The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
One party must be RH's lot then - praying for them
If both parties agreed the price then presumably it's the same price!
All RH's super-rich bidders would need to do is raise their offer by £1 and a roll of Duck tape - surely?
If 2 bidders offer the same and some of the consideration is deferred eg promotion to Prem etc, Roland has to weigh up the strength of each party to get us to the Prem. How much money each party has is therefore important - the richer the better.
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
One party must be RH's lot then - praying for them
If both parties agreed the price then presumably it's the same price!
All RH's super-rich bidders would need to do is raise their offer by £1 and a roll of Duck tape - surely?
If 2 bidders offer the same and some of the consideration is deferred eg promotion to Prem etc, Roland has to weigh up the strength of each party to get us to the Prem. How much money each party has is therefore important - the richer the better.
Yes, but - if the mega rich guy wants to buy he won't be structuring part payments based on promotion - all upfront - cash!!
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
One party must be RH's lot then - praying for them
If both parties agreed the price then presumably it's the same price!
All RH's super-rich bidders would need to do is raise their offer by £1 and a roll of Duck tape - surely?
If 2 bidders offer the same and some of the consideration is deferred eg promotion to Prem etc, Roland has to weigh up the strength of each party to get us to the Prem. How much money each party has is therefore important - the richer the better.
Don't bother to pm me Airman Brown, basically, it does not matter who they are, and if RD sells to them, then so be it and we have to see if they are any better than previous owners
The premise of the Jimenez/Cash scheme was that the council would only grant residential consent for certain parts of the peninsula site if Charlton moved there and they would use their compulsory purchase power to secure that objective. We don’t have that from the council but we do have it in a professional report of a meeting with the council presented to the High Court.
I haven’t studied the latest situation with the land, but the idea was clearly that the massive profit from residential consent would pay for a new stadium as well as lining the pockets of the people who made it possible by moving the club. Sale of The Valley would potentially enable “affordable” homes to be built there and allow the more expensive land at the peninsula to accommodate dearer properties than would otherwise be the case. But profit from selling/developing The Valley would not pay for a new stadium and the necessary infrastructure at the peninsula of itself - by a very wide margin.
We were in 2013 - and are now - many years away from such a scheme being deliverable. The council has to justify compulsory purchase and can be challenged in court by the landowner.
In my opinion nobody is buying the club on the basis of such a scheme in 2018, any more than they were in 2013.
It does throw out some interesting pointers as to why the deal is taking so long and why someone is prepared to pay £45 or £50mn for a Club clearly worth £25 to £30mn tops. Don't write off this possibility Australian Group has people that have large Property Portfolios and a Multi Purpose Stadium with Residential/Social/Student Housing surrounding it is a very viable proposition, add in commercial outlets and it starts to have wings. It may also answer the question about Directors Loans, they pay them off when they are ready to do the Property deal and roll over initially. Also if the buyer has deep pockets and is already a big Property Player as well as Football Fan, with big ambitions say over 10 years to become a Premier League player, wouldn't you make sure you have big enough money making stadiun ultimately to compete,it would go hand in hand with someone with a grand vision that we would all buy into.
Come on, no more Red Bull or @AFKABartram is going to shut Charlton Life down.
Don't bother to pm me Airman Brown, basically, it does not matter who they are, and if RD sells to them, then so be it and we have to see if they are any better than previous owners
Agreed - and to be honest, he PM’d me th identity of the new owners and I was seriously underwhelmed - not much better than what we already have.
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
One party must be RH's lot then - praying for them
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
One party must be RH's lot then - praying for them
Whether they are in a position to make a winning bid or not, as Airman says, it is likely that any Aussie bid would probably coalesce to give it more capital.
I would imagine that, broadly speaking, AFC's objectives are likely to be the same as Andrew Muir's, so apart from possible disagreements about e.g the amount of shares given to each contributor, who gets to call the shots or which staff they want to employ etc. I could see them recognising that pooling their finances would lead to a more powerful consortium which would have improved chances of succeeding in their primary aim; creating a winning football team with an expanding fanbase.
Whether they are in a position to make a winning bid or not, as Airman says, it is likely that any Aussie bid would probably coalesce to give it more capital.
I would imagine that, broadly speaking, AFC's objectives are likely to be the same as Andrew Muir's, so apart from possible disagreements about e.g the amount of shares given to each contributor, who gets to call the shots or which staff they want to employ etc. I could see them recognising that pooling their finances would lead to a more powerful consortium which would have improved chances of succeeding in their primary aim; creating a winning football team with an expanding fanbase.
I await with interest!
noun 1. the feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone.
2. money paid regularly at a particular rate for the use of money lent, or for delaying the repayment of a debt.
Sums up Roland. Not enough of one, and too much of the other
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
How can it be a “done deal” if there are at least two other parties in the mix?
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
How can it be a “done deal” if there are at least two other parties in the mix?
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
One party must be RH's lot then - praying for them
@Redhenry can you confirm whether or not the Man City rich bidders are still on the scene please?
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
How can it be a “done deal” if there are at least two other parties in the mix?
Haven’t we been through this a few times already, with all due respect?
The fundraising in the City goes back a few weeks. It doesn’t necessarily tell you about the current situation. Personally, I’ve always been sceptical that there are two separate Aussie interested parties. It’s just as likely that one is a progression of the other.
The legal source is sticking with “done deal”, while I’ve also heard that two parties agreed a price.
How can it be a “done deal” if there are at least two other parties in the mix?
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43055733
I would imagine that, broadly speaking, AFC's objectives are likely to be the same as Andrew Muir's, so apart from possible disagreements about e.g the amount of shares given to each contributor, who gets to call the shots or which staff they want to employ etc. I could see them recognising that pooling their finances would lead to a more powerful consortium which would have improved chances of succeeding in their primary aim; creating a winning football team with an expanding fanbase.
I await with interest!
1.
the feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone.
2.
money paid regularly at a particular rate for the use of money lent, or for delaying the repayment of a debt.
Sums up Roland. Not enough of one, and too much of the other
(the fact he’s a dick doesn’t help)
What no applause?
WIOTOS