I can’t believe anybody is giving credence to what Murray says. He’s been proven to be untrustworthy and is one of the reasons why we are in such a mess and the sooner he’s gone along with RD the better.
Agreed. I cannot see a true reconciliation between him and the fans after what has been said and in some cases, not been said, over the past few years.
It looks very much as if there is some kind of Mexican stand-off.
RD may be jibbing at a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the sale of Konsa - something which the Aussies are absolutely and quite rightly bound to demand. The player was doubtless sold off to cover running costs and, as well as reverting to type, RD may be trying to assert himself and show that he’s somehow in control of these negotiations. That may fit with Murray wittering on about a second potential purchaser.
If this is the case, RD is playing a very dangerous game, as Muir and his colleagues may simply decide to call his bluff and walk away. This may be why Duchatelet is making noises about planning for next season in an attempt to show that he’s not over a barrel -which he most certainly is.
If this odious egomaniac is still in place in August, I can feel a huge demonstration coming on at the first home game to supplement efforts in Belgium. Well done to CARD for their foresight in participating in his local elections.
I think it is the Belgium 20 and the ROT party you should be thanking.
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
Could it be that if Brentford were to sell Konsa on to (say) Chelsea for (say) £10m in two years time, RD’s sell on clause gets him (not Charlton) a significant percentage of the fee? I can imagine that would derail the agreement if the Aussies hadn’t planned for that.
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
That scenario isn't against the rules, otherwise agents couldn't exist because they all.profit from player transfers
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
If that was true it would apply to all clubs holding sell-on clauses. And it assumes there is a sell-on clause in this case.
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
Could it be that if Brentford were to sell Konsa on to (say) Chelsea for (say) £10m in two years time, RD’s sell on clause gets him (not Charlton) a significant percentage of the fee? I can imagine that would derail the agreement if the Aussies hadn’t planned for that.
That's exactly my suggestion. In that circumstance, RD will gain a huge fee for a player being sold from one club to another. And, as he won't (we hope!) have anything to do with Charlton or any other club, he could be in Konsa's ear every day and could be on the phone to Chelsea (or any other club) every day, without risk of "tapping up".
It looks very much as if there is some kind of Mexican stand-off.
RD may be jibbing at a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the sale of Konsa - something which the Aussies are absolutely and quite rightly bound to demand. The player was doubtless sold off to cover running costs and, as well as reverting to type, RD may be trying to assert himself and show that he’s somehow in control of these negotiations. That may fit with Murray wittering on about a second potential purchaser.
If this is the case, RD is playing a very dangerous game, as Muir and his colleagues may simply decide to call his bluff and walk away. This may be why Duchatelet is making noises about planning for next season in an attempt to show that he’s not over a barrel -which he most certainly is.
If this odious egomaniac is still in place in August, I can feel a huge demonstration coming on at the first home game to supplement efforts in Belgium. Well done to CARD for their foresight in participating in his local elections.
I think it is the Belgium 20 and the ROT party you should be thanking.
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
Could it be that if Brentford were to sell Konsa on to (say) Chelsea for (say) £10m in two years time, RD’s sell on clause gets him (not Charlton) a significant percentage of the fee? I can imagine that would derail the agreement if the Aussies hadn’t planned for that.
That's exactly my suggestion. In that circumstance, RD will gain a huge fee for a player being sold from one club to another. And, as he won't (we hope!) have anything to do with Charlton or any other club, he could be in Konsa's ear every day and could be on the phone to Chelsea (or any other club) every day, without risk of "tapping up".
But even if he owned Charlton he could still be on the phone to Konsa every day to try and encourage him to move.
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
Could it be that if Brentford were to sell Konsa on to (say) Chelsea for (say) £10m in two years time, RD’s sell on clause gets him (not Charlton) a significant percentage of the fee? I can imagine that would derail the agreement if the Aussies hadn’t planned for that.
That's exactly my suggestion. In that circumstance, RD will gain a huge fee for a player being sold from one club to another. And, as he won't (we hope!) have anything to do with Charlton or any other club, he could be in Konsa's ear every day and could be on the phone to Chelsea (or any other club) every day, without risk of "tapping up".
But even if he owned Charlton he could still be on the phone to Konsa every day to try and encourage him to move.
Surely RD owning the sell on fee rights to Konsa when he no longer owns the club would be against third party ownership rules. I know he was alleged to have done this at Standard but mainland Europe seems to have different views in this regard I.e in Italy multiple clubs can own percentage of players etc.
I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".
But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.
Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.
Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.
But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).
So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).
All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.
THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.
If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.
Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.
If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.
And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.
I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.
How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?
My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
Could it be that if Brentford were to sell Konsa on to (say) Chelsea for (say) £10m in two years time, RD’s sell on clause gets him (not Charlton) a significant percentage of the fee? I can imagine that would derail the agreement if the Aussies hadn’t planned for that.
That's exactly my suggestion. In that circumstance, RD will gain a huge fee for a player being sold from one club to another. And, as he won't (we hope!) have anything to do with Charlton or any other club, he could be in Konsa's ear every day and could be on the phone to Chelsea (or any other club) every day, without risk of "tapping up".
