I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
That can't be true.
was the figure quoted by Airman Brown in an article on his online VOTV here:
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
As I said in a previous reply, Murray may make dubious or ambiguous statements but is experienced enough not to tell an outright lie, something which can be factually disproved. There must have been or still is some sort of second bidder, even if they're not as near to closing as the Aussies.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
I think the Aussies have kept a reasonably tight rein on leaks after my beer meeting, when there were no details about the business/financial side, and not just because I didn't ask. (I *think* he said something like 'I can't talk about that stuff'.) They did say the earlier issues were to do with the pre Duchatelet regime rather than Roland, which he (and his lawyers) would presumably not object to.
Anything else I've heard has been variations on the 'we're still working away on it' theme, but they haven't once mentioned what the difficulties are. It seems they're being pretty taciturn with Rich Cawley as well. I think NDAs can be pretty robust, especially over financial and legal matters. Telling me that they don't want Charlton to become a nursery club they could get away with, just about.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
As I said in a previous reply, Murray may make dubious or ambiguous statements but is experienced enough not to tell an outright lie, something which can be factually disproved. There must have been or still is some sort of second bidder, even if they're not as neat to closing as the Aussies.
maybe the 'second bidder' involves Murray in a small way and he too is scrabbling around trying to put together a consortium.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
That can't be true.
I think it can. Nearly bought two myself, expecting the deal to be done by now.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
I think Roland said the to the ROT guys that the Aussies didn't have the money. This could be a tactic to make them put up or shut up because the Aussies aren't going to want to look stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to chase the purchase of a football club for over a year and not be able to come up with the money at the end of it.
I think there are two possibilities here - either they DO have the money, but like any decent businessmen, they are trying to get themselves the best deal possible. Or they DID have the money but the recent EFL issue means one or two of their investors have been ruled out for breach of regulations.
I certainly do not believe that they've never had the money all along as some people have constantly suggested.
The statement was not meant for the fans. We're just collateral damage. It was drawn up by the lawyers simply to reassure the football industry at large that CAFC is open for business as "normal", and this takeover malarkey is just some little local difficulty, soon to be resolved. Meanwhile the whole weary process continues at glacier speed, to the profound detriment of the club, the rage and frustration of the fans, and the customary enrichment of the briefs. IMHO.
The statement was not meant for the fans. We're just collateral damage. It was drawn up by the lawyers simply to reassure the football industry at large that CAFC is open for business as "normal", and this takeover malarkey is just some little local difficulty, soon to be resolved. Meanwhile the whole weary process continues at glacier speed, to the profound detriment of the club, the rage and frustration of the fans, and the customary enrichment of the briefs. IMHO.
It was initially drawn up by a couple of the Aussie consortium, but I expect it was checked and/or modified by the Roland side, but then agreed by all parties (and their lawyers) before release.
The statement was not meant for the fans. We're just collateral damage. It was drawn up by the lawyers simply to reassure the football industry at large that CAFC is open for business as "normal", and this takeover malarkey is just some little local difficulty, soon to be resolved. Meanwhile the whole weary process continues at glacier speed, to the profound detriment of the club, the rage and frustration of the fans, and the customary enrichment of the briefs. IMHO.
It was initially drawn up by a couple of the Aussie consortium, but I expect it was checked and/or modified by the Roland side, but then agreed by all parties (and their lawyers) before release.
Only a joint document would have been acceptable to all protagonists. Any fan-friendliness in the original draft has been thoroughly lawyered out in this frigid communication from the parallel universe wherein CAFC is presently marooned, slowly drifting ever more distant from us.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
I think Roland said the to the ROT guys that the Aussies didn't have the money. This could be a tactic to make them put up or shut up because the Aussies aren't going to want to look stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to chase the purchase of a football club for over a year and not be able to come up with the money at the end of it.
I think there are two possibilities here - either they DO have the money, but like any decent businessmen, they are trying to get themselves the best deal possible. Or they DID have the money but the recent EFL issue means one or two of their investors have been ruled out for breach of regulations.
