When you're selling a house, or business for that matter, you don't start stripping it of the fixtures and fittings because you consider the process to be taking too long. I don't see this as any different meself
Nice work!
It’s been a while before anyone put up a solid house selling analogy.
I was thinking more of the time when I sold my shop up next to Grove Park BR Station
you used to have a shop? Never knew that.
Yer, next to Grove Park BR Station, and I would have started tuckin into the Mars bars after we done the stock take once we sold
You held that back.
You had us all feeling sorry for you before about how old Swami knocked you for a few Bob.
Yer, he came in late on saying he didnt have the dough for the stock, coincidentally, even though it was agreed and I had to do a "deal" with the c**t. But from my perspective and because I'm a principled Englishman, I wouldnt start eating the Mars bars in protest of how long the deal was taking to complete, and it took a foookin age.
Still managed to leave him a few hundred quid lighter after not giving him the stock of fireworks though
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Agree with the first part of your post. League one football clubs by definition must sell players and keep costs down in order to survive.
Where I don’t understand your point is with regard to administration. All the debt CAFC have accrued is debt to the owner. What possible benefit is there in him letting the club go bust and into admin ?
If Charlton stop paying wages and other bills then the employees and others will become debtors.
I did not state or imply that there is benefit in him letting the club go bust and into admin. He is simply trying to make the club a self financing concern until it is sold. It seems, and I don't know, as if he has suddenly decided to drastically reduce the amount of money he is putting into the club from his own pocket.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Agree with the first part of your post. League one football clubs by definition must sell players and keep costs down in order to survive.
Where I don’t understand your point is with regard to administration. All the debt CAFC have accrued is debt to the owner. What possible benefit is there in him letting the club go bust and into admin ?
If Charlton stop paying wages and other bills then the employees and others will become debtors.
I did not state or imply that there is benefit in him letting the club go bust and into admin. He is simply trying to make the club a self financing concern until it is sold. It seems, and I don't know, as if he has suddenly decided to drastically reduce the amount of money he is putting into the club from his own pocket.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
If RD stops paying the bills to put Charlton into administration, he will lose all the money he has put in, less what the administrator recovers which will be the square roof of eff all !
When you say Charlton start borrowing to pay the costs, you seem to have forgotten that RD (and all our owners) start borrowing from day 1.
Sorry, but your post is wrong wrong wrong.
Which is why RD won't let the club go into admin. But he is taking steps to reduce his personal monthly costs. Which is what he is doing with Konsa and other proposed player sales.
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Agree with the first part of your post. League one football clubs by definition must sell players and keep costs down in order to survive.
Where I don’t understand your point is with regard to administration. All the debt CAFC have accrued is debt to the owner. What possible benefit is there in him letting the club go bust and into admin ?
If Charlton stop paying wages and other bills then the employees and others will become debtors.
I did not state or imply that there is benefit in him letting the club go bust and into admin. He is simply trying to make the club a self financing concern until it is sold. It seems, and I don't know, as if he has suddenly decided to drastically reduce the amount of money he is putting into the club from his own pocket.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
Agree with the first part of your post. League one football clubs by definition must sell players and keep costs down in order to survive.
Where I don’t understand your point is with regard to administration. All the debt CAFC have accrued is debt to the owner. What possible benefit is there in him letting the club go bust and into admin ?
If Charlton stop paying wages and other bills then the employees and others will become debtors.
I did not state or imply that there is benefit in him letting the club go bust and into admin. He is simply trying to make the club a self financing concern until it is sold. It seems, and I don't know, as if he has suddenly decided to drastically reduce the amount of money he is putting into the club from his own pocket.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
If RD stops paying the bills to put Charlton into administration, he will lose all the money he has put in, less what the administrator recovers which will be the square roof of eff all !
When you say Charlton start borrowing to pay the costs, you seem to have forgotten that RD (and all our owners) start borrowing from day 1.
Sorry, but your post is wrong wrong wrong.
Which is why RD won't let the club go into admin. But he is taking steps to reduce his personal monthly costs. Which is what he is doing with Konsa and other proposed player sales.
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
Paragraph 1 is correct. He won't less us go into administration, so as SHG said it was a red herring for you to introduce administration in the first place.
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
If RD stops paying the bills to put Charlton into administration, he will lose all the money he has put in, less what the administrator recovers which will be the square roof of eff all !
