1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
None of them are factual? What are you talking about? They are just reply to my oft repeated question 'is the deal off?' which I've been asked repeatedly to put to him by people on here, and on Twitter. None of them have said 'the deal will be completed next week' or whatever. They've all been of the 'we're still in it' variety. Bland, but truthful and harmless, unlike your unecessarily rude post. Plenty of people are happy to read them as well. Sure you're an anti-Aussie cheerleader, I get that, and don't have a problem with it, but tone it down a bit please.
"2,4,6,8, Who do we not appreciate? Aussies WOOOOOOOOOO"
I believe the £40m price tag was mentioned by @Redhenry many months ago. No idea if he is/was itk or whether he made it up. Its taken as gospel now though & like you, I would have thought anything above what he paid (c £18m inc debt) is a pisstake.
Last Saudi bid I heard was 40.5m which matched the Aussies at the time.
So can you tell us any more about these Saudis? What is their business? have they shown interest in any other club? Why does a 3rd division club interest them, when they could buy a Championship club for a similar figure? If they really think CAFC is worth such a preposterous amount, why do they allow themselves to be outbid for the sake of half a million?
I appreciate that you may not know any of the answers and post what you hear in good faith. I just have a bit of trouble with the whole idea that this sale is like a (Dutch) auction of a single tangible entity - such ,as, wait for it - a house. As I was trying to say above, the headline price needs to deal with various tricky financail subplots, and each and any buyer will approach those subplots (former directors, player sales in the summer, sell ons, etc) in their own way. Sorry I just don't buy the idea that somebody was outbid by half a mill and slunk away, never to be heard of again.
I never said they were outbid. I said last I heard was they matched the Aussie bid at that time which was 40.5m.
When we talk of bid, are we literally saying write a figure down and submit it to RD before a given deadline? In other words, a bit like a Sky/BT/whoever bid for TV rights, or a Beardy Branson bid for another opportunity to milk the long suffering rail passengers?
Or is it an auction, of some sort?
Or could it simply be at the whim and a prayer from Douchebag as to what he accepts?
It's been stated that RD won't talk to certain parties (that goes back to the RE enquiry when Daisy was here), or that he has a 'preferred bidder'. I just wonder, given that he doesn't care one iota about the club - and clearly never has done - what interest he would have in the club's immediate/mid-term future (apart from the obvious EFL criteria that a new owner must have the cash to sustain the club for 2 years after takeover)?
the Saudi’s showed their money enough to put in a firm offer they reached his number and got gazzumped by people that apart from buying a scarf and getting cheap cheers like wwe wrestlers have done nothing
They then walked away as they were at their number
Not a fake number by fake people
No. The Saudi's clearly didn't have the money to run the club or they simply weren't actually interested in the club.
I am fairly certain our latest bid received was not the same amount as the Aussies bid, however it was also accepted.
If the Saudi's had either the money or the interest, they'd own us by now.
Why they reached their limit and like in all auctions you know when to stop especially when the Aussies wouldn’t stop and seeing as they are only using Monopoly money why should they
Shame you can’t wake up and smell the coffee.
When they buy us I will drink coffee for the first time in years
But my coffee ban is well and truly safe
nla....you seem to be enjoying yourself making us all the more depressed. How much longer are you planning to go on finding countless ways of telling us exactly the same thing over and over again?
I don't think NLA enjoys it at all, I think he's just doing the same as others itk, by relaying what he's been told. The only problem is, people only seem to like good news (whether they know it to be wholly accurate or not) and what NLA is relaying, isn't necessarily what the majority of fans want to hear. The majority want to hear things like "It's gonna be a tough 2 weeks, but it'll be worth it in the end".
It seems to me that if you so much as question the Aussies in anyway, you get laughed at or jumped on.
My money is on NLA.
I don't know NLA personally, or James Seed or Airman or Doucher or Red Henry or Colin or anyone ITK. I just read the posts and NLA has stuck to his guns even when his posts have been pilloried. He has also been the most accurate, and this version of events ties in with what is transpiring at CAFC. So it'll do for me.
How can it be accurate? He said consistently the Aussie’s don’t have the funds but now we have two sources claiming the Aussies have passed the fit and proper EFL test. That means they do have the funds. Last night he changed his tune to ‘don’t have the funds or not willing to pay the price’.Remember his source is coming from the Roland camp. Would you trust Roland? All this Aussie bashing is mighty suspicious.
