Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?
They obviously ain't minted and in my honest opinion they ain't gonna buy us.
Even allowing for a year of the delay on chief mentalist RD's demands, the fact they were going out tbeir way to advertise for investors, of any sort, only 6 weeks ago is strange and rings alarm bells to me...
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?
I suspect because it is being put together like a project. It’s Murphy’s project and he is looking for investors the same way a company goes to market with a share issue / crowdfund. You could have very wealthy investors / other companies buy into that share issue / crowdfund who would have the wrath to take out the lot, but that’s not their objective.
why it’s Murphy’s project in the first place is a completely different question. What would be his driver? Has he a desire to be involved in UK football and Is he looking to create a Chairman / CEO position for himself? Is he passionate about Aus sports and sees this as a viable vehicle to progress that? Is it not that but on a financial basis there’s a very chunky arrangers fee to be had if successful? Is it a combo of all three? Is it not Murph project at all. Who knows.
I've just seen that HSBC are advertising for investors. It's ridiculous.
What they're doing asking people to give them money in return for a "share" in their business. It can only mean they don't have enough money to run the company for the next few years. They obviously "ain't minted".
And what happens if all these people that "own" "shares" in the company want to have their say about how it's run? It will be chaos. You can't run a company like that.
We have had two nightmare owners in a row. It would be inconceivable for Charlton to go for the hattrick... wouldn't it? Come on, someone reassure me... please! Come on, it ain't gonna happen is it? Please... someone?
Okay, that could explain why they're looking for investors. But, is that a good model to run a football club which are apparenrly known financial black holes.
This time next year the club could still owe £7m to the original mob, £65m to RD and £???m to this new mob if it all goes wrong
There's plenty of football clubs that the owners would love to sell. Why persist in trying to buy Charlton for the last two years knowing that the owner is a deluded old fool. Why not just buy another club instead. Something just doesn't add up to me
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?
Just because you're minted, it doesn't mean you'll be lavishing your millions on Charlton. I think a chap called Roland Duchatelet is a good example of this.
Okay, that could explain why they're looking for investors. But, is that a good model to run a football club which are apparenrly known financial black holes.
This time next year the club could still owe £7m to the original mob, £65m to RD and £???m to this new mob if it all goes wrong
Who knows, what is a good model for running a football club?
It’s all unknowns and I’m personally not going to dismiss anyone without having the benefit of hindsight
I've just seen that HSBC are advertising for investors. It's ridiculous.
What they're doing asking people to give them money in return for a "share" in their business. It can only mean they don't have enough money to run the company for the next few years. They obviously "ain't minted".
And what happens if all these people that "own" "shares" in the company want to have their say about how it's run? It will be chaos. You can't run a company like that.
There's plenty of football clubs that the owners would love to sell. Why persist in trying to buy Charlton for the last two years knowing that the owner is a deluded old fool. Why not just buy another club instead. Something just doesn't add up to me
Unless Murphy is on such a huge bonus if he can get this deal done. If that's true Murphy is part of the problem.
I may be suffering from a pre takeover stress disorder but in all honesty and apologies to JS... this Aussie "takeover" smells dodgier than a dingos ball sack the longer in lingers on...
I may be suffering from a pre takeover stress disorder but in all honesty and apologies to JS... this Aussie "takeover" smells dodgier than a dingos ball sack the longer in lingers on...
There's plenty of football clubs that the owners would love to sell. Why persist in trying to buy Charlton for the last two years knowing that the owner is a deluded old fool. Why not just buy another club instead. Something just doesn't add up to me
What facts are you using to make your conclusion? If there's stuff you know that others don't, it would be a great time to share them. And if you have a different interpretation on the facts that are known openly, it would also be interesting to see what that is.
What facts are you using to make your conclusion? If there's stuff you know that others don't, it would be a great time to share them. And if you have a different interpretation on the facts that are known openly, it would also be interesting to see what that is.
In fairness he isn't the only one on here that thinks the Aussie deal is flawed. No facts just a gut feeling after two years of bollox
What facts are you using to make your conclusion? If there's stuff you know that others don't, it would be a great time to share them. And if you have a different interpretation on the facts that are known openly, it would also be interesting to see what that is.
I base it on the premise not fact that they are constantly looking for backers and the premise not fact that they have been lodging papers with the FA or FL or anyone for the last 18 months...
I do not look for facts on this thread. I know the only fact before hand... that we would like to see the back of RD.
What facts are you using to make your conclusion? If there's stuff you know that others don't, it would be a great time to share them. And if you have a different interpretation on the facts that are known openly, it would also be interesting to see what that is.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue). Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club. A house analogy if I may. They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they? Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
No, not presenting as facts. I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs. I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs. You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed. I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit. PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?
Just because you're minted, it doesn't mean you'll be lavishing your millions on Charlton. I think a chap called Roland Duchatelet is a good example of this.
You probably wouldn't have said that before RD ever got involved. I'm not saying it's the only important thing, but surely it's better to have owners who are very wealthy, along with having the desire to spend a bit. What I personally think is also important is that the new owner has Charltons interest at heart, not their "network" of other European clubs, or as an outlet for Australian players to come through (if that is their intention, in order to turn a profit for the investers)
Comments
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit.
PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
Even allowing for a year of the delay on chief mentalist RD's demands, the fact they were going out tbeir way to advertise for investors, of any sort, only 6 weeks ago is strange and rings alarm bells to me...
why it’s Murphy’s project in the first place is a completely different question. What would be his driver? Has he a desire to be involved in UK football and Is he looking to create a Chairman / CEO position for himself? Is he passionate about Aus sports and sees this as a viable vehicle to progress that? Is it not that but on a financial basis there’s a very chunky arrangers fee to be had if successful? Is it a combo of all three? Is it not Murph project at all. Who knows.
What they're doing asking people to give them money in return for a "share" in their business. It can only mean they don't have enough money to run the company for the next few years. They obviously "ain't minted".
And what happens if all these people that "own" "shares" in the company want to have their say about how it's run? It will be chaos. You can't run a company like that.
This time next year the club could still owe £7m to the original mob, £65m to RD and £???m to this new mob if it all goes wrong
Why persist in trying to buy Charlton for the last two years knowing that the owner is a deluded old fool.
Why not just buy another club instead.
Something just doesn't add up to me
I think a chap called Roland Duchatelet is a good example of this.
It’s all unknowns and I’m personally not going to dismiss anyone without having the benefit of hindsight
If that's true Murphy is part of the problem.
No facts just a gut feeling after two years of bollox
I do not look for facts on this thread. I know the only fact before hand... that we would like to see the back of RD.
You keep looking for facts mate.