When a takeover thread reaches the arse numbingly predictable slanging match of one of those terminally boring CL political threads, it is time to bail out. Ta ta.
Well, reading through all the thread, I am going to remain hopeful and optimistic that RD is going to sell up soon. I know there are some unpredictable variables in the mix, in terms of personality, and motives, but I am going to stay positive This mood of optimism is subject to change without notice, but that’s where it is this fine Sunday morning...
When a takeover thread reaches the arse numbingly predictable slanging match of one of those terminally boring CL political threads, it is time to bail out. Ta ta.
You’re still here though bud. In fact you’re reading these words right now.
I want someone to tell me I’m wrong but I have heard whispering that the group seeking control of the club don’t have the financial muscle needed even at this point which if true doesn’t bode well if they should complete the takeover. The prospect of the football club and the The Valley being split a very real prospect.
When a takeover thread reaches the arse numbingly predictable slanging match of one of those terminally boring CL political threads, it is time to bail out. Ta ta.
You’re still here though bud. In fact you’re reading these words right now.
Like a dog with its vomit @soapy_jones will be back. Few of us can resist this bloody thread...
I want someone to tell me I’m wrong but I have heard whispering that the group seeking control of the club don’t have the financial muscle needed even at this point which if true doesn’t bode well if they should complete the takeover. The prospect of the football club and the The Valley being split a very real prospect.
This always has to be a real possibility because football clubs make such massive loses these days that it takes a significantly wealthy individual or group to be able to manage the running costs for long. This doesn’t even factor in the kind of investment that we would need to be able to, even, avoid relegation in the Championship, never mind finish in the top six.
I doubt that the current squad would stand much chance of avoiding relegation from the Championship (if it can even get there) without a big slice of luck or a significant investment in the squad.
Even if RD is willing to, literally, give the club away and waive his debts (which seems very unlikely) the new owners are probably going to need a minimum of £5m to pay the players wages and other running costs to the end of the season and quite possibly another £10m to pay for next season, irrespective as to which division we are in.
The potential buyers probably need in excess of £50m to just buy the club and get to the end of this season. That’s not just rich, that’s super rich.
Having said that I think the club would be better off with owners that have limited funds but unlimited ambitions and much more idea how to run a football club that RD and KM and their lackies.
It just means that the chase is on. Can the new owners get promoted to the Premier League before they run out of money?
I want someone to tell me I’m wrong but I have heard whispering that the group seeking control of the club don’t have the financial muscle needed even at this point which if true doesn’t bode well if they should complete the takeover. The prospect of the football club and the The Valley being split a very real prospect.
No one on here can confirm or deny that as we don't know for sure who the party or parties are.
What you might be hearing is that when this thread started there was an Australian consortium who were seeking funds.
This was interpreted as them not having enough funds which may or may not have been true.
That doesn't mean the current party or parties don't have funds because:
1. We don't know if it is the same Aussie consortium
2. Even if it is them may now have raised the funds
3. Duchatelet is likely to have asked for proof of funds before allowing due diligence to begin.
4. Some of the people saying they don't have funds are also saying it's all lies so they are rather confused anyway.
I want someone to tell me I’m wrong but I have heard whispering that the group seeking control of the club don’t have the financial muscle needed even at this point which if true doesn’t bode well if they should complete the takeover. The prospect of the football club and the The Valley being split a very real prospect.
It’s the same kinda crap that the anti-protest fans keep using to put people off wanting a new regime! The story that suggested that they didn’t have enough money originated when the first Aussie group rumours came out - and that was only becasue the article said that they were still raising capital!
Airman and others who have suggested something is ongoing either don’t know the groups and their finance or they can’t say - wouldn’t think anyone other than those or the ones involved in the deal know about the ins and outs anyway!
If there is a deal that takes over the club then there must be a decent leve of finance surely
And don’t forget the new owners will have factored in at least a 20k home gate for every match with all the protesters returning to the fold. That will pay for the additional players plus Charlton Life returning with shirt sponsorship!
I am confident that that is old and out of date news @ShootersHillGuru and not relevant to the current ongoing movements with regards to RDs sale of our club
One thing that is certain to me is that both Charlton Athletic and the ground are sold together as one unit and do not fall into the hands of two owners. We have had that before and all the trouble that goes with it leads us nowhere but too carnage.
