So looking at this as best I can, RD has potentially agreed a price of £33m. Some £12m less than he apparently turned down recently. The Directors loans are holding up the sale which amount to circa £7m. If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion? I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway! No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
James, with your track record of providing info obtained from a fella who's normally pretty good, you'll forgive me for taking a rain check on this one.
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
He’s told me who his source is, and if true, it’s entirely possible that £33m is the agreed figure, and it is the Directors loans holding things up (which I heard elsewhere, although he’s said the same thing.)
So if £33M has been agreed and the ex-director loans are the sticking point. What is the agreement re the ex-director loans, because there must be one ?
It was always agreed that Roland would pay them off, I believe.
So looking at this as best I can, RD has potentially agreed a price of £33m. Some £12m less than he apparently turned down recently. The Directors loans are holding up the sale which amount to circa £7m. If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion? I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway! No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.
Yes. But what if the new owners simply don't want to add another £3.5m to the cost of buying the club? Why should they fork out anything at all?
Or, let me put it another way. What's the best way for the new owners to spend £3.5m - use it to clear up the Belgian waffler's debts or give it to Lee Bowyer to spend on new signings?
I wonder if Muzza is seen as the spokesperson (rightly or wrongly) for part of the FDs and there arises the confusion/issue with Mr White, as I said on the other thread his recent rant is typical of someone with poor information who is not directly involved and no longer wants to even be remotely so.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. 3.5 million (loans)Is far too small an amount of money to have stopped this deal going through for the last couple of years. Shitweasel is asking far too much money and that's it in a nutshell.
And another thing. If the Aussies agreed a price of £65/70M 2 years ago & we've been told all along a price has been agreed. Why is the agreed price now halved?
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
James, with your track record of providing info obtained from a fella who's normally pretty good, you'll forgive me for taking a rain check on this one.
I’d agree, but now I know who his source is I’m less skeptical. Aussies wouldn’t tell me the price for the usual reason. But when I mentioned a range of prices they agreed, and 33m was inside the range (and it wasn’t £1m - £100m!). But WIOTOS we’ll know for sure, either way. But I certainly understand the skepticism.
@Redmidland it’s never been on the cards that they run around chasing ex directors offering deals. It’s always been the seller’s job. For some reason this hasn’t happened so far, and reading the official side, RD says ‘that may take time’. The remaining questions are: 1 Why? 2 Why hasn’t anything been done about it already.
So Roland turns down 45m last summer when we're a league one club but now accepts 33m when we're in the championship. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical.
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
As indicated on another site?
No, it’s a fella who sends me info that’s normally pretty good. Sometimes sends me info a few days before it appears on the OS etc.
James, with your track record of providing info obtained from a fella who's normally pretty good, you'll forgive me for taking a rain check on this one.
I’d agree, but now I know who his source is I’m less skeptical. Aussies wouldn’t tell me the price for the usual reason. But when I mentioned a range of prices they agreed, and 33m was inside the range (and it wasn’t £1m - £100m!). But WIOTOS we’ll know for sure, either way. But I certainly understand the skepticism.
@Redmidland it’s never been on the cards that they run around chasing ex directors offering deals. It’s always been the seller’s job. For some reason this hasn’t happened so far, and reading the official side, RD says ‘that may take time’. The remaining questions are: 1 Why? 2 Why hasn’t anything been done about it already.
Someone drop Rolly an email explaining bank transfers and we should be good to go.
And another thing. If the Aussies agreed a price of £65/70M 2 years ago & we've been told all along a price has been agreed. Why is the agreed price now halved?
You may find it’s an upfront payment with more to follow. That’s always been a likely structure.
No disrespect to David White intended, but his loan is only £250k out of £7m and Murray is probably blasé about picking him off and has told Murphy and RD that. Doesn’t mean he’s right.
The other three Murray will regard as much less malleable, but again ask the question of why negotiating down £2.65m is so vital to doing a deal that to work out will cost the new owners tens if not hundreds of millions pending any promotion to the PL.
So Roland turns down 45m last summer when we're a league one club but now accepts 33m when we're in the championship. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical.
Hope it’s nonsense because the first thing it makes me think of is Roland is keeping The Valley in that scenario. If anyone has a better explanation for why he would take £33M in The Championship and turn down £45M in League One, I am open to it.
So Roland turns down 45m last summer when we're a league one club but now accepts 33m when we're in the championship. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical.
Hope it’s nonsense because the first thing it makes me think of is Roland is keeping The Valley in that scenario. If anyone has a better explanation for why he would take £33M in The Championship and turn down £45M in League One, I am open to it.
Do we know for definite he turned down 45m last year or is that another “I heard this from someone reliable”?