But even if he owned Charlton he could still be on the phone to Konsa every day to try and encourage him to move.
I've tried to steer clear of this but for what it's worth... If the Aussie's can't scrape up the purchase price they cannot run the club and manage the debts. If they are loaded, this should be done and dusted now. And if it's RD who is playing silly buggers they should grow a pair, give him a price and a deadline with all club assets attached, and if he farts about, walk away. This ridiculous affair is damaging the club. The image of these guys as potential buyers is looking more and more like Jimenez and Co every day.
I've tried to steer clear of this but for what it's worth... If the Aussie's can't scrape up the purchase price they cannot run the club and manage the debts. If they are loaded, this should be done and dusted now. And if it's RD who is playing silly buggers they should grow a pair, give him a price and a deadline with all club assets attached, and if he farts about, walk away. This ridiculous affair is damaging the club. The image of these guys as potential buyers is looking more and more like Jimenez and Co every day.
You don't get rich, or stay rich, if you continually pay over the odds for things just because you can afford it. Financial prudence is key.
I'm really really really disappointed with the Trust. Why on earth would you talk to RM? All it's done is confirm the man talks shit and has made us all mad (OK madder).
Whatever happens I don't want him given any airtime ever again.
I think the trust board had very few options.
With the sale of Konsa, the horrible news from Ibiza and the apparent breakdown of the takeover, I think they were absolutely right to seek comment and/or clarity from the club. Anyway, some form of communication from the club was long overdue. The problem is that Murray is the only one left in SE7 in any way qualified to cast any light on recent developments.
We know that Murray panders to the whims of Duchatelet, and he proved that again by reiterating what Duchatelet said to members of ROT last month. He went on to make a lame attempt at being positive about the club's footballing prospects, despite the obvious shortcomings in the playing and coaching staff, but then what else would we expect?
Yes, you can argue that Murray should not have been allowed to fob us all off with meaningless platitudes, and I think that is fair comment, but if pressed hard, how would he react? Would he be more forthcoming (unlikely), or would he shut down dialogue (probably)? Perhaps this should be tested by the trust board.
The point is the trust recognised the time had come for questions to be asked. Having said that, the account of the dialogue might be viewed as somewhat sympathetic towards Murray, and the fact that his responses are not criticised in any way is disappointing.
I've tried to steer clear of this but for what it's worth... If the Aussie's can't scrape up the purchase price they cannot run the club and manage the debts. If they are loaded, this should be done and dusted now. And if it's RD who is playing silly buggers they should grow a pair, give him a price and a deadline with all club assets attached, and if he farts about, walk away. This ridiculous affair is damaging the club. The image of these guys as potential buyers is looking more and more like Jimenez and Co every day.
Really? How many times has Muir appeared at the High Court?
Just seen the latest Tripadvisor review on Hotel Stayen
Dirty rooms, impolite staff & disgusting food. The rooms smelt musty and damp. The rooms were not cleaned properly. The owner looks like a tramp with yellow teeth, and his shoes had a piece of duct tape holding the sole on.
Brilliant!
I'll own up to that one.
A bit unfair to the staff. Unless they were rude I'd leave them out of it.
I'm really really really disappointed with the Trust. Why on earth would you talk to RM? All it's done is confirm the man talks shit and has made us all mad (OK madder).
Whatever happens I don't want him given any airtime ever again.
The point is the trust recognised the time had come for questions to be asked. Having said that, the account of the dialogue might be viewed as somewhat sympathetic towards Murray, and the fact that his responses are not criticised in any way is disappointing.
It looks very much as if there is some kind of Mexican stand-off.
RD may be jibbing at a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the sale of Konsa - something which the Aussies are absolutely and quite rightly bound to demand. The player was doubtless sold off to cover running costs and, as well as reverting to type, RD may be trying to assert himself and show that he’s somehow in control of these negotiations. That may fit with Murray wittering on about a second potential purchaser.
If this is the case, RD is playing a very dangerous game, as Muir and his colleagues may simply decide to call his bluff and walk away. This may be why Duchatelet is making noises about planning for next season in an attempt to show that he’s not over a barrel -which he most certainly is.
If this odious egomaniac is still in place in August, I can feel a huge demonstration coming on at the first home game to supplement efforts in Belgium. Well done to the Belgium 20 and ROT for their foresight in participating in his local elections.
So a Mexican consortium now in the running. You heard it here first.
I'm really really really disappointed with the Trust. Why on earth would you talk to RM? All it's done is confirm the man talks shit and has made us all mad (OK madder).
Whatever happens I don't want him given any airtime ever again.
I think the trust board had very few options.
With the sale of Konsa, the horrible news from Ibiza and the apparent breakdown of the takeover, I think they were absolutely right to seek comment and/or clarity from the club. Anyway, some form of communication from the club was long overdue. The problem is that Murray is the only one left in SE7 in any way qualified to cast any light on recent developments.
We know that Murray panders to the whims of Duchatelet, and he proved that again by reiterating what Duchatelet said to members of ROT last month. He went on to make a lame attempt at being positive about the club's footballing prospects, despite the obvious shortcomings in the playing and coaching staff, but then what else would we expect?
