As Macronarty puts so beautifully, those that get wound up wanting to know what's happened and then get annoyed wading through pages of horse jokes, we've set up a little non-banter version for you
As Macronarty puts so beautifully, those that get wound up wanting to know what's happened and then get annoyed wading through pages of horse jokes, we've set up a little non-banter version for you
I have a source who says that a period of exclusivity began nearly two weeks ago.
What does this actually mean in taking the takeover process forward - thanks
It’s one source, albeit an interesting one. It would mean, for example, that a party which hadn’t completed due diligence could do so safe in the knowledge that the club won’t be sold from under them while they are doing the work. It could mean that an agreement has been reached in principle but certain things remain to be bottomed out. It gives the buyer confidence that the seller isn’t negotiating with a third party behind their back.
I’ve been separately told that due diligence is complete, i.e. all the issues identified before Christmas have now been resolved.
Some of the “nothing is happening” reports are likely to originate from ex-directors with loans - however, it is possible to do the deal without their consent so there is little reason to bring them in before the end if at all. They don’t have sufficient clout to be the difference between the deal happening or not happening, IMO, (and they don’t speak with one voice, either) which isn’t to say they won’t be offered a deal. Obviously they are all (or most of them) very interested spectators.
My view on this has changed since one of them confirmed to me that the loans can be rolled over without their consent (that is, they can be when no new leases are required, which I understand is the case. The freehold is being acquired with the club).
I don't think all the issues have been resolved though as I have heard of at least one group of people have been waiting for small minor issue to be resolved.
Hopefully this can get sorted quickly so the takeover has a new lease of life given to it
Glad it's only a small minor issue and not a large minor issue or small major issue!
As Macronarty puts so beautifully, those that get wound up wanting to know what's happened and then get annoyed wading through pages of horse jokes, we've set up a little non-banter version for you
Poor old AFKA seems to be losing the plot. He's started a thread that only he can reply to.
Even pin-up darling Henry hasn't dared do that.
Quoting the Gaffer's Page "I don't think all the issues have been resolved though as I have heard of at least one group of people have been waiting for small minor issue to be resolved."
I've a heard rumour "The small minor issue" is someone who makes tea and serves cake, apparently he's looking for a settlement before takes up the offer of "Head of Security" at saturday morning pictures.
I have a source who says that a period of exclusivity began nearly two weeks ago.
What does this actually mean in taking the takeover process forward - thanks
It’s one source, albeit an interesting one. It would mean, for example, that a party which hadn’t completed due diligence could do so safe in the knowledge that the club won’t be sold from under them while they are doing the work. It could mean that an agreement has been reached in principle but certain things remain to be bottomed out. It gives the buyer confidence that the seller isn’t negotiating with a third party behind their back.
I’ve been separately told that due diligence is complete, i.e. all the issues identified before Christmas have now been resolved.
Some of the “nothing is happening” reports are likely to originate from ex-directors with loans - however, it is possible to do the deal without their consent so there is little reason to bring them in before the end if at all. They don’t have sufficient clout to be the difference between the deal happening or not happening, IMO, (and they don’t speak with one voice, either) which isn’t to say they won’t be offered a deal. Obviously they are all (or most of them) very interested spectators.
My view on this has changed since one of them confirmed to me that the loans can be rolled over without their consent (that is, they can be when no new leases are required, which I understand is the case. The freehold is being acquired with the club).
I don't think all the issues have been resolved though as I have heard of at least one group of people have been waiting for small minor issue to be resolved.
Hopefully this can get sorted quickly so the takeover has a new lease of life given to it
Glad it's only a small minor issue and not a large minor issue or small major issue!
Dam it..!! I knew my cryptic clue wasn't robust enough
When the takeover finally goes through, UK productivity figures will soar as all the time we spend reading this will be put to different (not necessarily better) use.
I have a source who says that a period of exclusivity began nearly two weeks ago.
What does this actually mean in taking the takeover process forward - thanks
It’s one source, albeit an interesting one. It would mean, for example, that a party which hadn’t completed due diligence could do so safe in the knowledge that the club won’t be sold from under them while they are doing the work. It could mean that an agreement has been reached in principle but certain things remain to be bottomed out. It gives the buyer confidence that the seller isn’t negotiating with a third party behind their back.
