe the man.
mate I know he hasn’t run it like a business I was pointing out where the player sales money is going and like a business you need to raise cash flow so that it doesn’t come out of your own back pocket
It’s not asset stripping if it’s paying the leccy bill
I don’t agree with it but it’s clear that’s been his intention since konsa
The fact the season has now started and we have still not been sold it's only inevitable people are fed up with the situation. No one is blaming the Aussies but when they turn up like that people will get annoyed and frustrated when no deal has gone through.