Well. My experience of M&A is that even at the due diligence stage, a potential buyer expects exclusivity. The result of due diligence is that the initial offer price is adjusted by the buyer if necessary and the seller either accepts, and moves in to the next final stage, or tells that buyer to get lost. It is that way because due diligence and the final sale documentation costs a tidy amount which few want to waste.
Here, if the interpretation of the statement ( and I have to assume @Ollywozere is authoritative ) is correct, we have two parties who have both shelled out for due diligence and now are both preparing closing sale documents. I can only say that my M&A experience comes from the world of advertising agencies, and they are not normally held up as examples of conservative probity. Yet if Sir Martin Sorrell found himself in the situation of one of these buyers, he would be off, pronto, probably seeking to sue RD to boot.
I find it odd and think Prague sums it up perfectly. If two parties are basically in a race to the post one is going to be mightily pissed off. No one, especially those minted as there is a reason why they are minted, chucks money down the drain. Something doesnt add up here.
It is usual that a seller has to give a buyer representations and warranties particularly related to the information they have provided in the due diligence process. I have seen business sellers deal with two buyers who have agreed to a price looking to sell to the buyer that wants the least onerous reps and warranties. This puts Roland in a better position to negotiate and, no doubt, he will be very awkward.
Am I missing something here? How do you agree a deal to sell one football club to two separate parties?
Maybe Roland really is a genius because I am lost on this one!
I just don’t understand this. Why ‘a party’ would be progressing with very expensive lawyer fees etc on an agreed deal to find the deal at some stage ‘unagreed’
Someone help me out
Smells of the Ozzie’s being used as a bit of a Pawn to me.
Agreed - at least it's starting to feel something like imminent now....
I read this to mean agrees between Charlton and another party?
Everyone, please don't let this stop anyone from producing pages and pages of misinformed waffle and all pointless tangents should be taken. Where is Kerry Katona btw?
I read this to mean agrees between Charlton and another party?
Everyone, please don't let this stop anyone from producing pages and pages of misinformed waffle and all pointless tangents should be taken. Where is Kerry Katona btw?
So just to confirm it as things stand the two parties are Roland and the buyer . Hope this helps everyone who can’t be bothered to read that it’s two potential buyers and those who are just stupid like me
I read this to mean agrees between Charlton and another party?
Everyone, please don't let this stop anyone from producing pages and pages of misinformed waffle and all pointless tangents should be taken. Where is Kerry Katona btw?
Eating a pot noodle and drinking a red bull
Nah she just heats up the Red Bull and uses it instead of water in her pot noodle.
So just to confirm it as things stand the two parties are Roland and the buyer . Hope this helps everyone who can’t be bothered to read that it’s two potential buyers and those who are just stupid like me
Noooo. Look back or @Ollywozere post where he states two potential purchasers...
I wonder how much the two bidders concerned actually know about each other?
Putting my tinfoil hat on for a moment... I wonder if the statement has less to do with informing the fans and more aimed at the two bidders to try and rangle up a last minute higher offer?
Only with Charlton can there be an official statement & then 7 pages later no-one understands what's happening.
I'm going with Airman & Olly that a deal has been agreed with 2 DIFFERENT bidders & their respective lawyers are now drawing up contracts etc. Presumably RD thought that he was now only dealing with a 1 party, but one has now re-joined the table (having previously dropped out)and RD wants to keep both parties there in case one (again) drops out.
Back to the house buying process - you can agree a price with any number of potential purchasers & if one drops out you go with another. In our case the previous "dropper outer" looks like they may have re-entered the game, Looks a bit weird as there must be costs involved and both must feel that have a good chance of securing the deal. Again, I can only surmise, but perhaps the "dropper outer" was RD's "preferred bidder" and RD is hoping that they will get the deal done first or that their re-emergence will p**s off the other bidder & they drop out. Who knows with this f**kwit.
Comments
Here, if the interpretation of the statement ( and I have to assume @Ollywozere is authoritative ) is correct, we have two parties who have both shelled out for due diligence and now are both preparing closing sale documents. I can only say that my M&A experience comes from the world of advertising agencies, and they are not normally held up as examples of conservative probity. Yet if Sir Martin Sorrell found himself in the situation of one of these buyers, he would be off, pronto, probably seeking to sue RD to boot.
Hope this helps everyone who can’t be bothered to read that it’s two potential buyers and those who are just stupid like me
Putting my tinfoil hat on for a moment... I wonder if the statement has less to do with informing the fans and more aimed at the two bidders to try and rangle up a last minute higher offer?
Can understand the non-disclosure stuff but I'm desperate to know how much better the new lot will be! ... if better at all.