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

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1166516661668167016712265

Comments

  • 1668, Isaac Newton builds the first reflective telescope.
  • I still don’t get why he wouldn’t have done it already. Doesn’t he want to sell the club? Is he so wealthy he can’t be bothered? What has this Lieven fella been doing all this time?
  • JamesSeed said:
    JamesSeed said:
    JamesSeed said:
    clb74 said:
    seth plum said:
    If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
    Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years 
    Frying pan into the fire
    Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
    Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.
    You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.
    Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?

    Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
    No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.

    if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
    So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with. 



    Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal. 

    I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.  
    Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. 
    And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. 
    And yes, it’s frustrating. 
    Correction: the sale to the Australians can’t happen without the loans being sorted....


  • @JamesSeed

    First rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say

    Second rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say
    The loans haven’t been sorted.

    The fact that the regime says they haven’t been sorted doesn’t mean they have been sorted. 

    The bit about why they haven’t been sorted is what is concerning. 

    And bear in mind I didn’t get my info from the regime. Had I done, so I would have been more skeptical Mr I. 

  • JamesSeed said:
    @JamesSeed

    First rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say

    Second rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say
    The loans haven’t been sorted.

    The fact that the regime says they haven’t been sorted doesn’t mean they have been sorted. 

    The bit about why they haven’t been sorted is what is concerning. 

    And bear in mind I didn’t get my info from the regime. Had I done, so I would have been more skeptical Mr I. 

    Indirectly, yes you did.
  • Sponsored links:


  • JamesSeed said:
    @JamesSeed

    First rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say

    Second rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say
    The loans haven’t been sorted.

    The fact that the regime says they haven’t been sorted doesn’t mean they have been sorted. 

    The bit about why they haven’t been sorted is what is concerning. 

    And bear in mind I didn’t get my info from the regime. Had I done, so I would have been more skeptical Mr I. 

       

    The way I see it on how he sees it is:

    Why should they(the ex directs) get all of their money back when he's not getting all of his back, or all he wants back?

    It's petulism. Pure and simple.
    You know what, I think you might have nailed it. That makes total sense, in a twisted sort of a way. 
  • Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off? 
    Lend us a million quid, CE.  I promise I'll pay back about half in a few years' time. 
  • Eh?

    So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.


    Profit? Hasn’t he spent £60-70m so far? Won’t get that when he sells.
  • Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off? 
    Agree with you on this, wouldn't be surprised at all if he is thinking along those lines. 
  • Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off? 
    Agree with you on this, wouldn't be surprised at all if he is thinking along those lines. 
    Why would anyone take a haircut for his benefit?
  • I know I know nothing about this.
    It's funny to see the "informed" opinions on here.

  • I think your inverted commas are spot on. Nobody knows anything about this.

    All those saying something's going on and all those saying nothing are just having a guess or feeding on other people's guesses.
  • Chizz said:
    Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off? 
    Agree with you on this, wouldn't be surprised at all if he is thinking along those lines. 
    Why would anyone take a haircut for his benefit?
    They wouldn't, or definitely shouldn't, and I didn't say otherwise.

    We are not dealing with a normal guy and I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks others should lose out because he is. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Dazzler21 said:
    I think your inverted commas are spot on. Nobody knows anything about this.

    All those saying something's going on and all those saying nothing are just having a guess or feeding on other people's guesses.
    It seems not even the main protagonists know what’s going on. How can the club be sold then?
  • Scoham said:
    Eh?

    So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.


    Profit? Hasn’t he spent £60-70m so far? Won’t get that when he sells.
    No Idea or give a fuck as it was his call, but all losses are due to his mad experiments that he has instigated and were followed through by his darling.
  • Eh?

    So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.


    Don't worry, if the belgian remains here we will be
  • edited June 2019
    clb74 said:
    seth plum said:
    If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
    Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years 
    Frying pan into the fire
    Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up
    Yes imo. As stated many times the ex-director loans DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPAID NOW.......unless you want clean title. Imo the only reason why you would want clean title from day one is if you want to borrow money against the club. If not you could repay them at any time - not necessarily when /if we reached the Prem - but in a year or two when we are established in the Championship & have more money. So why the INSISTENCY of them having to be repaid now  ??   

    Edit. 

    Posted the above before reading the last page, so I will ask this very nicely to @JamesSeed. Please can you tell us why the ex-director loans HAVE to be repaid before the takeover goes through & specifically why by RD ??  What do the new owners what to achieve by it  ?  As @Airman Brown has just stated, the club has been sold twice before without the need for them to be repaid.....so why now ??
  • @JamesSeed

    First rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say

    Second rule of the takeover

    Never believe what the regime say
    NTAMWYT 
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!