RD has the money to pass the fit and proper test also
You need to re read the posts go back to October when I first said
The Aussies don’t have the funds (they never then )
From December I said they don’t have the funds and are trying to get more
Me saying that they may not be willing to spend it is because the fee they agreed remember the agreed part it’s very important
They have not followed through on
I said there two reasons
They don’t have it
They don’t want to spend it
What other reasons are there if the the Club The Aussies the EFL all belive that it’s in place
It’s not directors loans that part hasn’t been addressed and is not being addressed
It’s because the Aussie bid has stalled they are unwilling to pay the amount they agreed
Was this a deliberate negotiation tactic or is it they thought they could raise the money and they can’t
The EFL can check the accounts that the consortium members have and that will show they have the required funds but that don’t mean they will use it or are willing to use it
Reading all the posters that are questioning whether they want the Aussies now because they’re being, or have always been, devious:
I 100% believe that they did NOT set out to bid high, with the intention of later on reducing their bid. I’d be shocked if that was the case.
I’m quite sure GM expected the purchase to be done and dusted the week after our meeting. He wouldn’t have be so sure if he was planning to low ball Roland.
Whether they screwed up after that I don’t know. Whether new consortium members were needed I don’t know. I don’t know when, or even if, they decided his price was too high.
But they didn’t walk. Not yet anyway.
This is a question I asked elsewhere on this thread, but, in your (humble or otherwise!) opinion (or knowledge), was it a closed bid with a deadline (ala TV rights/train franchise), or an on-going 'war'... i.e. Aussies offer, say, 30M; Saudies 32M; Aussies come back with £34M etc etc etc... Roland playing one off against the other?
Was there any hint at all (and I appreciate you might be out of the loop here) of RD questionning where the money came from? By that I mean that, if I sell my car for 5k, I don't care where the money comes from; if it's a husband/wife chipping in with the help of the mother-in-law or whatever, or some bloke who's got 5k lying around. I don't care what happens to the car after it's sold either. In other words, was the Aussie 'bid' sound?
I think a lot of people are looking for clues here as to why the Aussies (or, indeed, the Saudies; or anyone for that matter), would want to punt £40.5M on CAFC.
Muir has pedigree as an entrepreneur, and the last thing I'd expect him to be is a fool or to throw money down the drain, nor to expect other people (i.e. other investors) to. Clearly he's not prepared to stump up the cash himself to be 51% shareholder. If he's not prepared to take that risk, it's not a very good advertisment for the other investers he's trying to attract.
I can only conclude that there's something seriously wrong with the Aussie bid: indeed any bid that values the club at £40M+.
the Saudi’s showed their money enough to put in a firm offer they reached his number and got gazzumped by people that apart from buying a scarf and getting cheap cheers like wwe wrestlers have done nothing
They then walked away as they were at their number
Not a fake number by fake people
No. The Saudi's clearly didn't have the money to run the club or they simply weren't actually interested in the club.
I am fairly certain our latest bid received was not the same amount as the Aussies bid, however it was also accepted.
If the Saudi's had either the money or the interest, they'd own us by now.
Why they reached their limit and like in all auctions you know when to stop especially when the Aussies wouldn’t stop and seeing as they are only using Monopoly money why should they
Shame you can’t wake up and smell the coffee.
When they buy us I will drink coffee for the first time in years
But my coffee ban is well and truly safe
nla....you seem to be enjoying yourself making us all the more depressed. How much longer are you planning to go on finding countless ways of telling us exactly the same thing over and over again?
I don't think NLA enjoys it at all, I think he's just doing the same as others itk, by relaying what he's been told. The only problem is, people only seem to like good news (whether they know it to be wholly accurate or not) and what NLA is relaying, isn't necessarily what the majority of fans want to hear. The majority want to hear things like "It's gonna be a tough 2 weeks, but it'll be worth it in the end".
It seems to me that if you so much as question the Aussies in anyway, you get laughed at or jumped on.
My money is on NLA.
