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.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?
I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored.
These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.
That’s the distinction, but it’s less to do with the individual amounts and more to do with the fact that they stick together as a group. There may be a good reason the Murphy group need clean title - for example individual investors insisting on it - but it’s equally likely to be a device to give Duchatelet more money from the sale and that he is being stubborn about that.
“The former directors are holding up the sale”, which has been propagated this week by multiple routes, is a way of presenting the situation publicly in order to exert pressure on the individuals. Although it’s also a bit feeble, given the individuals concerned, and likely to be counter-productive.
Either way, the issue goes back to price, which is not being set by the ex-directors. Duchatelet, Muir or even Murray could all take this issue off the table if they chose, because it is well within their own resources.
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.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?
I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored.
These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.
That’s the distinction, but it’s less to do with the individual amounts and more to do with the fact that they stick together as a group. There may be a good reason the Murphy group need clean title - for example individual investors insisting on it - but it’s equally likely to be a device to give Duchatelet more money from the sale and that he is being stubborn about that.
“The former directors are holding up the sale”, which has been propagated this week by multiple routes, is a way of presenting the situation publicly in order to exert pressure on the individuals. Although it’s also a bit feeble, given the individuals concerned, and likely to be counter-productive.
Either way, the issue goes back to price, which is not being set by the ex-directors. Duchatelet, Muir or even Murray could all take this issue off the table if they chose, because it is well within their own resources.
So are you suggesting the 3 have been engaged or not ? David White said not beyond an initial approach about a possible conversation. You say concerted effort on the 3.
Mr Seed i will be blunt,the loans tumour /spin is utter bollox ! They are to be paid back IF that's IF we ever get to the Prem. Again IF we ever get there then the amount to be repaid is tiny against the revenue that the Prem brings in.
It's a lie by RD to DEFLECT from his own utter incompetent ownership and more so his totally unrealistic asking price.
At the moment I'm wondering if RD and the Aussies are just using you in their negotiations to spin their version of BOLLOX.
If the Aussies don't want to pay the loans ---then don't---fall back on the "Prem agreement". If it's a negotiating tool to get RD to lower the price by £5 million it ISN'T working.
It’s not a negotiating tool to get him to lower the price. Roland has raised the price.
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.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?
I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored.
These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.
That’s the distinction, but it’s less to do with the individual amounts and more to do with the fact that they stick together as a group. There may be a good reason the Murphy group need clean title - for example individual investors insisting on it - but it’s equally likely to be a device to give Duchatelet more money from the sale and that he is being stubborn about that.
“The former directors are holding up the sale”, which has been propagated this week by multiple routes, is a way of presenting the situation publicly in order to exert pressure on the individuals. Although it’s also a bit feeble, given the individuals concerned, and likely to be counter-productive.
Either way, the issue goes back to price, which is not being set by the ex-directors. Duchatelet, Muir or even Murray could all take this issue off the table if they chose, because it is well within their own resources.
So are you suggesting the 3 have been engaged or not ? David White said not beyond an initial approach about a possible conversation. You say concerted effort on the 3.
Not sure it’s that difficult to understand. Concerted effort on the three, involving direct contact, briefing of third parties against them and ultimately the Duchatelet statement, all in the last week.
One reason the statement is so clumsy is that RD is warning the three that they will be publicly criticised for stopping the deal and the fans that he is only staying because of them in order to try to ramp pressure on them to settle.
Mr Seed i will be blunt,the loans tumour /spin is utter bollox ! They are to be paid back IF that's IF we ever get to the Prem. Again IF we ever get there then the amount to be repaid is tiny against the revenue that the Prem brings in.
It's a lie by RD to DEFLECT from his own utter incompetent ownership and more so his totally unrealistic asking price.
At the moment I'm wondering if RD and the Aussies are just using you in their negotiations to spin their version of BOLLOX.
If the Aussies don't want to pay the loans ---then don't---fall back on the "Prem agreement". If it's a negotiating tool to get RD to lower the price by £5 million it ISN'T working.
Its not a negotiating tool to get him to lower the price. And Roland has raised the price.
There’s your answer then. It’s all about more money for Roland.
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.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Yes, by the spivs and Roland Duchâtelet, which you’ll agree is a pretty low benchmark. Buying the club without sorting the loans would be like buying a house with some outstanding loans secured on the buildings. You’d have to be a bit crazy to do that. The Aussies have always asked for clean title.
