"It’s either got to get to the point where he has to give up, because he’s getting too much (abuse), or he’ll carry on. I’m a businessman, and I don’t get it. I think his stubbornness will override everything.”
So...........abuse it will have to be then.
Are you referring to Duchatalet......because David was?
Muir can offer it to other groups as a way of speeding the process and getting membership of new groupings.
And he can share the cost with those newer bidders.
DD not worth much to a subsequent party. 2nd party wouldn’t necessarily be asking all the same questions but more importantly there’s no chance the report writer would be liable to 2nd party for errors omissions or worse. Report worth 0 if writer can’t be sued.
Going back a bit, I wasn’t originally talking about selling on the whole DD as such. But GM’s group spent a lot of money sorting out legal matters from the past (to do with who actually owned the club I believe), issues which arose during the Jiminez court case.
No one else is likely to want to spend the same sorts of money again, not to mention spend the same amount of time on it, but would they require the information GM’s lawyers gleaned, in order to progress their own bids? You would think so, knowing what lawyers are like, (assuming bidders wanted to complete proper DD, unlike Roland).
I have no idea how that would work in practice. Is that info now in the public domain somehow? Or was it shared with Roland’s lawyers, so they can now answer all the questions pertaining to historical ownership complications without anyone paying anything?
Or is Stig T right that the info would be useless (and valueless) without the lawyers’ liability issue being resolved?
But at the end of the day, if new bidders were happy that the ownership legal issues were conclusively resolved (if that really was what the Aussies spent all this money on), couldn’t they just say fine, we’re not worried about that issue, and move the purchase process forward, possibly against the advice of their lawyers?
If you were committing to spending nearly 100m over the next 10 years or so, would you trust someone else's lawyers?
Personally no, but football club owners are a weird bunch, as we know ;-)
Who knows.....an easy thing to say about him.....or anyone who you don’t particularly like come to that. It’s a kind of throw away catch all put down that one can’t really prove one way or the other. Met him many times (mostly at Bromley Addicks) and I never had the impression that he loves himself. Sure, he’s a confident smooth operator, with an assertive character, as I’m sure many who have met him would agree......but to describe him as someone who loves himself is not something I would say about him. I’m sure he’s sick as a pig at what’s happening at the club and hates it all to the back teeth......especially as some of it is of his own making. I’d say it’s become a love hate scenario from which he can’t (at present anyway), extricate himself in such a way as to find peace of mind. Some people say why doesn’t he just walk away.....well I can think of 3.5 million reasons why he doesn’t.......indeed, would you?
It is an easy thing to say but it is not without some evidence. When we were doing well, he came across as being quite smug about it. Not that I or anybody else had a problem with that at the time (maybe Simon Jordan did). I have sensed a knowing dismissal of serious points the fans have made - including what he was heard saying knowingly to Meire at the surreal powerpoint presentation event. There seems to be some reason to have that suspicion.
As for the 3.5m reasons, they are looking increasingly unobtainable the longer the Belgian idiot owns our great club. It would suggest his pride his larger than his common sense.
Who knows.....an easy thing to say about him.....or anyone who you don’t particularly like come to that. It’s a kind of throw away catch all put down that one can’t really prove one way or the other. Met him many times (mostly at Bromley Addicks) and I never had the impression that he loves himself. Sure, he’s a confident smooth operator, with an assertive character, as I’m sure many who have met him would agree......but to describe him as someone who loves himself is not something I would say about him. I’m sure he’s sick as a pig at what’s happening at the club and hates it all to the back teeth......especially as some of it is of his own making. I’d say it’s become a love hate scenario from which he can’t (at present anyway), extricate himself in such a way as to find peace of mind. Some people say why doesn’t he just walk away.....well I can think of 3.5 million reasons why he doesn’t.......indeed, would you?
It is an easy thing to say but it is not without some evidence. When we were doing well, he came across as being quite smug about it. Not that I or anybody else had a problem with that at the time (maybe Simon Jordan did). I have sensed a knowing dismissal of serious points the fans have made - including what he was heard saying knowingly to Meire at the surreal powerpoint presentation event. There seems to be some reason to have that suspicion.
As for the 3.5m reasons, they are looking increasingly unobtainable the longer the Belgian idiot owns our great club. It would suggest his pride his larger than his common sense.
Yes, we’ll put......I’d say it was pride rather than liking himself. A subtle but very real difference.
Murray’s loan is £2.6m, not £3.5m. None of the others - owed £4.4m collectively and in three cases £1m or more - has felt the need to behave like Murray and it is not the case that most of them would look to him for protection.
Murray’s loan is £2.6m, not £3.5m. None of the others - owed £4.4m collectively and in three cases £1m or more - has felt the need to behave like Murray and it is not the case that most of them would look to him for protection.
Really......I and I believe most others have always thought it was £3.5!
Who knows.....an easy thing to say about him.....or anyone who you don’t particularly like come to that. It’s a kind of throw away catch all put down that one can’t really prove one way or the other. Met him many times (mostly at Bromley Addicks) and I never had the impression that he loves himself. Sure, he’s a confident smooth operator, with an assertive character, as I’m sure many who have met him would agree......but to describe him as someone who loves himself is not something I would say about him. I’m sure he’s sick as a pig at what’s happening at the club and hates it all to the back teeth......especially as some of it is of his own making. I’d say it’s become a love hate scenario from which he can’t (at present anyway), extricate himself in such a way as to find peace of mind. Some people say why doesn’t he just walk away.....well I can think of 3.5 million reasons why he doesn’t.......indeed, would you?
It is an easy thing to say but it is not without some evidence. When we were doing well, he came across as being quite smug about it. Not that I or anybody else had a problem with that at the time (maybe Simon Jordan did). I have sensed a knowing dismissal of serious points the fans have made - including what he was heard saying knowingly to Meire at the surreal powerpoint presentation event. There seems to be some reason to have that suspicion.