I don't know NLA personally, or James Seed or Airman or Doucher or Red Henry or Colin or anyone ITK. I just read the posts and NLA has stuck to his guns even when his posts have been pilloried. He has also been the most accurate, and this version of events ties in with what is transpiring at CAFC. So it'll do for me.
How can it be accurate? He said consistently the Aussie’s don’t have the funds but now we have two sources claiming the Aussies have passed the fit and proper EFL test. That means they do have the funds. Last night he changed his tune to ‘don’t have the funds or not willing to pay the price’.Remember his source is coming from the Roland camp. Would you trust Roland? All this Aussie bashing is mighty suspicious.
RD has the money to pass the fit and proper test also
You need to re read the posts go back to October when I first said
The Aussies don’t have the funds (they never then )
From December I said they don’t have the funds and are trying to get more
Me saying that they may not be willing to spend it is because the fee they agreed remember the agreed part it’s very important
They have not followed through on
I said there two reasons
They don’t have it
They don’t want to spend it
What other reasons are there if the the Club The Aussies the EFL all belive that it’s in place
It’s not directors loans that part hasn’t been addressed and is not being addressed
It’s because the Aussie bid has stalled they are unwilling to pay the amount they agreed
Was this a deliberate negotiation tactic or is it they thought they could raise the money and they can’t
The EFL can check the accounts that the consortium members have and that will show they have the required funds but that don’t mean they will use it or are willing to use it
Reading all the posters that are questioning whether they want the Aussies now because they’re being, or have always been, devious:
I 100% believe that they did NOT set out to bid high, with the intention of later on reducing their bid. I’d be shocked if that was the case.
I’m quite sure GM expected the purchase to be done and dusted the week after our meeting. He wouldn’t have be so sure if he was planning to low ball Roland.
Whether they screwed up after that I don’t know. Whether new consortium members were needed I don’t know. I don’t know when, or even if, they decided his price was too high.
But they didn’t walk. Not yet anyway.
This is a question I asked elsewhere on this thread, but, in your (humble or otherwise!) opinion (or knowledge), was it a closed bid with a deadline (ala TV rights/train franchise), or an on-going 'war'... i.e. Aussies offer, say, 30M; Saudies 32M; Aussies come back with £34M etc etc etc... Roland playing one off against the other?
Was there any hint at all (and I appreciate you might be out of the loop here) of RD questionning where the money came from? By that I mean that, if I sell my car for 5k, I don't care where the money comes from; if it's a husband/wife chipping in with the help of the mother-in-law or whatever, or some bloke who's got 5k lying around. I don't care what happens to the car after it's sold either. In other words, was the Aussie 'bid' sound?
I think a lot of people are looking for clues here as to why the Aussies (or, indeed, the Saudies; or anyone for that matter), would want to punt £40.5M on CAFC.
Muir has pedigree as an entrepreneur, and the last thing I'd expect him to be is a fool or to throw money down the drain, nor to expect other people (i.e. other investors) to. Clearly he's not prepared to stump up the cash himself to be 51% shareholder. If he's not prepared to take that risk, it's not a very good advertisment for the other investers he's trying to attract.
I can only conclude that there's something seriously wrong with the Aussie bid: indeed any bid that values the club at £40M+.
the Saudi’s showed their money enough to put in a firm offer they reached his number and got gazzumped by people that apart from buying a scarf and getting cheap cheers like wwe wrestlers have done nothing
They then walked away as they were at their number
Not a fake number by fake people
No. The Saudi's clearly didn't have the money to run the club or they simply weren't actually interested in the club.
I am fairly certain our latest bid received was not the same amount as the Aussies bid, however it was also accepted.
If the Saudi's had either the money or the interest, they'd own us by now.
Why they reached their limit and like in all auctions you know when to stop especially when the Aussies wouldn’t stop and seeing as they are only using Monopoly money why should they
Shame you can’t wake up and smell the coffee.
When they buy us I will drink coffee for the first time in years
But my coffee ban is well and truly safe
nla....you seem to be enjoying yourself making us all the more depressed. How much longer are you planning to go on finding countless ways of telling us exactly the same thing over and over again?
I don't think NLA enjoys it at all, I think he's just doing the same as others itk, by relaying what he's been told. The only problem is, people only seem to like good news (whether they know it to be wholly accurate or not) and what NLA is relaying, isn't necessarily what the majority of fans want to hear. The majority want to hear things like "It's gonna be a tough 2 weeks, but it'll be worth it in the end".