So as I’ve said, the sorting out of the loans are holding up the sale of the club. Roland doesn’t want to pay them off in full, and would like it if we blamed someone else for that, whether it’s GM or the ex-Directors. Some of the ex Directors want repaying in full, others are happy to take a haircut in order to get their money back in advance of any future return to the Premier League. Not blaming anyone here btw. I’d certainly want 100% back, despite the fact that I could pass away before we return to the Premier League. Does anyone know if they all have be settled at the same rate (i.e. 100% or 50% or whatever). Or can some agree to take a hit, while others are repaid in full?
This situation has been ongoing for sometime by the sounds of it.
I hate then “it’s like buying a house...” analogies but the directors loans are like buying a house with existing loans/charges secured against it that are only redeemable if you win the jackpot on the lottery. In that scenario I’m not sure you’d be hugely fussed and it might be better to put your (finite) resources to better use.
Statistically we are far, far more likely to get to the Premier League than any of us are to win the lottery though.
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.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Yes, by the spivs and Roland Duchâtelet, which you’ll agree is a pretty low benchmark. Buying the club without sorting the loans would be like buying a house with some outstanding loans secured on the buildings. You’d have to be a bit crazy to do that. The Aussies have always asked for clean title.
So as I’ve said, the sorting out of the loans are holding up the sale of the club. Roland doesn’t want to pay them off in full, and would like it if we blamed someone else for that, whether it’s GM or the ex-Directors. Some of the ex Directors want repaying in full, others are happy to take a haircut in order to get their money back in advance of any future return to the Premier League. Not blaming anyone here btw. I’d certainly want 100% back, despite the fact that I could pass away before we return to the Premier League. Does anyone know if they all have be settled at the same rate (i.e. 100% or 50% or whatever). Or can some agree to take a hit, while others are repaid in full?
This situation has been ongoing for sometime by the sounds of it.
I hate then “it’s like buying a house...” analogies but the directors loans are like buying a house with existing loans/charges secured against it that are only redeemable if you win the jackpot on the lottery. In that scenario I’m not sure you’d be hugely fussed and it might be better to put your (finite) resources to better use.
Statistically we are far, far more likely to get to the Premier League than any of us are to win the lottery though.
Looking at our squad as it stands I’m not sure about that!
Mr Seed i will be blunt,the loans tumour /spin is utter bollox ! They are to be paid back IF that's IF we ever get to the Prem. Again IF we ever get there then the amount to be repaid is tiny against the revenue that the Prem brings in.
It's a lie by RD to DEFLECT from his own utter incompetent ownership and more so his totally unrealistic asking price.
At the moment I'm wondering if RD and the Aussies are just using you in their negotiations to spin their version of BOLLOX.
If the Aussies don't want to pay the loans ---then don't---fall back on the "Prem agreement". If it's a negotiating tool to get RD to lower the price by £5 million it ISN'T working.
Its not a negotiating tool to get him to lower the price. And Roland has raised the price.
There’s your answer then. It’s all about more money for Roland.
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.
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?
I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored.
These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.
That’s the distinction, but it’s less to do with the individual amounts and more to do with the fact that they stick together as a group. There may be a good reason the Murphy group need clean title - for example individual investors insisting on it - but it’s equally likely to be a device to give Duchatelet more money from the sale and that he is being stubborn about that.
“The former directors are holding up the sale”, which has been propagated this week by multiple routes, is a way of presenting the situation publicly in order to exert pressure on the individuals. Although it’s also a bit feeble, given the individuals concerned, and likely to be counter-productive.
Either way, the issue goes back to price, which is not being set by the ex-directors. Duchatelet, Muir or even Murray could all take this issue off the table if they chose, because it is well within their own resources.
So are you suggesting the 3 have been engaged or not ? David White said not beyond an initial approach about a possible conversation. You say concerted effort on the 3.
Not sure it’s that difficult to understand. Concerted effort on the three, involving direct contact, briefing of third parties against them and ultimately the Duchatelet statement, all in the last week.
One reason the statement is so clumsy is that RD is warning the three that they will be publicly criticised for stopping the deal and the fans that he is only staying because of them in order to try to ramp pressure on them to settle.
Only really trying to ask you to reveal all that you can as reading between the lines on an RD statement is not conclusive! Bottom line is I agree always the price. I assume now though it’s the last part of this negotiation asking these 3 to take a similar haircut to the others. Ill speculate maybe those named by RD don’t want this haircut unless it’s the same (percentage?) for all or the remaining 3 won’t concede at all and in which case the gap is somewhere around £2m for buyer and seller to agree on.
We can all speculate, and some are closer to others at the club, but with RD, nobody really knows what’s going on as he probably spouts this same crap to Murray and co. It’s taken 2 years, and my gut just says we are closer than we’ve been before to actually being sold. I’m not ITK but I feel more positive than I have for quite a while. Everything is crossed that we get it done before the end of June so we can revise contract offers to Aribo, Bauer and JW. get the rebuilding process moving.