I certainly do not believe that they've never had the money all along as some people have constantly suggested.
I don't remember RD telling ROT that the Aussies didn't have enough money - but I could be wrong. I do remember, when he was asked if the buyers were the Aussies, that he said there was another interested buyer. But at the time I got the distinct impression he had made it up to get us to stop talking about the Aussies. It was only a gut feeling, but I don't believe there is anyone else at the table. He also talked as though he expected it to go through (if it doesn't go through in the next week or two I'll have to get some people in). He wouldn't say that unless he was talking about a takeover that was very close. It's all 'who blinks first' stuff IMHO
Can I make a suggestion ... that everyone chills out, enjoys the World Cup, enjoys the sun, go on holiday and celebrate WIOTOS. There’s absolutely nothing we can do to get this pushed over the line any quicker
Can I make a suggestion ... that everyone chills out, enjoys the World Cup, enjoys the sun, go on holiday and celebrate WIOTOS. There’s absolutely nothing we can do to get this pushed over the line any quicker
then how will we get to 1000 pages? that's all the excitement we have these days...
Primarily he's looking for a couple of punters to chuck in about five million quid into the pot. In return for this they get a junior directors role, tickets to every game, the glamour of the English third tier and quite probably all the chips they can eat.
OK I'm being facetious, but it is a genuine question. What is there to sell to additional investors?
Primarily he's looking for a couple of punters to chuck in about five million quid into the pot. In return for this they get a junior directors role, tickets to every game, the glamour of the English third tier and quite probably all the chips they can eat.
OK I'm being facetious, but it is a genuine question. What is there to sell to additional investors?
if roland's asking for £50mil and you chuck in 5 mil, you've still got to put up £100,000 a month to keep the club running, for a 10% stake. Not exactly a free lunch.
Primarily he's looking for a couple of punters to chuck in about five million quid into the pot. In return for this they get a junior directors role, tickets to every game, the glamour of the English third tier and quite probably all the chips they can eat.
OK I'm being facetious, but it is a genuine question. What is there to sell to additional investors?
the clue is in the word investors. Invest 5m now and get x million back when we reach the promised land. As in all investments the value can go down as well as up but that is the chance you take.
Words can't describe how pleased I am that its the world cup at the moment, I think I would've gone insane by now.... PLEASE FUCK OFF YOU YELLOW TOOTHED CRETIN
Primarily he's looking for a couple of punters to chuck in about five million quid into the pot. In return for this they get a junior directors role, tickets to every game, the glamour of the English third tier and quite probably all the chips they can eat.
OK I'm being facetious, but it is a genuine question. What is there to sell to additional investors?
if roland's asking for £50mil and you chuck in 5 mil, you've still got to put up £100,000 a month to keep the club running, for a 10% stake. Not exactly a free lunch.
No such thing as a free lunch, unless it involves vol au vants
Primarily he's looking for a couple of punters to chuck in about five million quid into the pot. In return for this they get a junior directors role, tickets to every game, the glamour of the English third tier and quite probably all the chips they can eat.
OK I'm being facetious, but it is a genuine question. What is there to sell to additional investors?
the clue is in the word investors. Invest 5m now and get x million back when we reach the promised land. As in all investments the value can go down as well as up but that is the chance you take.
Which is why the Aussies might be finding it tough to get investors. 'Gambling' £5m (say) on a loss making business where you only get a serious return if it makes it to the PL is not a sensible investment in my book. UK football finances are bonkers.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
I think Roland said the to the ROT guys that the Aussies didn't have the money. This could be a tactic to make them put up or shut up because the Aussies aren't going to want to look stupid, and it would be incredibly stupid to chase the purchase of a football club for over a year and not be able to come up with the money at the end of it.
I think there are two possibilities here - either they DO have the money, but like any decent businessmen, they are trying to get themselves the best deal possible. Or they DID have the money but the recent EFL issue means one or two of their investors have been ruled out for breach of regulations.