It seems to me that if you so much as question the Aussies in anyway, you get laughed at or jumped on.
My money is on NLA.
I don't know NLA personally, or James Seed or Airman or Doucher or Red Henry or Colin or anyone ITK. I just read the posts and NLA has stuck to his guns even when his posts have been pilloried. He has also been the most accurate, and this version of events ties in with what is transpiring at CAFC. So it'll do for me.
How can it be accurate? He said consistently the Aussie’s don’t have the funds but now we have two sources claiming the Aussies have passed the fit and proper EFL test. That means they do have the funds. Last night he changed his tune to ‘don’t have the funds or not willing to pay the price’.Remember his source is coming from the Roland camp. Would you trust Roland? All this Aussie bashing is mighty suspicious.
RD has the money to pass the fit and proper test also
You need to re read the posts go back to October when I first said
The Aussies don’t have the funds (they never then )
From December I said they don’t have the funds and are trying to get more
Me saying that they may not be willing to spend it is because the fee they agreed remember the agreed part it’s very important
They have not followed through on
I said there two reasons
They don’t have it
They don’t want to spend it
What other reasons are there if the the Club The Aussies the EFL all belive that it’s in place
It’s not directors loans that part hasn’t been addressed and is not being addressed
It’s because the Aussie bid has stalled they are unwilling to pay the amount they agreed
Was this a deliberate negotiation tactic or is it they thought they could raise the money and they can’t
The EFL can check the accounts that the consortium members have and that will show they have the required funds but that don’t mean they will use it or are willing to use it
Reading all the posters that are questioning whether they want the Aussies now because they’re being, or have always been, devious:
I 100% believe that they did NOT set out to bid high, with the intention of later on reducing their bid. I’d be shocked if that was the case.
I’m quite sure GM expected the purchase to be done and dusted the week after our meeting. He wouldn’t have be so sure if he was planning to low ball Roland.
Whether they screwed up after that I don’t know. Whether new consortium members were needed I don’t know. I don’t know when, or even if, they decided his price was too high.
But they didn’t walk. Not yet anyway.
This is a question I asked elsewhere on this thread, but, in your (humble or otherwise!) opinion (or knowledge), was it a closed bid with a deadline (ala TV rights/train franchise), or an on-going 'war'... i.e. Aussies offer, say, 30M; Saudies 32M; Aussies come back with £34M etc etc etc... Roland playing one off against the other?
Was there any hint at all (and I appreciate you might be out of the loop here) of RD questionning where the money came from? By that I mean that, if I sell my car for 5k, I don't care where the money comes from; if it's a husband/wife chipping in with the help of the mother-in-law or whatever, or some bloke who's got 5k lying around. I don't care what happens to the car after it's sold either. In other words, was the Aussie 'bid' sound?
I think a lot of people are looking for clues here as to why the Aussies (or, indeed, the Saudies; or anyone for that matter), would want to punt £40.5M on CAFC.
Muir has pedigree as an entrepreneur, and the last thing I'd expect him to be is a fool or to throw money down the drain, nor to expect other people (i.e. other investors) to. Clearly he's not prepared to stump up the cash himself to be 51% shareholder. If he's not prepared to take that risk, it's not a very good advertisment for the other investers he's trying to attract.
I can only conclude that there's something seriously wrong with the Aussie bid: indeed any bid that values the club at £40M+.
the Saudi’s showed their money enough to put in a firm offer they reached his number and got gazzumped by people that apart from buying a scarf and getting cheap cheers like wwe wrestlers have done nothing
They then walked away as they were at their number
Not a fake number by fake people
No. The Saudi's clearly didn't have the money to run the club or they simply weren't actually interested in the club.
I am fairly certain our latest bid received was not the same amount as the Aussies bid, however it was also accepted.
If the Saudi's had either the money or the interest, they'd own us by now.
Why they reached their limit and like in all auctions you know when to stop especially when the Aussies wouldn’t stop and seeing as they are only using Monopoly money why should they
Shame you can’t wake up and smell the coffee.
