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.
I was replying to HI not your good self and I liked your apology. I think you need some time out mate.
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
It's the same as the American guys did at Man U, although they bought the club with borrowed money and charge the interest to the club. So it seems they get to be in the big time, without actually pulling any of their own banknotes out of their pocket.
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.
I was replying to HI not your good self and I liked your apology. I think you need some time out mate.
Sheesh. I'm doing just fine, ta for your concern :-)
"My contact is speaking with Dalman today, he is expecting Charlton to come up.
Full cards not been put on the table by the club and DD unearthed more debt than what was declared.
Training ground issue also which doesn't have be anywhere near as big as Duchatelet is making it."
Thought Reams said it would be done early next week...............
Tbf that post is solid.
In what way?
Matches other things I have heard.
So you think takeover COULD be completed next week?
I don’t know about that, I’m talking about the obstacles.
Cheers... With so many factors in those messages I wasnt sure if you were talking about Reams saying the takeover could be done next week or the obsticles he mentioned
No, he's definitely talking about the obstacles mate
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
Comments
I think you need some time out mate.
So it seems they get to be in the big time, without actually pulling any of their own banknotes out of their pocket.
Its the usual gobbledegook
Sheesh. I'm doing just fine, ta for your concern :-)
The takeover is p*ss*ng me off a bit though.
; )
Gotta defeat ol' Yellow teeth
FUCK off
High jump