I’ve been separately told that due diligence is complete, i.e. all the issues identified before Christmas have now been resolved.
Some of the “nothing is happening” reports are likely to originate from ex-directors with loans - however, it is possible to do the deal without their consent so there is little reason to bring them in before the end if at all. They don’t have sufficient clout to be the difference between the deal happening or not happening, IMO, (and they don’t speak with one voice, either) which isn’t to say they won’t be offered a deal. Obviously they are all (or most of them) very interested spectators.
My view on this has changed since one of them confirmed to me that the loans can be rolled over without their consent (that is, they can be when no new leases are required, which I understand is the case. The freehold is being acquired with the club).
I don't think all the issues have been resolved though as I have heard of at least one group of people have been waiting for small minor issue to be resolved.
Hopefully this can get sorted quickly so the takeover has a new lease of life given to it
Glad it's only a small minor issue and not a large minor issue or small major issue!
Dam it..!! I knew my cryptic clue wasn't robust enough
Cryptic? Didn't have to muse on that for too long.
I have a source who says that a period of exclusivity began nearly two weeks ago.
What does this actually mean in taking the takeover process forward - thanks
It’s one source, albeit an interesting one. It would mean, for example, that a party which hadn’t completed due diligence could do so safe in the knowledge that the club won’t be sold from under them while they are doing the work. It could mean that an agreement has been reached in principle but certain things remain to be bottomed out. It gives the buyer confidence that the seller isn’t negotiating with a third party behind their back.
I’ve been separately told that due diligence is complete, i.e. all the issues identified before Christmas have now been resolved.
Some of the “nothing is happening” reports are likely to originate from ex-directors with loans - however, it is possible to do the deal without their consent so there is little reason to bring them in before the end if at all. They don’t have sufficient clout to be the difference between the deal happening or not happening, IMO, (and they don’t speak with one voice, either) which isn’t to say they won’t be offered a deal. Obviously they are all (or most of them) very interested spectators.
My view on this has changed since one of them confirmed to me that the loans can be rolled over without their consent (that is, they can be when no new leases are required, which I understand is the case. The freehold is being acquired with the club).
I don't think all the issues have been resolved though as I have heard of at least one group of people have been waiting for small minor issue to be resolved.
Hopefully this can get sorted quickly so the takeover has a new lease of life given to it
Glad it's only a small minor issue and not a large minor issue or small major issue!
You mentioned a Major, are we being taken over by the Army and will it be a Coup?
When the takeover finally goes through, UK productivity figures will soar as all the time we spend reading this will be put to different (not necessarily better) use.
Don't be silly, We'll then be pouring over every detail of the new owner, what she wears, how much money she has.
Then there will the will she sack Robinson debate, the is £100m enough debate, the were we better off under Roland debate, the do we want Conte debate, the is the Europa league worth it with all the Thursday games debate, etc etc
When the takeover finally goes through, UK productivity figures will soar as all the time we spend reading this will be put to different (not necessarily better) use.
Don't be silly, We'll then be pouring over every detail of the new owner, what she wears, how much money she has.
Then there will the will she sack Robinson debate, the is £100m enough debate, the were we better off under Roland debate, the do we want Conte debate, the is the Europa league worth it with all the Thursday games debate, etc etc
..its a she .? ..reckon its the grumpy woman from the apprentice
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
Or, if you like, the Staprix debt figure represents losses back to 2010 - not losses since 2014.
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
Did Berylson pay anything to acquire Millwall? If so you would have to add that to his figure.
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
Did Berylson pay anything to acquire Millwall? If so you would have to add that to his figure.
What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? ; - )
I don't know how much he paid and yes you would have to factor in the price to get a like for like comparison.
It still highlights just how poorly Duchatelet has "invested" in Charlton over a shorter period.
When are the Charlton accounts for 16/17 due to be published BTW?
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
Did Berylson pay anything to acquire Millwall? If so you would have to add that to his figure.
