I have been trudging to The Vallley, Selhurst and Upton Park for 57 years and in all that time we’ve mostly been shit. I reason I’ve got if I’m lucky another 25 years to go. In that time I would dearly love us to actually win something. I firmly believe we won’t. I’ll still be Charlton mad until the day I die. It’s not a curse it’s a blessing. COYR
My old neighbour (long since passed) a Millwall supporter said that, "being a football supporter was tantamount to masochism". He'd been a Millwall supporter for 60 years and for 59 and three quarters it had been pure misery. He said he really couldn't remember the good 4 months.
As Charlton's fate played out, I sweated a fitful sleep. I dreamt that Andrew Muir had taken over and with a microphone in his hand he stood in the centre circle and proclaimed:
"We need to get our Charlton back. And that requires every one of you to step up. But i don't want community leaders - that is not enough. We need... philosophers!"
Send in your explanations on the back of a postcard.
Just Fuck Off you poisonous twat, your experiments in politics and football have failed dismally now just concentrate on getting old and leave other peoples toys alone.
Just Fuck Off you poisonous twat, your experiments in politics and football have failed dismally now just concentrate on getting old and leave other peoples toys alone.
Steady on. He's only reporting what he read on Facebook.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
But this is Charlton and even our takeovers have to be a bit sh*t.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
As far as we are aware, this isn't a sole ownership deal, the Aussies are a consortium, and therefore Muir isn't going to put all of his wealth at risk, there would have been decisions taken about the sums of money that people will be investing. The Aussies aren't buying us for the love of the club, they are buying us because they can see a profit further down the line. It's likely they have some initial capital to make available for transfers and the general running of the club, but going forward they will need to find other ways to raise funds because outside of the Premiership, we aren't likely to make any money.
Even back in our Premiership days there were various ways that the board tried to raise funds, often it was with share issues, so this thing is not that unusual.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
Much of what we are hearing is just speculation at the moment. There are sellers who, when offered their asking price, think that must indicate that they should be asking for more. In such cases it is sometimes difficult to agree the final figure. The add ons may be structured as earn out clauses which are a way of bridging the gap between the respective valuations of the buyer and the seller. Let’s just hope a deal can be done and we can move on to happier times.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?
Josh Harris. Don't know that much about the setup at Palarse to be honest.
Comments
"We need to get our Charlton back. And that requires every one of you to step up. But i don't want community leaders - that is not enough. We need... philosophers!"
Send in your explanations on the back of a postcard.
"Deal was completed on Monday"
Even back in our Premiership days there were various ways that the board tried to raise funds, often it was with share issues, so this thing is not that unusual.
In such cases it is sometimes difficult to agree the final figure.
The add ons may be structured as earn out clauses which are a way of bridging the gap between the respective valuations of the buyer and the seller.
Let’s just hope a deal can be done and we can move on to happier times.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".