When they buy us I will drink coffee for the first time in years
But my coffee ban is well and truly safe
nla....you seem to be enjoying yourself making us all the more depressed. How much longer are you planning to go on finding countless ways of telling us exactly the same thing over and over again?
I don't think NLA enjoys it at all, I think he's just doing the same as others itk, by relaying what he's been told. The only problem is, people only seem to like good news (whether they know it to be wholly accurate or not) and what NLA is relaying, isn't necessarily what the majority of fans want to hear. The majority want to hear things like "It's gonna be a tough 2 weeks, but it'll be worth it in the end".
It seems to me that if you so much as question the Aussies in anyway, you get laughed at or jumped on.
My money is on NLA.
I don't know NLA personally, or James Seed or Airman or Doucher or Red Henry or Colin or anyone ITK. I just read the posts and NLA has stuck to his guns even when his posts have been pilloried. He has also been the most accurate, and this version of events ties in with what is transpiring at CAFC. So it'll do for me.
How can it be accurate? He said consistently the Aussie’s don’t have the funds but now we have two sources claiming the Aussies have passed the fit and proper EFL test. That means they do have the funds. Last night he changed his tune to ‘don’t have the funds or not willing to pay the price’.Remember his source is coming from the Roland camp. Would you trust Roland? All this Aussie bashing is mighty suspicious.
RD has the money to pass the fit and proper test also
You need to re read the posts go back to October when I first said
The Aussies don’t have the funds (they never then )
From December I said they don’t have the funds and are trying to get more
Me saying that they may not be willing to spend it is because the fee they agreed remember the agreed part it’s very important
They have not followed through on
I said there two reasons
They don’t have it
They don’t want to spend it
What other reasons are there if the the Club The Aussies the EFL all belive that it’s in place
It’s not directors loans that part hasn’t been addressed and is not being addressed
It’s because the Aussie bid has stalled they are unwilling to pay the amount they agreed
Was this a deliberate negotiation tactic or is it they thought they could raise the money and they can’t
The EFL can check the accounts that the consortium members have and that will show they have the required funds but that don’t mean they will use it or are willing to use it
Reading all the posters that are questioning whether they want the Aussies now because they’re being, or have always been, devious:
I 100% believe that they did NOT set out to bid high, with the intention of later on reducing their bid. I’d be shocked if that was the case.
I’m quite sure GM expected the purchase to be done and dusted the week after our meeting. He wouldn’t have be so sure if he was planning to low ball Roland.
Whether they screwed up after that I don’t know. Whether new consortium members were needed I don’t know. I don’t know when, or even if, they decided his price was too high.
But they didn’t walk. Not yet anyway.
This is a question I asked elsewhere on this thread, but, in your (humble or otherwise!) opinion (or knowledge), was it a closed bid with a deadline (ala TV rights/train franchise), or an on-going 'war'... i.e. Aussies offer, say, 30M; Saudies 32M; Aussies come back with £34M etc etc etc... Roland playing one off against the other?
Was there any hint at all (and I appreciate you might be out of the loop here) of RD questionning where the money came from? By that I mean that, if I sell my car for 5k, I don't care where the money comes from; if it's a husband/wife chipping in with the help of the mother-in-law or whatever, or some bloke who's got 5k lying around. I don't care what happens to the car after it's sold either. In other words, was the Aussie 'bid' sound?
I think a lot of people are looking for clues here as to why the Aussies (or, indeed, the Saudies; or anyone for that matter), would want to punt £40.5M on CAFC.
Muir has pedigree as an entrepreneur, and the last thing I'd expect him to be is a fool or to throw money down the drain, nor to expect other people (i.e. other investors) to. Clearly he's not prepared to stump up the cash himself to be 51% shareholder. If he's not prepared to take that risk, it's not a very good advertisment for the other investers he's trying to attract.
I can only conclude that there's something seriously wrong with the Aussie bid: indeed any bid that values the club at £40M+.
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
None of them are factual? What are you talking about? They are just reply to my oft repeated question 'is the deal off?' which I've been asked repeatedly to put to him by people on here, and on Twitter. None of them have said 'the deal will be completed next week' or whatever. They've all been of the 'we're still in it' variety. Bland, but truthful and harmless, unlike your unecessarily rude post. Plenty of people are happy to read them as well. Sure you're an anti-Aussie cheerleader, I get that, and don't have a problem with it, but no need to be so vitriolic.