Seems we are back to micro analysing details without anyone really knowing whether those details are the real issue or not.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.
Probably because many of us realise that just chanting “support the team” isn’t much use in the medium term unless the owner does so as well.
Airman, I think you stated previously, that there was a condition about an extra payment if the buyers reached the Championship - which has now been removed. Is it possible that that payment has now been added if the Premiership is achieved, and that payment PLUS the ex-directors loans are not acceptable to the buyers, so they want the directors loans paid now.
Seems we are back to micro analysing details without anyone really knowing whether those details are the real issue or not.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.
Probably because many of us realise that just chanting “support the team” isn’t much use in the medium term unless the owner does so as well.
Equally arguing about "he said she said" on an Internet forum isn't much use either. But here we are approaching 1700 pages, of which, the majority has been mainly that. Some people enjoy it, some people don't.
I feel many contributors to this thread are spending too
much time trying to find a logical explanation for Roland’s behaviour, when
there is very possibly a medical reason why he does not – and probably never
has – behaved in a “normal” way in interpersonal relationships.
There have been many indicators – including a Belgian
press interview with his life-partner Marieke Höfte, in which she commented on
his problems reading the thoughts and motives of others. If he does lack this skill, it will
inevitably affect the way he conducts all aspects of business at Charlton, from
Bowyer’s contract to the former directors’ loans, and the sale of the club.
Look at the evidence:
– his constant harping on about the crazy financial world
of football, which is hardly an incentive for a prospective purchaser
– his disrespect towards fans (98% of whom he contends do
not support the protests) while at the same time clearly expecting them to pay
up for season tickets
– his lack of forward planning when it comes to contracts
for players and playing-side staff
– his lack of appreciation of the effect on the morale of
employees of petty cost-cutting measures, and even more his welshing on staff
bonuses (although he was genuinely angered by this being publicised in St-T
where he has many employees, probably on similar contracts!)
– his fixation on ideas such as the protests being due to
disgruntled former employees wanting their jobs back. Maybe this is an emotion he has felt earlier in
his life and therefore ascribes it to others because he cannot conceive an
alternative narrative? Or was it an explanation given to him by Meire or Murrey?
– his inability to understand fan culture, because his
motivator is financial profit. For him,
if L1 makes smaller losses than the Championship, then L1 is better than the
Championship
– his original assumption he could move players round his
network like pieces on a chess board, as if they wouldn’t have preferences
where they lived and worked
– his curious decision to ditch the existing plans to
upgrade the academy, which I believe was largely to be funded by grants, and
replace it with the current expensive & unfinished result. I’m convinced
there is more to this than meets the eye… Was he trying to slip in a future commercial enterprise in the hope it would get past the plannng authorities, as he did in St-T?
– his assumption that the former directors would be
willing to accept a settlement of less than 100% of their debentures, and
throwing his toys out of the pram when some/most decline his offer
Accept that he is being entirely Roland-centred, unable
to see things from others’ viewpoint, and maybe things become clearer. He wants to protect his ego. He wants the financial benefits of promotion
without the costs.
To be honest it's fairly simple one, party has agreed a price for the club with clean title.
One party wants to sell the club but the price is not enough for him to get what he wants and repay former directors loans.
Will somebody give, doubtful if the past is anything to go by.
Answer nothing's really changed.
I really don’t think that’s true though. I do not think any party has come close to Roland’s price.
I suspect the Aussies have spent money on the deal and are willing to wait until Roland reduces his crazy price. I also think they are back at the table because we are now a Championship club.
Stubborn or not at some point Roland will sell and for a price significantly lower than what he wants. Our only hope in that time is that we are still a Championship club.
People are getting carried away with this ex directors loans. I don’t doubt that it’s a talking point but the reason they haven’t been properly spoken to is because no deal for the club has been agreed IMO.
To be honest it's fairly simple one, party has agreed a price for the club with clean title.
One party wants to sell the club but the price is not enough for him to get what he wants and repay former directors loans.
Will somebody give, doubtful if the past is anything to go by.
Answer nothing's really changed.
I really don’t think that’s true though. I do not think any party has come close to Roland’s price.
I suspect the Aussies have spent money on the deal and are willing to wait until Roland reduces his crazy price. I also think they are back at the table because we are now a Championship club.
Stubborn or not at some point Roland will sell and for a price significantly lower than what he wants. Our only hope in that time is that we are still a Championship club.
People are getting carried away with this ex directors loans. I don’t doubt that it’s a talking point but the reason they haven’t been properly spoken to is because no deal for the club has been agreed IMO.
To be honest it's fairly simple one, party has agreed a price for the club with clean title.