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
Did Berylson pay anything to acquire Millwall? If so you would have to add that to his figure.
What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? ; - )
I don't know how much he paid and yes you would have to factor in the price to get a like for like comparison.
It still highlights just how poorly Duchatelet has "invested" in Charlton over a shorter period.
When are the Charlton accounts for 16/17 due to be published BTW?
Accounts are due for filling by the 31st March. Wonder if this has any significance for the delay of the takeover. The potential new owners who have not carried out due diligence as of yet may want to review these before making a move?
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
Did Berylson pay anything to acquire Millwall? If so you would have to add that to his figure.
What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? ; - )
I don't know how much he paid and yes you would have to factor in the price to get a like for like comparison.
It still highlights just how poorly Duchatelet has "invested" in Charlton over a shorter period.
When are the Charlton accounts for 16/17 due to be published BTW?
Accounts are due for filling by the 31st March. Wonder if this has any significance for the delay as the potential new owners want to review these before making a move?
I'm sure any party interested would have access to the accounts to be published and much more as part of the Due Dilligence process.
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
Did Berylson pay anything to acquire Millwall? If so you would have to add that to his figure.
What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? ; - )
I don't know how much he paid and yes you would have to factor in the price to get a like for like comparison.
It still highlights just how poorly Duchatelet has "invested" in Charlton over a shorter period.
When are the Charlton accounts for 16/17 due to be published BTW?
Accounts are due for filling by the 31st March. Wonder if this has any significance for the delay as the potential new owners want to review these before making a move?
I'm sure any party interested would have access to the accounts to be published and much more as part of the Due Dilligence process.
What about the parties that have not carried out due diligence as of yet? Sounds like there are a couple of parties who have not based on the rumours on here.
It was more that Duchatelet has lost similar (approx £55m) to Berylson at Millwall but in a shorter period yet Millwall are now in a higher division.
Haven’t studied the Millwall figures, but RD hasn’t lost £55m - as we know the Staprix debt includes the money he paid the spivs to acquire the assets, which he still owns and which still have a value.
My bad terminology.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
Did Berylson pay anything to acquire Millwall? If so you would have to add that to his figure.
What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? ; - )
I don't know how much he paid and yes you would have to factor in the price to get a like for like comparison.
It still highlights just how poorly Duchatelet has "invested" in Charlton over a shorter period.
When are the Charlton accounts for 16/17 due to be published BTW?
Accounts are due for filling by the 31st March. Wonder if this has any significance for the delay as the potential new owners want to review these before making a move?
I'm sure any party interested would have access to the accounts to be published and much more as part of the Due Dilligence process.
What about the parties that have not carried out due diligence as of yet? Sounds like there are a couple of parties who have not based on the rumours on here.
In which case of they are serious they will enter DD at some stage and will see much more than is offered in the published accounts. I guess if one was unsure whether or not to pursue interest in the club waiting for the published accounts could help make the decision of whether to spend the money on DD or not. Unlikely though I'd guess.
Comments
Not that you don't deserve yours but Admin steal my ideas and still don't give out a promote.
Poor old AFKA seems to be losing the plot. He's started a thread that only he can reply to.
Even pin-up darling Henry hasn't dared do that.
"I don't think all the issues have been resolved though as I have heard of at least one group of people have been waiting for small minor issue to be resolved."
I've a heard rumour "The small minor issue" is someone who makes tea and serves cake, apparently he's looking for a settlement before takes up the offer of "Head of Security" at saturday morning pictures.
#promotehenryffs
Then there will the will she sack Robinson debate, the is £100m enough debate, the were we better off under Roland debate, the do we want Conte debate, the is the Europa league worth it with all the Thursday games debate, etc etc
Or, if you like, the Staprix debt figure represents losses back to 2010 - not losses since 2014.
Both have spent £55m and both still hold assets ie Charlton in Duchatelet's case and some poxy club about to lose its ground with Berylson.
I don't know how much he paid and yes you would have to factor in the price to get a like for like comparison.
It still highlights just how poorly Duchatelet has "invested" in Charlton over a shorter period.
When are the Charlton accounts for 16/17 due to be published BTW?