Roll your neck in.
The rude and vitriolic postings seem to be coming from you to anybody that dares question the validity of this so called Australian consortium. Even you have to admit, that despite the continuous good news they leak out, mainly via you, it actually appears to be poppycock. They are no nearer purchasing the club than they were a year ago.
Have you actually sat back and asked why that is?
I repeat my question that you chose to ignore in both your responses to my post, do you think GM is just stringing you along?
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
None of them are factual? What are you talking about? They are just reply to my oft repeated question 'is the deal off?' which I've been asked repeatedly to put to him by people on here, and on Twitter. None of them have said 'the deal will be completed next week' or whatever. They've all been of the 'we're still in it' variety. Bland, but truthful and harmless, unlike your unecessarily rude post. Plenty of people are happy to read them as well. Sure you're an anti-Aussie cheerleader, I get that, and don't have a problem with it, but no need to be so vitriolic.
Roll your neck in.
The rude and vitriolic postings seem to be coming from you to anybody that dares question the validity of this so called Australian consortium. Even you have to admit, that despite the continuous good news they leak out, mainly via you, it actually appears to be poppycock. They are no nearer purchasing the club than they were a year ago.
Have you actually sat back and asked why that is?
I repeat my question that you chose to ignore in both your responses to my post, do you think GM is just stringing you along?
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
None of them are factual? What are you talking about? They are just reply to my oft repeated question 'is the deal off?' which I've been asked repeatedly to put to him by people on here, and on Twitter. None of them have said 'the deal will be completed next week' or whatever. They've all been of the 'we're still in it' variety. Bland, but truthful and harmless, unlike your unecessarily rude post. Plenty of people are happy to read them as well. Sure you're an anti-Aussie cheerleader, I get that, and don't have a problem with it, but no need to be so vitriolic.
Roll your neck in.
The rude and vitriolic postings seem to be coming from you to anybody that dares question the validity of this so called Australian consortium. Even you have to admit, that despite the continuous good news they leak out, mainly via you, it actually appears to be poppycock. They are no nearer purchasing the club than they were a year ago.
Have you actually sat back and asked why that is?
I repeat my question that you chose to ignore in both your responses to my post, do you think GM is just stringing you along?
Seeing as you don’t seem to be able to post with out being obnoxious you can, in the words of the great Fanny, ‘Go boil yer ‘ead’.
No rude and vitriolic posting from me at all. After the head thing, do the neck thing. Then try calming down a bit.
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
None of them are factual? What are you talking about? They are just reply to my oft repeated question 'is the deal off?' which I've been asked repeatedly to put to him by people on here, and on Twitter. None of them have said 'the deal will be completed next week' or whatever. They've all been of the 'we're still in it' variety. Bland, but truthful and harmless, unlike your unecessarily rude post. Plenty of people are happy to read them as well. Sure you're an anti-Aussie cheerleader, I get that, and don't have a problem with it, but no need to be so vitriolic.
1) NLA is saying that The Aussies outbid the Saudies in the full knowledge that they were never going to pay that price but lower their offer to one which suited them once they were the only player in town. If true then scandalous imo.
2) James Seed is saying that on 18th May the Aussies had the money, the deal had been agreed with RD, but the final deal had to be signed off by all the members of the consortium. Which, because of the delay, has not happened. Begs the question why ?? Surely anyone getting involved must know the initial cost of buying the club & then the future outlay needed to fund their 5 year plan. Sounds like the original AFC deal......round up enough interest & go from there. Hardly what I would call "serious".
3) The Aussies must have had enough money at some point (18th May ?) to satisfy both RD and the EFL - FPP test passed also sometime after that. I'm assuming "enough money" to RD was £40m & to the EFL it was this plus 2 years funding.
If all of this is correct then as I've said a few times before I wish that Muir et al had never got involved. Not even the way to run a pub team.
Not sure you’ve read my recent posts properly. 2) is wrong. 3) is partly wrong. 1) is probably wrong info. There’s nothing to back it up, as far as I now.
Have a plane to catch now.
1,2 and 3 are not wrong. They are wrong in your opinion. There is a distinction.