Yes, you can argue that Murray should not have been allowed to fob us all off with meaningless platitudes, and I think that is fair comment, but if pressed hard, how would he react? Would he be more forthcoming (unlikely), or would he shut down dialogue (probably)? Perhaps this should be tested by the trust board.
The point is the trust recognised the time had come for questions to be asked. Having said that, the account of the dialogue might be viewed as somewhat sympathetic towards Murray, and the fact that his responses are not criticised in any way is disappointing.
This 100%
I am wondering if the Trust approached the club or Murray (sorry if already stated)? What's happened to the communications bloke? Rubashow? Isn't that what he's paid for? Seems a pointless exercise if the club just wheel Murray out UNLESS he is also asked some difficult questions.
It looks very much as if there is some kind of Mexican stand-off.
RD may be jibbing at a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the sale of Konsa - something which the Aussies are absolutely and quite rightly bound to demand. The player was doubtless sold off to cover running costs and, as well as reverting to type, RD may be trying to assert himself and show that he’s somehow in control of these negotiations. That may fit with Murray wittering on about a second potential purchaser.
If this is the case, RD is playing a very dangerous game, as Muir and his colleagues may simply decide to call his bluff and walk away. This may be why Duchatelet is making noises about planning for next season in an attempt to show that he’s not over a barrel -which he most certainly is.
If this odious egomaniac is still in place in August, I can feel a huge demonstration coming on at the first home game to supplement efforts in Belgium. Well done to the Belgium 20 and ROT for their foresight in participating in his local elections.
So a Mexican consortium now in the running. You heard it here first.
That would help our defensive frailties if true - would know how to build a wall.
To be fair, I think the Trust were correct in asking questions and with Leanne busy with Bowyers list of wanted players for the coming season. That only left him, they merely reported what he said.
LMFAO. Some may disapprove but I think now everyone has to put pressure on him in whatever legal and eye catching way they can think of. Good work, Belgium 20.
(I didn't stay there so I probably should not join in.)
LMFAO. Some may disapprove but I think now everyone has to put pressure on him in whatever legal and eye catching way they can think of. Good work, Belgium 20.
(I didn't stay there so I probably should not join in.)
Made me laugh - especially the one about the owner having yellow teeth, looking like a tramp and keeping his shoes together with duct tape! Surely if Roland is focusing on the hotel business, having thousands of people totally peed off with him isn't going to be the most lucrative option!
To be fair, I think the Trust were correct in asking questions and with Leanne busy with Bowyers list of wanted players for the coming season. That only left him, they merely reported what he said.
Well than that is just not good enough from the Trust - as I said earlier, appears to be far too much flat cap dothing to Murray and some serious robust questioning as to what the fuck is going on. The 'I know nothing' line is patently just not true.
And still official word from the @castrust since their earlier post to say they'd spoken to 'Mr Murray'. Again, disappointing seeing as several of the Trust Board post on here.
Comments
I cannot see a true reconciliation between him and the fans after what has been said and in some cases, not been said, over the past few years.
There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.
To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.
If the Aussie's can't scrape up the purchase price they cannot run the club and manage the debts. If they are loaded, this should be done and dusted now.
And if it's RD who is playing silly buggers they should grow a pair, give him a price and a deadline with all club assets attached, and if he farts about, walk away. This ridiculous affair is damaging the club. The image of these guys as potential buyers is looking more and more like Jimenez and Co every day.
With the sale of Konsa, the horrible news from Ibiza and the apparent breakdown of the takeover, I think they were absolutely right to seek comment and/or clarity from the club. Anyway, some form of communication from the club was long overdue. The problem is that Murray is the only one left in SE7 in any way qualified to cast any light on recent developments.
We know that Murray panders to the whims of Duchatelet, and he proved that again by reiterating what Duchatelet said to members of ROT last month. He went on to make a lame attempt at being positive about the club's footballing prospects, despite the obvious shortcomings in the playing and coaching staff, but then what else would we expect?
Yes, you can argue that Murray should not have been allowed to fob us all off with meaningless platitudes, and I think that is fair comment, but if pressed hard, how would he react? Would he be more forthcoming (unlikely), or would he shut down dialogue (probably)? Perhaps this should be tested by the trust board.
The point is the trust recognised the time had come for questions to be asked. Having said that, the account of the dialogue might be viewed as somewhat sympathetic towards Murray, and the fact that his responses are not criticised in any way is disappointing.
#notfitforpurpose
This 100%
I am wondering if the Trust approached the club or Murray (sorry if already stated)? What's happened to the communications bloke? Rubashow? Isn't that what he's paid for? Seems a pointless exercise if the club just wheel Murray out UNLESS he is also asked some difficult questions.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g641781-d1567946-Reviews-or5-Hotel_Stayen-Sint_Truiden_Limburg_Province.html
And still official word from the @castrust since their earlier post to say they'd spoken to 'Mr Murray'. Again, disappointing seeing as several of the Trust Board post on here.
When are the next Trust elections?