If the Aussies are serious why don't they come out with a statement?
Their skulking about in the shadows, lack of transparency and shitty little website fill me with me no confidence at all.
'Skulking about in the shadows'? What are you talking about? They're trying to buy the club and not managing to do it. Do you want them to announce that every day?
If the Aussies are serious why don't they come out with a statement?
Their skulking about in the shadows, lack of transparency and shitty little website fill me with me no confidence at all.
'Skulking about in the shadows'? What are you talking about? They're trying to buy the club and not managing to do it. Do you want them to announce that every day?
Not at all. Bit for every bullshit statement the club spouts about negotiations I'd like some balance
He sees it differently @PragueAddick which is fair enough, he may well be ‘wrong’, but many people are hitting a laugh button on his serious contributions and I find that pathetic imo and not encouraging for what should be an open environment. Just my view
If the Aussies are serious why don't they come out with a statement?
Their skulking about in the shadows, lack of transparency and shitty little website fill me with me no confidence at all.
'Skulking about in the shadows'? What are you talking about? They're trying to buy the club and not managing to do it. Do you want them to announce that every day?
Not at all. Bit for every bullshit statement the club spouts about negotiations I'd like some balance
If the Aussies are serious why don't they come out with a statement?
Their skulking about in the shadows, lack of transparency and shitty little website fill me with me no confidence at all.
'Skulking about in the shadows'? What are you talking about? They're trying to buy the club and not managing to do it. Do you want them to announce that every day?
Not at all. Bit for every bullshit statement the club spouts about negotiations I'd like some balance
I did a summary on Monday which included the latest from the Aussies but he's refused to put it on the bitesize thread (or just hasn't had time).
Apologies, not been at a pc I can use for the last couple of days so restricted to phone use. Have a backlog of things to do today when hopefully I can get to library at lunch.
Thanks again for doing those @Henry Irving , they really are appreciated and I’m sure not now, but in years to come they will be a fantastic helpful bite size recollection of this saga
He sees it differently @PragueAddick which is fair enough, he may well be ‘wrong’, but many people are hitting a laugh button on his serious contributions and I find that pathetic imo and not encouraging for what should be an open environment. Just my view
An open environment - not if someone doesn't like the thread - then he just shuts it down or sinks it with nary a thought to the thread's contributors...........
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
Presumably, the substantive issue is the Aussies are unwilling or unable to pay the asking price, even though they put out a joint statement saying that the price has been agreed ?
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
Presumably, the substantive issue is the Aussies are unwilling or unable to pay the asking price, even though they put out a joint statement saying that the price has been agreed ?
I believe so.
The following is purely speculative on my part, but suppose Murphy has agreed the price but would-be members of his consortium are unwilling to pay it. Doesn’t that allow the club to say the price has been agreed without it being deliverable?
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
A good analogy.
If the Aussies have agreed the price and assuming all funds/investors are in place (?!), I cannot conceive this many weeks would have passed without the requisite paperwork having been submitted to the EFL. Notwithstanding the usual comments on here regarding NDAs, if nothing else it would be good if the exact position could be flushed out at the meeting with the club and shared with fans.
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
Presumably, the substantive issue is the Aussies are unwilling or unable to pay the asking price, even though they put out a joint statement saying that the price has been agreed ?
For the club to keep officially repeating that the hold up is due to the Aussies needing to submit some type of paperwork to the EFL then I would have thought that there must be at least some element of truth in that. Otherwise when the October meeting with the EFL takes place if the EFL deny that then any credibility the club has would be completely undermined; also if the 'paperwork' story were completely untrue then you would expect that the Aussies would feel free to break any NDA they may be under to deny it.
As regards the 'asking price' (or probably more exactly the agreed sale price) it may have been 'agreed' but negotiations may be ongoing on what is included in that 'agreed sale' price; i.e. that title comes without the ex-directors' loans, or even some 'darker' issues over title left over from the 'spivs' era?
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
I'm sure there is mileage in this one for driving puns
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
I'm sure there is mileage in this one for driving puns
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
I'm sure there is mileage in this one for driving puns
This takeover has been driving us all round the bend
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
Presumably, the substantive issue is the Aussies are unwilling or unable to pay the asking price, even though they put out a joint statement saying that the price has been agreed ?
For the club to keep officially repeating that the hold up is due to the Aussies needing to submit some type of paperwork to the EFL then I would have thought that there must be at least some element of truth in that. Otherwise when the October meeting with the EFL takes place if the EFL deny that then any credibility the club has would be completely undermined; also if the 'paperwork' story were completely untrue then you would expect that the Aussies would feel free to break any NDA they may be under to deny it.