One party wants to sell the club but the price is not enough for him to get what he wants and repay former directors loans.
Will somebody give, doubtful if the past is anything to go by.
Answer nothing's really changed.
I really don’t think that’s true though. I do not think any party has come close to Roland’s price.
I suspect the Aussies have spent money on the deal and are willing to wait until Roland reduces his crazy price. I also think they are back at the table because we are now a Championship club.
Stubborn or not at some point Roland will sell and for a price significantly lower than what he wants. Our only hope in that time is that we are still a Championship club.
People are getting carried away with this ex directors loans. I don’t doubt that it’s a talking point but the reason they haven’t been properly spoken to is because no deal for the club has been agreed IMO.
The Aussies believe they are very close to a deal and that’s the reason for all the noise. However, as we all know, this has been the case, on and off, for more than 18 months. RD has moved the goalposts post-Wembley and even if they were to secure a deal with the ex-directors there is no guarantee he won’t move them again.
Comments
“The former directors are holding up the sale”, which has been propagated this week by multiple routes, is a way of presenting the situation publicly in order to exert pressure on the individuals. Although it’s also a bit feeble, given the individuals concerned, and likely to be counter-productive.
Either way, the issue goes back to price, which is not being set by the ex-directors. Duchatelet, Muir or even Murray could all take this issue off the table if they chose, because it is well within their own resources.
Roland has raised the price.
One reason the statement is so clumsy is that RD is warning the three that they will be publicly criticised for stopping the deal and the fans that he is only staying because of them in order to try to ramp pressure on them to settle.
April fans’ forum minutes.
February fans’ forum minutes.
One party wants to sell the club but the price is not enough for him to get what he wants and repay former directors loans.
Will somebody give, doubtful if the past is anything to go by.
Answer nothing's really changed.
March fans’ forum minutes
July 2018 fans’ forum minutes
It’s taken 2 years, and my gut just says we are closer than we’ve been before to actually being sold.
I’m not ITK but I feel more positive than I have for quite a while.
Everything is crossed that we get it done before the end of June so we can revise contract offers to Aribo, Bauer and JW.
get the rebuilding process moving.
I feel many contributors to this thread are spending too much time trying to find a logical explanation for Roland’s behaviour, when there is very possibly a medical reason why he does not – and probably never has – behaved in a “normal” way in interpersonal relationships.
There have been many indicators – including a Belgian press interview with his life-partner Marieke Höfte, in which she commented on his problems reading the thoughts and motives of others. If he does lack this skill, it will inevitably affect the way he conducts all aspects of business at Charlton, from Bowyer’s contract to the former directors’ loans, and the sale of the club.
Look at the evidence:
– his constant harping on about the crazy financial world of football, which is hardly an incentive for a prospective purchaser
– his disrespect towards fans (98% of whom he contends do not support the protests) while at the same time clearly expecting them to pay up for season tickets
– his lack of forward planning when it comes to contracts for players and playing-side staff
– his lack of appreciation of the effect on the morale of employees of petty cost-cutting measures, and even more his welshing on staff bonuses (although he was genuinely angered by this being publicised in St-T where he has many employees, probably on similar contracts!)
– his fixation on ideas such as the protests being due to disgruntled former employees wanting their jobs back. Maybe this is an emotion he has felt earlier in his life and therefore ascribes it to others because he cannot conceive an alternative narrative? Or was it an explanation given to him by Meire or Murrey?
– his inability to understand fan culture, because his motivator is financial profit. For him, if L1 makes smaller losses than the Championship, then L1 is better than the Championship
– his original assumption he could move players round his network like pieces on a chess board, as if they wouldn’t have preferences where they lived and worked
– his curious decision to ditch the existing plans to upgrade the academy, which I believe was largely to be funded by grants, and replace it with the current expensive & unfinished result. I’m convinced there is more to this than meets the eye… Was he trying to slip in a future commercial enterprise in the hope it would get past the plannng authorities, as he did in St-T?
– his assumption that the former directors would be willing to accept a settlement of less than 100% of their debentures, and throwing his toys out of the pram when some/most decline his offer
Accept that he is being entirely Roland-centred, unable to see things from others’ viewpoint, and maybe things become clearer. He wants to protect his ego. He wants the financial benefits of promotion without the costs.
And so do any potential buyers!
I suspect the Aussies have spent money on the deal and are willing to wait until Roland reduces his crazy price. I also think they are back at the table because we are now a Championship club.
Stubborn or not at some point Roland will sell and for a price significantly lower than what he wants. Our only hope in that time is that we are still a Championship club.
People are getting carried away with this ex directors loans. I don’t doubt that it’s a talking point but the reason they haven’t been properly spoken to is because no deal for the club has been agreed IMO.