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

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1168016811683168516862265

Comments

  • 1683, a frost fair is held on the Thames.
  • JamesSeed. You're far more involved in this than you let on.
    Don't think I would be sloshing out as much info as you claim to have been getting to some chap I met at my daughter's school.
    I guess they’re using you to put out what they want Roland to hear/believe. All part of the ‘game’ that is selling CAFC. Time for both sides to stop titting about and close the deal. 
    Perhaps, but don't seem very conventional or professional from either side imo
  • cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Plus by whom ?
    Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies.
    The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
    The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
    So it's common sense.


    Cant had added to read another 7 pages so I'll say what I'vd said since the play offs last season.......

    The loans dont have to be repaid now. The ex-directors arent asking for them to be repaid now. RD doesn't have to repay them now. The only people who are wanting them to be repaid now are the new owners. That being the case I would seriously ask why. They could always buy the club now & repay them in 6 or 12 months. The fact that they want clean title from day one is very worrying. And f**long holding everything up.

    Never trust an Aussie. 




  • irudd123 said:
    Redskin said:
    Redskin said:
    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.
    Well, Bowyer and the team seemed to think that supporting the team was was of considerable use to them.I don't recall them commenting on the use of 17,000 pages of gossip and conjecture on a Charlton forum...
    I think we can all agree the owner is of little use at all.
    Yes, in L1 where Charlton will always be competitive because about two thirds of the division are perennial strugglers. In the Championship that won’t cut it for very long, as a series of small clubs have found out.
    I think you may need to clarify this, because it reads that there is no point Charlton fans supporting the team above L1.
    No, it means that it won’t of itself enable the team to be successful. Some people seem to think that asking questions and exploring what is going on is somehow exclusive of or detracts from “supporting the team”. However as Redskin himself points out, Bowyer and the team are oblivious to this discussion. 

    You can, if you want, stick your fingers in your ears and join RD is his delusion that having the lowest budget in the division (according to Bowyer) doesn’t mean we can’t get promoted. You can ignore the fact that teams with Charlton’s likely budget usually go down. But shouting louder at matches still won’t be a solution.

    Jesus wept, you can be fully aware of the negligence of the owner and the damage being inflicted on the club and still support the team without thinking it's a solution to the problems.
    Of course you can - and I did, all over the country last season. I was responding to AFKA who has been arguing (see above) that more people should go to matches and that discussing the takeover situation is pointless, to paraphrase. Obviously it’s entirely open to anyone what they do, I just find it a bit odd for the owner of a message board to argue that such discussion is pointless.
    I don't think AFKA was saying not to discuss the takeover. Without speaking for him my interpretation of the point he was making was a very similar viewpoint to mine in that it does seem for about the umpteenth time we're all arguing with each other over whether a price has really been agreed or not and have The Aussies got the money? And I make AFKA correct it does almost feel like we are picking over quotes from the last 12 months where no doubt there is a mixture of spin, truth and lies in there and frankly it does get tedious and tiresome to keep re-reading it over and over.

    There's probably an easier solution out there which would be to create a flow chart of all the possible theories that have been discussed over the last two years, 1672 pages and 51k comments to save reading the same arguments over and over again.
    Point is that things are moving, of which RD’s statement is one aspect, and there is some solid information coming into the public domain, with more likely to follow. So it’s not the case that we are simply going over old ground at all. Even if it feels like it!
    Is that your ex Directors statement, or is there something else on the horizon? 
    I’m going to write more tomorrow.

    Why not just tell us now?
    Be patient,u know the rules...😉
  • cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Plus by whom ?
    Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies.
    The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
    The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
    So it's common sense.


    Cant had added to read another 7 pages so I'll say what I'vd said since the play offs last season.......

    The loans dont have to be repaid now. The ex-directors arent asking for them to be repaid now. RD doesn't have to repay them now. The only people who are wanting them to be repaid now are the new owners. That being the case I would seriously ask why. They could always buy the club now & repay them in 6 or 12 months. The fact that they want clean title from day one is very worrying. And f**long holding everything up.