I can't believe any serious investor would be stupid enough to buy the football club without the stadium and training ground. All they would be getting for their money would be a collection of player contracts, transient amortized assets that are one bad tackle away from being worthless.
For me, the worry is just how determined Roland is to get back all the money he has loaned to Charlton, that Daisy has basically set fire to in a bonfire of her own stupidity. If he won't write off the club's debt to Staprix he could come up with all sorts of financial wheezes to maintain an interest the club until he is satisfied he's had his money's worth. We could be stuck with him and possibly even his heirs and descendants for many years to come.
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
I can't believe any serious investor would be stupid enough to buy the football club without the stadium and training ground. All they would be getting for their money would be a collection of player contracts, transient amortized assets that are one bad tackle away from being worthless.
I can't believe any serious investor would be stupid enough to buy the football club without the stadium and training ground. All they would be getting for their money would be a collection of player contracts, transient amortized assets that are one bad tackle away from being worthless.
Otherwise known as West Ham.
They get a big fat state subsidised stadium but it will be interesting to see what happens when David Moyes gets them relegated. Mark Goldberg proved that despite being smart enough to get rich he was dumb enough to buy Palace without the stadium and got destroyed in the process.
I can't believe any serious investor would be stupid enough to buy the football club without the stadium and training ground. All they would be getting for their money would be a collection of player contracts, transient amortized assets that are one bad tackle away from being worthless.
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
you can't have it both ways though - if only joyes and meire are in the loop, how is it known that murray wants to be involved in something he is not in the loop on?
Of course Murray knows what is going on. Where has it been suggested he doesn't? I believe it was suggested Meire and Joyes were the only other club employees involved in the discussions, Murray isn't an employee.
If people with vague contacts in and around CAFC know a bit about what's going on, you can be certain that Murray knows a fair lot more.
Of course Murray knows what is going on. Where has it been suggested he doesn't? I believe it was suggested Meire and Joyes were the only other club employees involved in the discussions, Murray isn't an employee.
If people with vague contacts in and around CAFC know a bit about what's going on, you can be certain that Murray knows a fair lot more.
i reckon he does, whether he's 'at the club' or not.....
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
you can't have it both ways though - if only joyes and meire are in the loop, how is it known that murray wants to be involved in something he is not in the loop on?
I read that as “in the loop” means knowing the ins and outs of any deal - and what it would include ...
Murray could well only know that a deal is being Negotiated and nothing else
Additionally, there doesn’t have to be a takeover being negotiated for Murray to know he would like to be involved in a ‘post Duchâtelet’ ownership
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
you can't have it both ways though - if only joyes and meire are in the loop, how is it known that murray wants to be involved in something he is not in the loop on?
I read that as “in the loop” means knowing the ins and outs of any deal - and what it would include ...
Murray could well only know that a deal is being Negotiated and nothing else
Additionally, there doesn’t have to be a takeover being negotiated for Murray to know he would like to be involved in a ‘post Duchâtelet’ ownership
u dont need to know the ins and outs of something that isn't happening to know its not happening....
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
you can't have it both ways though - if only joyes and meire are in the loop, how is it known that murray wants to be involved in something he is not in the loop on?
I read that as “in the loop” means knowing the ins and outs of any deal - and what it would include ...
Murray could well only know that a deal is being Negotiated and nothing else
Additionally, there doesn’t have to be a takeover being negotiated for Murray to know he would like to be involved in a ‘post Duchâtelet’ ownership
u dont need to know the ins and outs of something that isn't happening to know its not happening....
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
you can't have it both ways though - if only joyes and meire are in the loop, how is it known that murray wants to be involved in something he is not in the loop on?
I read that as “in the loop” means knowing the ins and outs of any deal - and what it would include ...
Murray could well only know that a deal is being Negotiated and nothing else
Additionally, there doesn’t have to be a takeover being negotiated for Murray to know he would like to be involved in a ‘post Duchâtelet’ ownership
u dont need to know the ins and outs of something that isn't happening to know its not happening....