I certainly do not believe that they've never had the money all along as some people have constantly suggested.
I don't remember RD telling ROT that the Aussies didn't have enough money - but I could be wrong. I do remember, when he was asked if the buyers were the Aussies, that he said there was another interested buyer. But at the time I got the distinct impression he had made it up to get us to stop talking about the Aussies. It was only a gut feeling, but I don't believe there is anyone else at the table. He also talked as though he expected it to go through (if it doesn't go through in the next week or two I'll have to get some people in). He wouldn't say that unless he was talking about a takeover that was very close. It's all 'who blinks first' stuff IMHO
He did mention the problem of funding huh:
ROT 1 So what is the situation now?
RD Since about the beginning of the season, there are takeover talks huh
ROT 2 We know that much
RD And they are advancing but well, when exactly they will be close is always a big question mark, you know and it really depends on the questions today with these things as lawyers and stuff and supporters are er sometimes it’s complicated
ROT 2 It’s not just waiting for the English football league then, or
RD Err I don’t think that will be a problem huh, so there were
ROT 1 Is it…..
RD Also the problem of the funding huh, of course huh
ROT 1 Is it the Australian consortium?
RD Well, there are still two, two parties interested huh
ROT 2 Right, that’s interesting
RD Yeah
ROT 2 Yeah
RD But we will see huh
ROT 2 You have a preferred party I guess?
RD I think those are parties which I think both can are suitable huh, because you, er in fact the thing is that it’s er, like er, people who really have the money to, to, to buy er not just to buy but certainly to fund it..
Comments
http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2017-18-blogs/14-6-time-for-the-authorities-to-intervene-in-charlton-takeover-shambles/
says fewer than five thousand but must be close to that otherwise surely he'd have said fewer than 4,800 for example
Anything else I've heard has been variations on the 'we're still working away on it' theme, but they haven't once mentioned what the difficulties are. It seems they're being pretty taciturn with Rich Cawley as well. I think NDAs can be pretty robust, especially over financial and legal matters. Telling me that they don't want Charlton to become a nursery club they could get away with, just about.
I think there are two possibilities here - either they DO have the money, but like any decent businessmen, they are trying to get themselves the best deal possible. Or they DID have the money but the recent EFL issue means one or two of their investors have been ruled out for breach of regulations.
I certainly do not believe that they've never had the money all along as some people have constantly suggested.
The statement was not meant for the fans. We're just collateral damage. It was drawn up by the lawyers simply to reassure the football industry at large that CAFC is open for business as "normal", and this takeover malarkey is just some little local difficulty, soon to be resolved. Meanwhile the whole weary process continues at glacier speed, to the profound detriment of the club, the rage and frustration of the fans, and the customary enrichment of the briefs. IMHO.
Primarily he's looking for a couple of punters to chuck in about five million quid into the pot. In return for this they get a junior directors role, tickets to every game, the glamour of the English third tier and quite probably all the chips they can eat.
OK I'm being facetious, but it is a genuine question. What is there to sell to additional investors?
ROT 1 So what is the situation now?
RD Since about the beginning of the season, there are takeover talks huh
ROT 2 We know that much
RD And they are advancing but well, when exactly they will be close is always a big question mark, you know and it really depends on the questions today with these things as lawyers and stuff and supporters are er sometimes it’s complicated
ROT 2 It’s not just waiting for the English football league then, or
RD Err I don’t think that will be a problem huh, so there were
ROT 1 Is it…..
RD Also the problem of the funding huh, of course huh
ROT 1 Is it the Australian consortium?
RD Well, there are still two, two parties interested huh
ROT 2 Right, that’s interesting
RD Yeah
ROT 2 Yeah
RD But we will see huh
ROT 2 You have a preferred party I guess?
RD I think those are parties which I think both can are suitable huh, because you, er in fact the thing is that it’s er, like er, people who really have the money to, to, to buy er not just to buy but certainly to fund it..
ROT 1 To fund it of course