    Never trust an Aussie. 




    Can I buy your house from you but pay you when I win the National Lottery?
  • I just want it done and dusted so we can welcome in a new era of more false dawns, disappointments and bobbing along. It’s the Charlton way.
  • cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Plus by whom ?
    Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies.
    The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
    The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
    So it's common sense.


    Cant had added to read another 7 pages so I'll say what I'vd said since the play offs last season.......

    The loans dont have to be repaid now. The ex-directors arent asking for them to be repaid now. RD doesn't have to repay them now. The only people who are wanting them to be repaid now are the new owners. That being the case I would seriously ask why. They could always buy the club now & repay them in 6 or 12 months. The fact that they want clean title from day one is very worrying. And f**long holding everything up.

    Never trust an Aussie. 




    Can I buy your house from you but pay you when I win the National Lottery?
    You can’t beat a house analogy. 😀
  • 1681, The last dodo is killed.
    Confirmed. It’s as dead as a dodo.
  • Knowing
    sensing
    seeing
    eating
    sleeping
    that's just being.
    Touching
    testing
    loving
    wanting and taking
  • jondon76 said:
    jondon76 said:
    Don't want the Aussies either tbh, sounds like things wont be any different,  certainly doubt our budget will be any bigger, but at least Roland will be gone I suppose, small mercies and all that!
    how can you assume that? How do you know what their budget will be?

    jondon76 said:
    Don't want the Aussies either tbh, sounds like things wont be any different,  certainly doubt our budget will be any bigger, but at least Roland will be gone I suppose, small mercies and all that!
    how can you assume that? How do you know what their budget will be?
    Don't assume anything, and I hope I'm wrong, just have a bad feeling about this consortium but as I said hope I'm wrong and all is good.
    You're not the only one ( for no good reason, just worried I suppose :-( ) 
  • Sponsored links:


  • cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Plus by whom ?
    Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies.
    The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
    The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
    So it's common sense.


    Cant had added to read another 7 pages so I'll say what I'vd said since the play offs last season.......

    The loans dont have to be repaid now. The ex-directors arent asking for them to be repaid now. RD doesn't have to repay them now. The only people who are wanting them to be repaid now are the new owners. That being the case I would seriously ask why. They could always buy the club now & repay them in 6 or 12 months. The fact that they want clean title from day one is very worrying. And f**long holding everything up.

    Never trust an Aussie. 




    Can I buy your house from you but pay you when I win the National Lottery?
    Not even close to an analogy old bean. If I sell you my house but you know the interest free loan for the windows I had installed is only due to be repaid when  you win the lottery then you may be getting close.....

    Anyhow. After reading the last 6 pages since my recent post I'm starting to think the Aussies are taking the p**s. I am certainly not a RD appeaser & want him gone like the rest......but there is no reason why the loans need to be repaid NOW.....and asking the "7" to take 25% now & the rest later, with the undertaking of them being removed as security should make everyone wonder wtf ! What sort of deal is that ??!! Who does that benefit ??

    As has been said many a time on here. If the Aussies have such a 'plan' & a budget to match, which means they arent willing to pay £2m now to settle some of the loans (I believe Airman said that some of the ex-directors are happy to settle for less) then you wonder what is in store 6-12 months down the line. 
     



  • I am generally worried about a Aussie takeover but i think I'd rather take that chance than another season with the Rat.
    Please sort this shit out , their are thousands of Charlton fans who just want to enjoy the rest of the summer.
    Every saturday i follow..........
  • Fumbluff said:
    Knowing
    sensing
    seeing
    eating
    sleeping
    that's just being.
    Touching
    testing
    loving
    wanting and taking
    Sounds like a Madonna tune there...🤔
  • Croydon said:
    jondon76 said:
    Don't want the Aussies either tbh, sounds like things wont be any different,  certainly doubt our budget will be any bigger, but at least Roland will be gone I suppose, small mercies and all that!
    Irs not all about budget though. Its a having a plan/strategy and not just bobbing along. 
    I'd rather support a well run Club I can be proud to support in League Two than a Roland run Club in the PL.
    That makes no sense. If we got to the Prem with RD then that would he had invested and showed an interest. He's no Oyston ffs.