As for the 3.5m reasons, they are looking increasingly unobtainable the longer the Belgian idiot owns our great club. It would suggest his pride his larger than his common sense.
Yes, we’ll put......I’d say it was pride rather than liking himself. A subtle but very real difference.
Well it is something - what exactly it is we don't know. All I know is that it is pretty obvious that Duchatelet is damaging and needs to go. Murray isn't stupid, so ought to stand up and say it. It would mean something from a perceived ally of Roland.
My understanding is that Murray gets his dough regardless of who owns the club.
As a result I can see no reason why he has sided with the ownership, short of his own personal gain. He knows that this lot have ripped apart all the fantastic work done over the years.
It's like a drug to him, he just has to have a seat at the top table and can't give it up. No doubt he harbours hopes of a return to past former glories which he presided over.
The latter would of course repay his £2.5m loan although a new owner(s0 could choose to do this anyway. Don't be surprised if he chose to defer repayment for a continued involvement on the board however.
Murray’s loan is £2.6m, not £3.5m. None of the others - owed £4.4m collectively and in three cases £1m or more - has felt the need to behave like Murray and it is not the case that most of them would look to him for protection.
Really......I and I believe most others have always thought it was £3.5!
2.6 or 3.5 is irrelevant, can you please explain how walking away would alter this debt in anyway?
My understanding is that Murray gets his dough regardless of who owns the club.
As a result I can see no reason he has sided with the ownership, short of own personal gain. He knows that this lot have ripped apart all the fantastic work done over the years.
Murray’s loan is £2.6m, not £3.5m. None of the others - owed £4.4m collectively and in three cases £1m or more - has felt the need to behave like Murray and it is not the case that most of them would look to him for protection.
Really......I and I believe most others have always thought it was £3.5!
People often say he is owed £7m, so I suppose that is progress!
Murray was owed more more following the 2010 takeover under separate arrangements. That was no longer the case after the 2014 takeover.
It's like a drug to him, he just has to have a seat at the top table and can't give it up. No doubt he harbours hopes of a return to past former glories which he presided over.
The latter would of course repay his £2.5m loan although a new owners could choose to do this anyway. Dont be surprised if he chose to defer repayment for a continued involvement on the board however.
Muir can offer it to other groups as a way of speeding the process and getting membership of new groupings.
And he can share the cost with those newer bidders.
DD not worth much to a subsequent party. 2nd party wouldn’t necessarily be asking all the same questions but more importantly there’s no chance the report writer would be liable to 2nd party for errors omissions or worse. Report worth 0 if writer can’t be sued.
Going back a bit, I wasn’t originally talking about selling on the whole DD as such. But GM’s group spent a lot of money sorting out legal matters from the past (to do with who actually owned the club I believe), issues which arose during the Jiminez court case.
No one else is likely to want to spend the same sorts of money again, not to mention spend the same amount of time on it, but would they require the information GM’s lawyers gleaned, in order to progress their own bids? You would think so, knowing what lawyers are like, (assuming bidders wanted to complete proper DD, unlike Roland).
I have no idea how that would work in practice. Is that info now in the public domain somehow? Or was it shared with Roland’s lawyers, so they can now answer all the questions pertaining to historical ownership complications without anyone paying anything?
Or is Stig T right that the info would be useless (and valueless) without the lawyers’ liability issue being resolved?
But at the end of the day, if new bidders were happy that the ownership legal issues were conclusively resolved (if that really was what the Aussies spent all this money on), couldn’t they just say fine, we’re not worried about that issue, and move the purchase process forward, possibly against the advice of their lawyers?
My experience in Trade Finance is that no one would ever use anybody else’s DD ... for their own protection and for compliance issues, they would always carry out their own.
I'm getting to the ground early today to see if any chauffeur driven cars turn up with smooth looking dude or elegant man dressed in middle Eastern attire turns up.
If some dishevelled person with worn out shoes and halitosis is sitting next to me on the train from London bridge to Charlton holding his oyster card, I will know we have another doppelganger.
Knowing our luck its more chance of being the latter.
If you are paying £30m plus for something, you would want to do your own DD surely. Especially if you are buying a football club from an owner like Roland, who in turn bought the club from a couple of spivs without possibly doing as thorough DD as he might have done!
I feel very sure that Richard Murray has a very strong emotional bond with the club just like we all do. I do however think he’s got to the point where he can’t see the wood for the trees. It’s very sad as he could have been one of Charltons all time legends but that possibility is now gone. I hope that RM gives the club some space after it is eventually sold and comes back as a fan not clinging onto something that doesn’t help anybody. I’m sure he’ll always be welcome in the directors box.
Is there any chance our next owner could be a rich Kurd ?
Don’t be a clot...
It's just my opinion by the whey, but when Grant went to uddersfield we became like a bull in a China shop and have been crying over spilt milk ever since. Can we today except that it's a game of two calves and not start mooing the players.
Comments
As for the 3.5m reasons, they are looking increasingly unobtainable the longer the Belgian idiot owns our great club. It would suggest his pride his larger than his common sense.
A subtle but very real difference.
The latter would of course repay his £2.5m loan although a new owner(s0 could choose to do this anyway. Don't be surprised if he chose to defer repayment for a continued involvement on the board however.
I'll give you a clue, it wouldn't.
Murray was owed more more following the 2010 takeover under separate arrangements. That was no longer the case after the 2014 takeover.
Maybe it’s different in other industries.
If some dishevelled person with worn out shoes and halitosis is sitting next to me on the train from London bridge to Charlton holding his oyster card, I will know we have another doppelganger.
Knowing our luck its more chance of being the latter.