And another thing. If the Aussies agreed a price of £65/70M 2 years ago & we've been told all along a price has been agreed. Why is the agreed price now halved?
And another thing. If the Aussies agreed a price of £65/70M 2 years ago & we've been told all along a price has been agreed. Why is the agreed price now halved?
You may find it’s an upfront payment with more to follow. That’s always been a likely structure.
No disrespect to David White intended, but his loan is only £250k out of £7m and Murray is probably blasé about picking him off and has told Murphy and RD that. Doesn’t mean he’s right.
The other three Murray will regard as much less malleable, but again ask the question of why negotiating down £2.65m is so vital to doing a deal that to work out will cost the new owners tens if not hundreds of millions pending any promotion to the PL.
I keep asking the question and the only answer I can come up with is that the new owners don't have it/as in willing to spend it on Charlton (Muir or whoever will have it personally).
If the deal was say £33M down plus £32M if we reach the Prem, then surely RD would want a first charge and the new owner would still not get clean title ?
If the deal was say £33M down plus £32M if we reach the Prem, then surely RD would want a first charge and the new owner would still not get clean title ?
Why would he need the first charge when he is telling people the fixed assets are worth £50m plus, and the existing charges are £7m, I wonder...
So Roland turns down 45m last summer when we're a league one club but now accepts 33m when we're in the championship. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical.
Hope it’s nonsense because the first thing it makes me think of is Roland is keeping The Valley in that scenario. If anyone has a better explanation for why he would take £33M in The Championship and turn down £45M in League One, I am open to it.
Do we know for definite he turned down 45m last year or is that another “I heard this from someone reliable”?
We don’t know sqwat about anything and never have.
The only thing I know for sure is that it’s the loans holding things up. The Aussies were expecting that they would have been sorted, but they haven’t been. Whether it’s the ex directors ‘not co-operating’ I don’t know for sure. It could be that Roland hasn’t sorted them when he should have done, or those acting for Roland haven’t when they should have done. But forget the Aussies trying to sort out the directors. That was never expected, or requested or even feasible.
Seems like we’re nearer, but not nearer. Does anyone know how Roland could benefit from a delay?
No idea why I think this but I get the feeling that should the Aussies finally take control then we are going to be the subject of yet another experiment where all sorts of bolt ons to the football norms are brought into play. Psychological profiling of players, ballet dancing, mediums, positive thinking. No money.
The only thing I know for sure is that it’s the loans holding things up. The Aussies were expecting that they would have been sorted, but they haven’t been. Whether it’s the ex directors ‘not co-operating’ I don’t know for sure. It could be that Roland hasn’t sorted them when he should have done, or those acting for Roland haven’t when they should have done. But forget the Aussies trying to sort out the directors. That was never expected, or requested or even feasible.
Seems like we’re nearer, but not nearer. Does anyone know how Roland could benefit from a delay?
So the deal is being held up by a few million pounds. If Roland pays them back 100% of their loans the takeover can go through?
Comments
If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion?
I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway!
No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.
Or, let me put it another way. What's the best way for the new owners to spend £3.5m - use it to clear up the Belgian waffler's debts or give it to Lee Bowyer to spend on new signings?
@NapaAddick is lying down in a dark room somewhere.
3.5 million (loans)Is far too small an amount of money to have stopped this deal going through for the last couple of years.
Shitweasel is asking far too much money and that's it in a nutshell.
Why is the agreed price now halved?
Aussies wouldn’t tell me the price for the usual reason. But when I mentioned a range of prices they agreed, and 33m was inside the range (and it wasn’t £1m - £100m!).
But WIOTOS we’ll know for sure, either way. But I certainly understand the skepticism.
@Redmidland it’s never been on the cards that they run around chasing ex directors offering deals. It’s always been the seller’s job. For some reason this hasn’t happened so far, and reading the official side, RD says ‘that may take time’. The remaining questions are:
1 Why?
2 Why hasn’t anything been done about it already.
Murray would likely cut a deal to remain in one form or other, but what about the others?
No disrespect to David White intended, but his loan is only £250k out of £7m and Murray is probably blasé about picking him off and has told Murphy and RD that. Doesn’t mean he’s right.
The other three Murray will regard as much less malleable, but again ask the question of why negotiating down £2.65m is so vital to doing a deal that to work out will cost the new owners tens if not hundreds of millions pending any promotion to the PL.
Whether it’s the ex directors ‘not co-operating’ I don’t know for sure. It could be that Roland hasn’t sorted them when he should have done, or those acting for Roland haven’t when they should have done.
But forget the Aussies trying to sort out the directors. That was never expected, or requested or even feasible.
Seems like we’re nearer, but not nearer. Does anyone know how Roland could benefit from a delay?
Thats £1.25 each if the figure of £33 million is correct.