There's nothing quite like successfully creating a triple negative !
Perhaps your time might be more profitably spent considering the possibility that your source, or their source, may not be being entirely truthful. At least while you are pondering it will stop you and those reading this thread from going in ever decreasing circles. ;-)
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
you can't have it both ways though - if only joyes and meire are in the loop, how is it known that murray wants to be involved in something he is not in the loop on?
I read that as “in the loop” means knowing the ins and outs of any deal - and what it would include ...
Murray could well only know that a deal is being Negotiated and nothing else
Additionally, there doesn’t have to be a takeover being negotiated for Murray to know he would like to be involved in a ‘post Duchâtelet’ ownership
u dont need to know the ins and outs of something that isn't happening to know its not happening....
There's nothing quite like successfully creating a triple negative !
Perhaps your time might be more profitably spent considering the possibility that your source, or their source, may not be being entirely truthful. At least while you are pondering it will stop you and those reading this thread from going in ever decreasing circles. ;-)
The only two people I would be certain are in the loop at the club are Meire and Joyes -
Not Murray?
Or the other ex directors?
Thought the article said Murray wanted to get involved?
Not digging anybody out here of course but that is a very good point, probably the best one made on this whole thread
If Murray wants to deny the story there's nothing preventing him doing so publicly. He doesn't need to use proxies. He could ring Richard Cawley tomorrow morning and put his name to a statement to that effect. I know RC would be happy to run it, as long as it had Murray's name attached.
you can't have it both ways though - if only joyes and meire are in the loop, how is it known that murray wants to be involved in something he is not in the loop on?
Comments
This mood of optimism is subject to change without notice, but that’s where it is this fine Sunday morning...
I doubt that the current squad would stand much chance of avoiding relegation from the Championship (if it can even get there) without a big slice of luck or a significant investment in the squad.
Even if RD is willing to, literally, give the club away and waive his debts (which seems very unlikely) the new owners are probably going to need a minimum of £5m to pay the players wages and other running costs to the end of the season and quite possibly another £10m to pay for next season, irrespective as to which division we are in.
The potential buyers probably need in excess of £50m to just buy the club and get to the end of this season. That’s not just rich, that’s super rich.
Having said that I think the club would be better off with owners that have limited funds but unlimited ambitions and much more idea how to run a football club that RD and KM and their lackies.
It just means that the chase is on. Can the new owners get promoted to the Premier League before they run out of money?
Time will tell.
What you might be hearing is that when this thread started there was an Australian consortium who were seeking funds.
This was interpreted as them not having enough funds which may or may not have been true.
That doesn't mean the current party or parties don't have funds because:
1. We don't know if it is the same Aussie consortium
2. Even if it is them may now have raised the funds
3. Duchatelet is likely to have asked for proof of funds before allowing due diligence to begin.
4. Some of the people saying they don't have funds are also saying it's all lies so they are rather confused anyway.
We don't know, we may never know. WIOTOS.
The story that suggested that they didn’t have enough money originated when the first Aussie group rumours came out - and that was only becasue the article said that they were still raising capital!
Airman and others who have suggested something is ongoing either don’t know the groups and their finance or they can’t say - wouldn’t think anyone other than those or the ones involved in the deal know about the ins and outs anyway!
If there is a deal that takes over the club then there must be a decent leve of finance surely
Onwards and upperwards
For me, the worry is just how determined Roland is to get back all the money he has loaned to Charlton, that Daisy has basically set fire to in a bonfire of her own stupidity. If he won't write off the club's debt to Staprix he could come up with all sorts of financial wheezes to maintain an interest the club until he is satisfied he's had his money's worth. We could be stuck with him and possibly even his heirs and descendants for many years to come.
If people with vague contacts in and around CAFC know a bit about what's going on, you can be certain that Murray knows a fair lot more.
Murray could well only know that a deal is being Negotiated and nothing else
Additionally, there doesn’t have to be a takeover being negotiated for Murray to know he would like to be involved in a ‘post Duchâtelet’ ownership
Perhaps your time might be more profitably spent considering the possibility that your source, or their source, may not be being entirely truthful. At least while you are pondering it will stop you and those reading this thread from going in ever decreasing circles. ;-)