When you say Charlton start borrowing to pay the costs, you seem to have forgotten that RD (and all our owners) start borrowing from day 1.
Sorry, but your post is wrong wrong wrong.
Which is why RD won't let the club go into admin. But he is taking steps to reduce his personal monthly costs. Which is what he is doing with Konsa and other proposed player sales.
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
Paragraph 1 is correct. He won't less us go into administration, so as SHG said it was a red herring for you to introduce administration in the first place.
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
Not a Red Herring. And perfectly valid to point out that the alternative to him not selling players to reduce wages and generate income (given that he wants to stop or at least reduce his monthly payments) is administration.
Charlton borrowing money from Staprix is not the same as RD borrowing money to invest in Charlton, which is what you were suggesting in your earlier post.
Too much analysis is being undertaken around the potential statement.
that fact that it appears to be occurring is a positive thing. people were saying yesterday that the Aussies had walked away. If they are issuing statements in partnership with the club, that would strongly suggest in advance that is not the case.
People have unrealistic expectations if they expect it to be anything other than vanilla.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
If RD stops paying the bills to put Charlton into administration, he will lose all the money he has put in, less what the administrator recovers which will be the square roof of eff all !
When you say Charlton start borrowing to pay the costs, you seem to have forgotten that RD (and all our owners) start borrowing from day 1.
Sorry, but your post is wrong wrong wrong.
Which is why RD won't let the club go into admin. But he is taking steps to reduce his personal monthly costs. Which is what he is doing with Konsa and other proposed player sales.
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
Paragraph 1 is correct. He won't less us go into administration, so as SHG said it was a red herring for you to introduce administration in the first place.
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
Not a Red Herring. And perfectly valid to point out that the alternative to him not selling players to reduce wages and generate income (given that he wants to stop or at least reduce his monthly payments) is administration.
Charlton borrowing money from Staprix is not the same as RD borrowing money to invest in Charlton, which is what you were suggesting in your earlier post.
You misunderstood my meaning. I could have worded it better I agree. When I said RD and all previous owners start borrowing from day 1, a better wording would have been Charlton borrow from all owners including RD/Staprix from day 1. The original buying price for Charlton was not a gift. RD/Staprix lent the money to Charlton and the £18M original debt has now grown to something like £55/56M as of June 2017 and is probably now heading towards £70M.
I hope it reaches the purpose and poise of Martin Allen's latest statement on Chesterfield's website....
Good afternoon.
I really do apologise if I've messed up anyone's plans for the away pre-season game at Nuneaton by changing the kick-off to 2pm.
To be perfectly honest with you all, I only got it changed to watch my wife swim in the River Thames to raise money for Cancer Research UK. Of course I'll be very proud when she takes on that tough challenge and no doubt she will not be defeated.
If I have messed your day up, come and see me in my office for a chat.
When you're selling a house, or business for that matter, you don't start stripping it of the fixtures and fittings because you consider the process to be taking too long. I don't see this as any different meself
Nice work!
It’s been a while before anyone put up a solid house selling analogy.
I was thinking more of the time when I sold my shop up next to Grove Park BR Station
you used to have a shop? Never knew that.
Yer, next to Grove Park BR Station, and I would have started tuckin into the Mars bars after we done the stock take once we sold
And stick the centrefold pages together from the top shelf
I reckon we'll easy make it to page 950 once the statements released and from then on it's down hill all the way for another 50 pages, then it's the magic 1000 and a done deal !!!
I reckon we'll easy make it to page 950 once the statements released and from then on it's down hill all the way for another 50 pages, then it's the magic 1000 and a done deal !!!
Comments
Still managed to leave him a few hundred quid lighter after not giving him the stock of fireworks though
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5b2a32ae82e0b/andrew-muir-charlton-takeover-talks-continue-to-progress
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
I need a can of Red Bull which I will consume on the peninsula.
'Ere, now I'm not at all superstitious, but could that be an omen? Will we see our old mate Flaggy any minute?
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
Charlton borrowing money from Staprix is not the same as RD borrowing money to invest in Charlton, which is what you were suggesting in your earlier post.
When I said RD and all previous owners start borrowing from day 1, a better wording would have been Charlton borrow from all owners including RD/Staprix from day 1.
The original buying price for Charlton was not a gift.
RD/Staprix lent the money to Charlton and the £18M original debt has now grown to something like £55/56M as of June 2017 and is probably now heading towards £70M.