    I hate Roland but this 'anyone but him' mentality could land us bang in trouble with some other chancers.

    Croydon said:
    jondon76 said:
    Don't want the Aussies either tbh, sounds like things wont be any different,  certainly doubt our budget will be any bigger, but at least Roland will be gone I suppose, small mercies and all that!
    Irs not all about budget though. Its a having a plan/strategy and not just bobbing along. 
    I'd rather support a well run Club I can be proud to support in League Two than a Roland run Club in the PL.
    That makes no sense. If we got to the Prem with RD then that would he had invested and showed an interest. He's no Oyston ffs.

    I hate Roland but this 'anyone but him' mentality could land us bang in trouble with some other chancers.
    No it won't because we have got no  influence at all over who Roland decides to sell to, if he ever does decide to sell.
  • Over 200 posts of nothing.  Very glad most people posting here are not buying us though.

    I have learnt that £2.5 - 7.0m is not a lot and the Aussies should just pay it on top of whatever sum they have agreed with RD.

    I have learnt the Aussies are desperate for clean title and that is why they want the loans paid off - maybe they just agreed a price lock stock and barrel and actually don't care who pays off the former directors, or in fact whether they are paid off (they just then pay RD £7m less and keep them there)

    i have learnt that some people dont want the Aussies as are budget is unlikely to increase and they wont be better than RD after throwing £35m at the purchase.

    zzzzz
  • Redhenry suggesting that Bows is off on the summer transfer rumours thread.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Carly Burn that's my feeling as well either by design or not
      He's gone a bit quiet since I outed him.

    ;-)
  • edited June 2019
    JamesSeed said:
    But don’t think it ends there folks. Please bear in mind that what goes on behind the scenes can be more complex than it seems from the outside. Also bear in mind how little face time there has been between Roland and Gerard. Despite that, much of the info Gerard receives comes from Roland, Murray or Lieven, so I’d ask for understanding if things can look a little odd at times. 
    We are being patient. Look how patient we are being.
    Thanks Russell (bugger just seen that someone got in hours before me :neutral:)
  • I'm sticking to my theory the aussies area made up front for rd to generate competition / force bidders into a move - they have now also revealed the price required: £40m and the club's yours. Better hurry up or LB is off. Righto. I think Airman's in on it as well -  £70 mil turned down, £30m turned down... we can't wait to see the back of him and rightly so but you can't say he's not choosy about who he sells to!!! 
  • cafcwill said:
    Apoligies if this has been asked and answered before, but just for clairification

    Do all of the directors have to be paid off in order for the sale to be completed or can the 3 be kept on for the prospective new owners to sort out?

    I.E. Roland has paid off the £4 Million of the & £7 million and made deals with these 4 (?) directors, leaving the other 3 with charges on the title still. This will be seen as a reduction of cost from the Aussies side (if they want the clean title, which it seems they do)

    OR

    Do all 7 have to be paid off in order for the charge to be removed? (what i think i mean is the charges 1 single Charge or 7 individual charges )?

    (i think i have made sense there, apoligies if i haven't)

    I'm not 100% certain.
    However, the sale can go through with the ex-director loans remaining, as they have done in the previous 2 sales. 
    The Aussies want all the loans repaid, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are 7 individual charges.
    The question as to why The Aussies want the loans repaid remains unanswered.
    Obviously, to obtain clean title, but why ?
    The answers are because they do end of, or because their possible financiers demand it so.         

    Sorry I'm struggling to keep up, but where and when was this quoted that the Aussies want all loans paid off ? There are 1676 pages !
    Plus by whom ?
    Someone wants the ex-director loans paid off and it isn't RD so it must be The Aussies.
    The Aussies want them paid off so they own CAFC 100%, without any mortgages/charges ranking in front of them.
    The only way this can be achieved (clean title/100% ownership) is if all the loans are paid off.
    So it's common sense.