No they are wrong actually, because he’s saying I said things that I didn’t say or imply. This applies to 2) and 3) In reference to 1) I said it is ‘probably wrong’. I then said ‘as far as I know’.
All of my info come directly from one of the consortium, so I don’t need to say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. The only issue is whether people think I’ve been lied to, and I certainly not going to write ‘unless they’re lying through their teeth’ every time I write a comment’. Other people’s sources are less direct. No one is getting info from Roland. Lieven’s info we know isn’t necessarily reliable.
Your interventions are very selective. Don’t remember you intervening with NLA when he stated: ‘They have never had the money. Fact.’ Or many other statements presented as fact that are not from a direct source. ‘The Aussies have pulled out. Mic drop.’ ‘The Aussies are charlatans, which is because they’re from convict stock’. ‘They never had the dosh’.
It’s been relentless, but how many interventions from you? Zero.
(Just my opinion mate)
And how many 'soon', 'two weeks', 'very close', 'next week or two', 'be patient, it will be worth it' has your mate spoken to you about?
None of them have been factual. Not one. Five year plan my arse.
It seem GM may actually not be ITK, or he's just stringing you along.
None of them are factual? What are you talking about? They are just reply to my oft repeated question 'is the deal off?' which I've been asked repeatedly to put to him by people on here, and on Twitter. None of them have said 'the deal will be completed next week' or whatever. They've all been of the 'we're still in it' variety. Bland, but truthful and harmless, unlike your unecessarily rude post. Plenty of people are happy to read them as well. Sure you're an anti-Aussie cheerleader, I get that, and don't have a problem with it, but no need to be so vitriolic.
Roll your neck in.
The rude and vitriolic postings seem to be coming from you to anybody that dares question the validity of this so called Australian consortium. Even you have to admit, that despite the continuous good news they leak out, mainly via you, it actually appears to be poppycock. They are no nearer purchasing the club than they were a year ago.
Have you actually sat back and asked why that is?
I repeat my question that you chose to ignore in both your responses to my post, do you think GM is just stringing you along?
Seeing as you don’t seem to be able to post with out being obnoxious you can, in the words of the great Fanny, ‘Go boil yer ‘ead’.
Comments
Who do we not appreciate?
Aussies
WOOOOOOOOOO"
come on Aussies confirm the sale
Oooo we’ve got a corner...
Or is it an auction, of some sort?
Or could it simply be at the whim and a prayer from Douchebag as to what he accepts?
It's been stated that RD won't talk to certain parties (that goes back to the RE enquiry when Daisy was here), or that he has a 'preferred bidder'. I just wonder, given that he doesn't care one iota about the club - and clearly never has done - what interest he would have in the club's immediate/mid-term future (apart from the obvious EFL criteria that a new owner must have the cash to sustain the club for 2 years after takeover)?
Was there any hint at all (and I appreciate you might be out of the loop here) of RD questionning where the money came from? By that I mean that, if I sell my car for 5k, I don't care where the money comes from; if it's a husband/wife chipping in with the help of the mother-in-law or whatever, or some bloke who's got 5k lying around. I don't care what happens to the car after it's sold either. In other words, was the Aussie 'bid' sound?
I think a lot of people are looking for clues here as to why the Aussies (or, indeed, the Saudies; or anyone for that matter), would want to punt £40.5M on CAFC.
Muir has pedigree as an entrepreneur, and the last thing I'd expect him to be is a fool or to throw money down the drain, nor to expect other people (i.e. other investors) to. Clearly he's not prepared to stump up the cash himself to be 51% shareholder. If he's not prepared to take that risk, it's not a very good advertisment for the other investers he's trying to attract.
I can only conclude that there's something seriously wrong with the Aussie bid: indeed any bid that values the club at £40M+.
The rude and vitriolic postings seem to be coming from you to anybody that dares question the validity of this so called Australian consortium. Even you have to admit, that despite the continuous good news they leak out, mainly via you, it actually appears to be poppycock. They are no nearer purchasing the club than they were a year ago.
Have you actually sat back and asked why that is?
I repeat my question that you chose to ignore in both your responses to my post, do you think GM is just stringing you along?
No rude and vitriolic posting from me at all. After the head thing, do the neck thing. Then try calming down a bit.
Lol.