As regards the 'asking price' (or probably more exactly the agreed sale price) it may have been 'agreed' but negotiations may be ongoing on what is included in that 'agreed sale' price; i.e. that title comes without the ex-directors' loans, or even some 'darker' issues over title left over from the 'spivs' era?
For the club to be repeating anything proves nothing whatsoever. The Belgian regime has a proven and extensive record of half truths and outright lies and an utter refusal to accept any culpability.
From the Aussies’ pov, where’s the rush until Christmas? Why take on RD’s monthly losses with no power to change anything?
On that basis you'd never buy a football club
There's plenty to do with the club. Planning for the next transfer window, rebuilding the staff morale and numbers, restarting the training ground project, filling in the potholes etc
Never believed the £40M figure, still stunned if the Aussies or anyone would pay £25M for us. Personally reckon we are worth nowt with those huge continued losses to underwrite until and if ever we make the PL. RD should be snapping their arm off to simply take the club from him and put an end to his losses.
I can't remember who said it (LDV ?) but the fact we are losing £1m pm is what is putting off most investors. Losses of that size can't be sustained unless you have a Lookman or a few Gomez's to sell every year.
I fear its going to get worse before it gets any better.
Does that include the £1.8M a year we are paying Roland in interest?
From the Aussies’ pov, where’s the rush until Christmas? Why take on RD’s monthly losses with no power to change anything?
But there is plenty that could and should be done asap. Install a CEO Install a CFO. Sort out new contracts with a host of players whose contract is coming to an end. I am sure there is a load more things need sorting out as well if I'm honest.
who's gonna blink first, the Aussies and up their offer or RD with the reported £1m @ month losses....how long until RD finally caves and accepts a lower offer.
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
Good explanation but I’m still struggling to grasp it fully. Do you have a house analogy instead?
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
I'm sure there is mileage in this one for driving puns
The club’s explanation can be likened to the following. My daughter can’t drive because she hasn’t got a driving licence, and the government says she hasn’t applied to take the test. But the reason she hasn’t applied is that she hasn’t learned to drive.
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
Presumably, the substantive issue is the Aussies are unwilling or unable to pay the asking price, even though they put out a joint statement saying that the price has been agreed ?
For the club to keep officially repeating that the hold up is due to the Aussies needing to submit some type of paperwork to the EFL then I would have thought that there must be at least some element of truth in that. Otherwise when the October meeting with the EFL takes place if the EFL deny that then any credibility the club has would be completely undermined; also if the 'paperwork' story were completely untrue then you would expect that the Aussies would feel free to break any NDA they may be under to deny it.
As regards the 'asking price' (or probably more exactly the agreed sale price) it may have been 'agreed' but negotiations may be ongoing on what is included in that 'agreed sale' price; i.e. that title comes without the ex-directors' loans, or even some 'darker' issues over title left over from the 'spivs' era?
It's possible that whatever the agreed price was, it included such assets as the contracts of Lookman, Konsa etc. Whatever that value was, and those contracts would have had a specific value as part of the club's valuation, they are now no longer part of the assets being acquired, thus whatever the original agreed value, it would have fallen after those asset sales anyway.
Comments
I did a summary on Monday which included the latest from the Aussies but he's refused to put it on the bitesize thread (or just hasn't had time).
Thanks again for doing those @Henry Irving , they really are appreciated and I’m sure not now, but in years to come they will be a fantastic helpful bite size recollection of this saga
So the claim that she hasn’t applied for a full licence is true but also disingenuous, because she is not in a position to apply. The paperwork is not the issue, and this, I think, is what has riled the EFL about the club’s explanation. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the substantive issue.
The following is purely speculative on my part, but suppose Murphy has agreed the price but would-be members of his consortium are unwilling to pay it. Doesn’t that allow the club to say the price has been agreed without it being deliverable?
If the Aussies have agreed the price and assuming all funds/investors are in place (?!), I cannot conceive this many weeks would have passed without the requisite paperwork having been submitted to the EFL. Notwithstanding the usual comments on here regarding NDAs, if nothing else it would be good if the exact position could be flushed out at the meeting with the club and shared with fans.
As regards the 'asking price' (or probably more exactly the agreed sale price) it may have been 'agreed' but negotiations may be ongoing on what is included in that 'agreed sale' price; i.e. that title comes without the ex-directors' loans, or even some 'darker' issues over title left over from the 'spivs' era?
We are stuck with this bum nugget forever.
There's plenty to do with the club. Planning for the next transfer window, rebuilding the staff morale and numbers, restarting the training ground project, filling in the potholes etc
Install a CEO
Install a CFO.
Sort out new contracts with a host of players whose contract is coming to an end.
I am sure there is a load more things need sorting out as well if I'm honest.
(unless someone else enters the bidding)
Now how much were the ex Directors loans that all the fuss was being made over?
PoeticProvisional licence