Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1150315041506150815092264

Comments

  • edited January 2019
    micks1950 said:

    cafc-west said:

    kafka said:
    Oh dear. Would guess that its highly likely to be the same consortium (IMO). What happens next if it is is really depressing...
    Possibly, but the article describes them as "three unnamed businessmen",

    But from what has been said by a number of sources about 'our' Aussies - that the structure of their consortium is 'complicated' (including that it's now 'Aussies plus others') - strongly suggests that there are somewhat more than 'three businessmen' involved?

    However, it's possible that these three Notts County Aussies are people previously involved with the CAFC Aussie 'consortium'?
    quite possibly and they would be paying a lot less so don't need so many in their consortium I'd guess

  • Ferryman said:

    votv online is down. Airman?

    Perhaps ready for an article on our new loan signing?

  • So if I understand this correctly, Roland Duchatelet is waiting for us to get promotion to get the highest figure mentioned (won't happen)

    The consortium are waiting for Cafc to drop into League 2 where they can get us for 18 million and where the top wage is £1500 a week and yet the crowd will be 12 to 13k because of the rising of the phoenix from the ashes senario and where the 5 year plan is to reach the Championship.
    (Won't happen)

    Impassé.
  • Not seen anything to suggest it's our mob???
  • Not seen anything to suggest it's our mob???

    Not seen anything to suggest we have a mob. Our Aussies are like Dodo's.
  • Not seen anything to suggest it's our mob???

    Not seen anything to suggest we have a mob. Our Aussies are like Dodo's.
    Ha ha true
  • Oggy Red said:

    Ferryman said:

    votv online is down. Airman?

    Perhaps ready for an article on our new loan signing?

    Russians.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Not seen anything to suggest it's our mob???

    Not seen anything to suggest we have a mob. Our Aussies are like Dodo's.
    Dildos?
  • Fumbluff said:

    Not seen anything to suggest it's our mob???

    Not seen anything to suggest we have a mob. Our Aussies are like Dodo's.
    Dildos?
    They have certainly done a good job of f****** us!
  • Ferryman said:

    votv online is down. Airman?

    Had a look but it’s working OK here.
  • Not seen anything to suggest it's our mob???

    Not seen anything to suggest we have a mob. Our Aussies are like Dodo's.
    Didgerydo-dos?
  • Ferryman said:

    votv online is down. Airman?

    Had a look but it’s working OK here.
    Thanks. I've got it again.
  • I see our ex owner Jimenez has been ordered to produce records to HMRC.
  • Redrobo said:

    I see our ex owner Jimenez has been ordered to produce records to HMRC.

    That will be interesting
  • Redrobo said:

    I see our ex owner Jimenez has been ordered to produce records to HMRC.

    That will be interesting
    Well he has paid a lawyer a hefty sum to try and avoid doing so, but I am sure he is just making a point and has nothing to hide.
  • Redrobo said:

    Redrobo said:

    I see our ex owner Jimenez has been ordered to produce records to HMRC.

    That will be interesting
    Well he has paid a lawyer a hefty sum to try and avoid doing so, but I am sure he is just making a point and has nothing to hide.
    Not as if he has any track record of dishonesty.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Chizz said:

    So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

    In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

    Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

    If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

    If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
  • _MrDick said:

    Sitting on a beach in Goa is the best way to take all the crap going on.
    Waiter......a large Campari and Lemonade please, just put it on the bill....”I fank yew.”

    Unmasked ... @SoundAsa£ is really Lorraine Chase .... Campari and Lemonade .... WTF is that all about
    Sitting here with the cooling sea breeze and a C&L with a slice of orange.....thinking of you all!
    Luv.....SoundAs.
  • _MrDick said:

    Sitting on a beach in Goa is the best way to take all the crap going on.
    Waiter......a large Campari and Lemonade please, just put it on the bill....”I fank yew.”

    Unmasked ... @SoundAsa£ is really Lorraine Chase .... Campari and Lemonade .... WTF is that all about
    Sitting here with the cooling sea breeze and a C&L with a slice of orange.....thinking of you all!
    Luv.....SoundAs.
    You are obviously bored and can’t wait returning to Blighty :wink:
  • Chizz said:

    So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

    In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

    Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

    If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

    If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
    So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
  • _MrDick said:

    Sitting on a beach in Goa is the best way to take all the crap going on.
    Waiter......a large Campari and Lemonade please, just put it on the bill....”I fank yew.”

    Unmasked ... @SoundAsa£ is really Lorraine Chase .... Campari and Lemonade .... WTF is that all about
    Yeah! Lemonade in Campari ffs sacrilegious tasteless buffoon The democratisation of fine quality comestibles is not a good thing. Ability to purchase is not the same as suitable.
    As if a clueless crackpot would buy a football club cos he has the cash but not the first fuckin idea or interest in how to run it 🙀😡🍷
  • Chizz said:

    Chizz said:

    So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

    In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

    Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

    If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

    If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
    So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
    I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.

    Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
  • edited February 2019
    CatAddick said:

    Chizz said:

    Chizz said:

    So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

    In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

    Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

    If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

    If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
    So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
    I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.

    Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
    Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.

    Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’.
    They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’.
    You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
  • JamesSeed said:

    CatAddick said:

    Chizz said:

    Chizz said:

    So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

    In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

    Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

    If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

    If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
    So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
    I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.

    Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
    A lot of people are saying that, but we don’t know for a fact that it’s true.

    But imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’.
    They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’.
    You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
    I think we are agreeing - I believe Roland has only listened to the bolded part and is sticking to the memory that someone agreed the price, so eventually they will pay
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!