I still stand by what I’ve said all along, the tube is lucky to get about £20m, and that includes the land, the stadium, the squad, the goodwill, the potential for us to one day reach the prem, our souls and the now defunct sofa.
He’s completely messed this up from day one, only belligerence, foolishness and stubbornness prevent him from seeing that.
He can continue to cut costs and run the playing staff into the ground and get the losses down a tad further, but we will be less attractive.
I’m amazed at the level of stupidity he continues to show on this matter. It’s like being told you’ve got a life threatening illness and you pound your body with antibiotics in the hope it prolongs your life whilst you wait for the NHS to come up with a cure.
The sheer lunacy that he will not just accept he’s gonna have to take a hit on this just demonstrates the old adage, more money than sense
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?
Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up
If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled
But the house is costing you 8k a month to run, so do you take the 250k now, or gamble you can sell for 400k in less than the 20 months before you've spent the difference just running the place?
After reading this posts for over a year now (in the vain hope of the club changing ownership)
I have come to the following conclusion
1. The price for a League One club status has been agreed 2. Just waiting for both parties to sign.
The prospective new buyers are unwilling to sign up to the contract conditions attached to the sale of the Club.
Our Belgium owner has probably included that extra substantial money must be paid when:
Should promotion be achieved to the Championship (my guess would be 20 to 30 million pounds) or promotion to the Premier League (again my estimate could be 50 to 80 million)
Other conditions may include a share of transfer fees for current players and from any emerging academy squad players.
The prospective buyers would have to invest many millions to gain these promotions, while our current owner just has to sit back and collect.
Now if I gambled on Charlton Athletic I would expect to keep all or most of the profits and not share them with the previous owner.
Otherwise it is not worth the gamble.
Fanny, I guess you've heard no more following your encouraging post last week?
Sadly, no.
It was purely due to bumping into someone as we walked away after last Sat,s match.
Will keep an eye open at the game tomorrow as he,s likely to be there.
RD has proven time and again what a totally shit owner he is yet I come on here and read people who are laying the blame on the purchasers and then go on the transfer rumours thread and see a handful of people saying Bowyer and Gallen have to take part of the blame.
I know the phrase; ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’ but what is the end of the line ‘full me hundreds of time repeatedly....’
RD has proven time and again what a totally shit owner he is yet I come on here and read people who are laying the blame on the purchasers and then go on the transfer rumours thread and see a handful of people saying Bowyer and Gallen have to take part of the blame.
I know the phrase; ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’ but what is the end of the line ‘full me hundreds of time repeatedly....’
I think people were so desperate for a sale they feel badly let down as it’s dragged on for so long. And in the absence of fact it’s inevitable that some will question the credibility both sides of the sale process.
But if we’re looking for an aternative scapegoat may I point out that the only beneficiary of the delays is CAFC Museum owner Henners.
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?
Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up
If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled
Would it at any point dawn on you that the reason that one buyer had offered substantially more than anyone else was that your house wasn't, in fact, worth that amount?
For example, a year after agreeing the price, if the buyer hadn't completed the purchase, and you had receive no other offers in the same region, would you begin to have the feeling that the house wasn't worth what you're asking for it?
And would you continue to hold out for the higher price? Or would you reconsider offering it at a price at which a deal could be completed?
Because, if it's the latter, you'd sell the house and, at the same time, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it's the seller that sets the price, not the buyer. And that, despite agreeing to sell to one buyer who fails to complete, it's perfectly possible to sell to another.
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?
Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up
If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled
Would it at any point dawn on you that the reason that one buyer had offered substantially more than anyone else was that your house wasn't, in fact, worth that amount?
For example, a year after agreeing the price, if the buyer hadn't completed the purchase, and you had receive no other offers in the same region, would you begin to have the feeling that the house wasn't worth what you're asking for it?
And would you continue to hold out for the higher price? Or would you reconsider offering it at a price at which a deal could be completed?
Because, if it's the latter, you'd sell the house and, at the same time, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it's the seller that sets the price, not the buyer. And that, despite agreeing to sell to one buyer who fails to complete, it's perfectly possible to sell to another.
Not forgetting as time goes on you are selling expensive fixtures and fittings off and replacing them with cheaper versions that aren’t as good and won’t last as long
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?
Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up
If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled
Would it at any point dawn on you that the reason that one buyer had offered substantially more than anyone else was that your house wasn't, in fact, worth that amount?
For example, a year after agreeing the price, if the buyer hadn't completed the purchase, and you had receive no other offers in the same region, would you begin to have the feeling that the house wasn't worth what you're asking for it?
And would you continue to hold out for the higher price? Or would you reconsider offering it at a price at which a deal could be completed?
Because, if it's the latter, you'd sell the house and, at the same time, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it's the seller that sets the price, not the buyer. And that, despite agreeing to sell to one buyer who fails to complete, it's perfectly possible to sell to another.
Not forgetting as time goes on you are selling expensive fixtures and fittings off and replacing them with cheaper versions that aren’t as good and won’t last as long
Agreed, and they last Six months even if they are quality.
Decent report. Think the rumours thread descended to the level of this behemoth on the end, it was initially exciting, with the odd burst of interest but ultimately disappointing.
Who knew there were so many people on Charlton Life with such extensive M&A experience?
It's a real eye opener reading that the only thing in a sale and purchase agreement is the price, and that its always a fixed price with no conditions, etc whatsoever (on either side). And that there's only ever one version of an agreement and once it gets written into black and white it's somehow set in stone.
It's an eye opener because if people can talk such bollocks about this one thing then I can only assume that they are talking bollocks about everything else as well.
Who knew there were so many people on Charlton Life with such extensive M&A experience?
It's a real eye opener reading that the only thing in a sale and purchase agreement is the price, and that its always a fixed price with no conditions, etc whatsoever (on either side). And that there's only ever one version of an agreement and once it gets written into black and white it's somehow set in stone.
It's an eye opener because if people can talk such bollocks about this one thing then I can only assume that they are talking bollocks about everything else as well.
Who knew there were so many people on Charlton Life with such extensive M&A experience?
It's a real eye opener reading that the only thing in a sale and purchase agreement is the price, and that its always a fixed price with no conditions, etc whatsoever (on either side). And that there's only ever one version of an agreement and once it gets written into black and white it's somehow set in stone.
It's an eye opener because if people can talk such bollocks about this one thing then I can only assume that they are talking bollocks about everything else as well.
But don't let me stop you ......
What’s M & A? Shows how much I know lol)
It’s where you got your moon boots and ski jackets from in the 80’s.
Comments
He’s completely messed this up from day one, only belligerence, foolishness and stubbornness prevent him from seeing that.
He can continue to cut costs and run the playing staff into the ground and get the losses down a tad further, but we will be less attractive.
I’m amazed at the level of stupidity he continues to show on this matter. It’s like being told you’ve got a life threatening illness and you pound your body with antibiotics in the hope it prolongs your life whilst you wait for the NHS to come up with a cure.
The sheer lunacy that he will not just accept he’s gonna have to take a hit on this just demonstrates the old adage, more money than sense
It was purely due to bumping into someone as we walked away after last Sat,s match.
Will keep an eye open at the game tomorrow as he,s likely to be there.
I know the phrase; ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’ but what is the end of the line ‘full me hundreds of time repeatedly....’
But if we’re looking for an aternative scapegoat may I point out that the only beneficiary of the delays is CAFC Museum owner Henners.
For example, a year after agreeing the price, if the buyer hadn't completed the purchase, and you had receive no other offers in the same region, would you begin to have the feeling that the house wasn't worth what you're asking for it?
And would you continue to hold out for the higher price? Or would you reconsider offering it at a price at which a deal could be completed?
Because, if it's the latter, you'd sell the house and, at the same time, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it's the seller that sets the price, not the buyer. And that, despite agreeing to sell to one buyer who fails to complete, it's perfectly possible to sell to another.
Six month contracts or no contracts
Roland Duchatelet's Modus Operandi 2014
5 year contracts or no contracts.
Roland Duchatelet's sale of Charlton,
On the never, never.
Roland Duchatelet's achievements at Cafc,
It's a real eye opener reading that the only thing in a sale and purchase agreement is the price, and that its always a fixed price with no conditions, etc whatsoever (on either side). And that there's only ever one version of an agreement and once it gets written into black and white it's somehow set in stone.
It's an eye opener because if people can talk such bollocks about this one thing then I can only assume that they are talking bollocks about everything else as well.
But don't let me stop you ......