Roland wants out of the football business but wants to maintain ownership of the ground and training ground so he can be landlord and price us out of the ground over time.
So he technically didn't pay anything as he just added what he paid onto the debt?
And he is charging interest on that, in essence adding more money to the debt that he then wants someone else to pay for?
I don't get it
He paid £18.6M. The spivs got the money and the debt to them was repaid. The £18.6M RD paid was by way of loan and accrues interest, being added to by the increasing losses.
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ? RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ? Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ? If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Roland believed he could clear the loans for much less than £7m. Someone may have given him that impression.
@MuttleyCAFC is correct. Had a message this morning saying that the delay is still caused by Roland asking for too much for the club. £7m is a very high percentage increase in the price, and a kick in the teeth when it was agreed the price wouldn't go up on promotion.
Obviously Mr Dalman, or any other buyer, might be happy to pay around £40m, but the 'Aussies' think that price is too high. Simple as that I'm afraid.
Didn't Roland pay £18m?
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.
Did the Aussies not have said agreement secured in writing? It seems incredibly naive, especially as they've already spent a fortune on legal costs. A 'gentleman's' agreement with RD, simply does not exist.
Price was agreed over a year ago but the Aussies didn't buy at that point. Its not clear why, but what we do know is that RD losses have increased in the year that has passed and the £7m directors loans will cost more for him to clear. I know Roland is an @rse but for me the Aussies are at fault for this impasse as well. Any agreement in writing or otherwise will have a time limit on it that must have passed.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
How about being in a higher division?
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.
But as he went on record on Talksport he is prepared to give the club away. It's the property value he wants. Or is this bollox too.
It’s bollox because the property isn’t worth what he says it is. He’s just using it to try to justify a higher than realistic price for the club.
@MuttleyCAFC is correct. Had a message this morning saying that the delay is still caused by Roland asking for too much for the club. £7m is a very high percentage increase in the price, and a kick in the teeth when it was agreed the price wouldn't go up on promotion.
Obviously Mr Dalman, or any other buyer, might be happy to pay around £40m, but the 'Aussies' think that price is too high. Simple as that I'm afraid.
Didn't Roland pay £18m?
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.
Did the Aussies not have said agreement secured in writing? It seems incredibly naive, especially as they've already spent a fortune on legal costs. A 'gentleman's' agreement with RD, simply does not exist.
Price was agreed over a year ago but the Aussies didn't buy at that point. Its not clear why, but what we do know is that RD losses have increased in the year that has passed and the £7m directors loans will cost more for him to clear. I know Roland is an @rse but for me the Aussies are at fault for this impasse as well. Any agreement in writing or otherwise will have a time limit on it that must have passed.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
How about being in a higher division?
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.
Please don’t forget that we were a Championship club when he purchased us for £18m. Promotion was great but it only takes us back to where we started with the old scrote.
by the helmet's logic he would be better off giving all of us £500 to £800 rather than us buy a season ticket off him. there really is no fate that could befall him that would be too grisly, brutal or tragic I have met a few truly loathsome unforgivable scumbags in my 40 odd years thus far, were I ever to suffer the shame and idignity to cross paths with him, he would leap straight to number 1 in that short list. That I ever breathed air in the same stadium as he, makes me shudder. for the snowflakes reading this - it's all sincere, there's no irony, humour or hyperbole for comic effect herein. ebola would be getting off lightly
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ? RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ? Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ? If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Roland believed he could clear the loans for much less than £7m. Someone may have given him that impression.
Well yes, but James Seed has been telling us that the Aussies agreed to pay £33M but now the price is £40M and yet he's now saying that's not what Gerard told him, even though he's been telling us that is what Gerard told him.
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ? RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ? Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ? If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Apologies, yes, I totally misread what you were saying.
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ? RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ? Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ? If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Way I read it the price was £33m and Duchatelet sorted the bonds.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m
Please let Dalman be waiting in the wings to beat the Aussie's price at the eleventh hour. I suspect Roland will be playing one off against another anyway.
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ? RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ? Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ? If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Way I read it the price was £33m and Duchatelet sorted the bonds.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m
That’s correct. I misread Covered End’s post earlier.
When a price is agreed, you don't need any special knowledge to see that something was uncovered to show the agreed price was not taking into account something that came to light. The Aussies spent a lot of money on DD so you can see why they might not want to lose it, although it is surprising that have not given up by now.
What we have to do is wait for the news that Roland is willing to lower the price to what people will pay. If we get all activity over a new potential buyer it simply shows we have forgotten why the club has not been sold and is not likely to be sold anytime soon.
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
This with bells on
What he paid for the club and where we are when he bought it are irrelevant. The Aussies (publicly at least) were the first in and agreed a price & completed DD then sat on their hands for nearly 2 years. This set the price and all other bids have been negotiated with this price in the mind. The fact that they have done this probably without having funding secured has been hugely damaging imo to the whole process and has contributed massively to why RD is still our owner.
RD is being blamed by the Aussies for going back on the deal by changing the structure or price but surely they went back on the deal by not completing last summer. Once it became evident they weren't going to sell RD pulled his horns in and cut the budget, Aribo's contract offer was halved and we are where we are.
RD and his camp are lying toads but I for one don't think the Aussies are much better.
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ? RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ? Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ? If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Way I read it the price was £33m and Duchatelet sorted the bonds.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m
Yes, that's what it says doesn't it ? There must be something in the air today :-)
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
Been saying this for a long time, just don't understand why they're still hanging around after two years. Even a bad smell disappears eventually.
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.
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ? RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ? Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ? If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Way I read it the price was £33m and Duchatelet sorted the bonds.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m
Yes, that's what it says doesn't it ? There must be something in the air today :-)
I’ve twice posted that I misread your post. Apologies again. Sheesh.
Comments
The £18.6M RD paid was by way of loan and accrues interest, being added to by the increasing losses.
there really is no fate that could befall him that would be too grisly, brutal or tragic
I have met a few truly loathsome unforgivable scumbags in my 40 odd years thus far, were I ever to suffer the shame and idignity to cross paths with him, he would leap straight to number 1 in that short list. That I ever breathed air in the same stadium as he, makes me shudder.
for the snowflakes reading this - it's all sincere, there's no irony, humour or hyperbole for comic effect herein.
ebola would be getting off lightly
I give up.
Duchatelet is very difficult to negotiate with clearly but I am a bit sceptical about the length of time & the scrabbling around. for investment.
Prefer Dalman as he appears to have the knowledge & contacts & already was part of getting Cardiff to the Premiership.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m
Can I ask a q? What's the concensus on whether Roland is expecting add ons from the sale of the likes of Lookman and Gomez?
Not while they've got someone on the inside doing their bidding for them.
What we have to do is wait for the news that Roland is willing to lower the price to what people will pay. If we get all activity over a new potential buyer it simply shows we have forgotten why the club has not been sold and is not likely to be sold anytime soon.
What he paid for the club and where we are when he bought it are irrelevant. The Aussies (publicly at least) were the first in and agreed a price & completed DD then sat on their hands for nearly 2 years. This set the price and all other bids have been negotiated with this price in the mind. The fact that they have done this probably without having funding secured has been hugely damaging imo to the whole process and has contributed massively to why RD is still our owner.
RD is being blamed by the Aussies for going back on the deal by changing the structure or price but surely they went back on the deal by not completing last summer. Once it became evident they weren't going to sell RD pulled his horns in and cut the budget, Aribo's contract offer was halved and we are where we are.
RD and his camp are lying toads but I for one don't think the Aussies are much better.
There must be something in the air today :-)