    Cant had added to read another 7 pages so I'll say what I'vd said since the play offs last season.......

    The loans dont have to be repaid now. The ex-directors arent asking for them to be repaid now. RD doesn't have to repay them now. The only people who are wanting them to be repaid now are the new owners. That being the case I would seriously ask why. They could always buy the club now & repay them in 6 or 12 months. The fact that they want clean title from day one is very worrying. And f**long holding everything up.

    Never trust an Aussie. 




    Can I buy your house from you but pay you when I win the National Lottery?
    Not even close to an analogy old bean. If I sell you my house but you know the interest free loan for the windows I had installed is only due to be repaid when  you win the lottery then you may be getting close.....

    Anyhow. After reading the last 6 pages since my recent post I'm starting to think the Aussies are taking the p**s. I am certainly not a RD appeaser & want him gone like the rest......but there is no reason why the loans need to be repaid NOW.....and asking the "7" to take 25% now & the rest later, with the undertaking of them being removed as security should make everyone wonder wtf ! What sort of deal is that ??!! Who does that benefit ??

    As has been said many a time on here. If the Aussies have such a 'plan' & a budget to match, which means they arent willing to pay £2m now to settle some of the loans (I believe Airman said that some of the ex-directors are happy to settle for less) then you wonder what is in store 6-12 months down the line. 
     


    It seems the aussies are trying make this acquisition by borrowing against the company assets to fund the deal in some way, I cant see any other reason for the director loans to be causing this make or break scenario

    obviously the loans are secured on the assets so no one will lend against them until the current charge is removed 

    Google the harbour club to get a better understanding of how acquaitions are commonly structured

    If they had the money there is no way this would hold up the deal, no interest on the loans and not even repayable unless Premier league status is achieved, at which point the loans get repaid with a smile 

    Something not right be careful what you wish you 
  • Addickted said:
    JamesSeed said:

    If you wait a few days I imagine all will be revealed about the directors’ loans. The Roland discount issue is not applicable. 
    JamesSeed said:

    They’d be happy to wait til the Premier League. But if someone wants to pay them off in order to obtain clean title, then they can either accept a discount, or ask for the full amount. 

    Somone? So either RD or the potential purcahsers then.

    My uderstanding is that LdT is the one who's been in contact with the ex Directors. Is he moonlighting for Muir now then?


    It was Way back,  when LDT made contact but he hasn’t spoken to all of them recently if he has spoken to any at all 

    I don’t see how any info can come out other than no approach made by RD at all that would constitute discussions and possible solutions to the loans 
  • JamesSeed said:
    @JamesSeed thanks for the info given so far. However I have a question, if RD isn't paying off the loans and the Aussies arn't, we surely have an impasse and any deal will be off? Unless I'm missing something!
    I didn’t say the Aussies aren’t   

    So are the Aussies in contact with the former directors to do a deal?
    LDT has made contact with all the ex-directors. It has to be done via the seller's side or the broker if LDT is desribed as such.
      


    No he hasn’t 
  • edited June 2019
    Redhenry suggesting that Bows is off on the summer transfer rumours thread.
    No he isn’t....he’s saying that if he doesn’t get a decent deal he MAY be off, big difference.
    That’s nothing that we don’t know anyway.
    Secondly, why would do you believe he is saying Bow is about to walk....cos he isn’t saying that.
  • JamesSeed said:
    But don’t think it ends there folks. Please bear in mind that what goes on behind the scenes can be more complex than it seems from the outside. Also bear in mind how little face time there has been between Roland and Gerard. Despite that, much of the info Gerard receives comes from Roland, Murray or Lieven, so I’d ask for understanding if things can look a little odd at times. 
    We are being patient. Look how patient we are being.
    Thanks Russell (bugger just seen that someone got in hours before me :neutral:)
    You snooze @charltonbob you lose :wink:
  • Anyone think the last fans forum was delayed so that the club can be sold before they have to face the fans again? Just a thought! 
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!