Surely, with their stated plan, the Aussies have a large pot of money. That pot would be divided into 3 sections: A: The money to buy the club (£25m - £50m) B: The money to run the club (circa. £1m a month) C: The money to fund transfers for the stated promotion ambitions
B is pretty much set in stone, there are things you can do to try to raise revenue and/or lower costs, but it's not going to make a massive difference, especially in the short term.
Therefore, the most sensible route is to try and minimise A to maximise C. Now the complications with the EFL may have shrunk the overall pot (there's zero proof of this, but lets play that game anyway), in which case C shrinks and the pressure to minimise A is higher.
When it is stated that the Aussies don't have the money, that is clearly false. That they may not want to spend as much on A as Roland wants is almost certainly true. The question is, will Roland lower A (through desperation to get out, sale of assets or some sort of leasing arrangement) to a point where the Aussies are happy that it won't impact on C and the ability to meet their stated aims.
Sounds like RD is trying to help with A by settling with ex-directors, as he has realised he's not going to sell the club for his ridiculous overvaluation.
@Airman Brown you've now stated the British party interest is legitimate. A few questions on that to anyone with knowledge.
1. Why are they so quiet / why have they not been aggressive in trying to outdo the Aussies? 2. Do the Aussies have a period of exclusivity over the British bid? 3. Why did RD not mention them in the statement last Wednesday?
even IF funding is proved by Friday a completion date of mid July leaves us up a creek without a paddle, without a boat even, unless RD sanctions signings/appointments before completion. IF funding isn't found and this mysterious other party enters the fray then we will start the season with Roland in charge still and that is unpalatable so my mantra is Go Aussies !!
It's quite simple. Either you know what binary means or you don't.
Nope still don’t
Binary mathematics is fundamental to the digital world, and of course that includes charltonlife. In fact there would be no charltonlife without it. Google it.
Surely, with their stated plan, the Aussies have a large pot of money. That pot would be divided into 3 sections: A: The money to buy the club (£25m - £50m) B: The money to run the club (circa. £1m a month) C: The money to fund transfers for the stated promotion ambitions
B is pretty much set in stone, there are things you can do to try to raise revenue and/or lower costs, but it's not going to make a massive difference, especially in the short term.
Therefore, the most sensible route is to try and minimise A to maximise C. Now the complications with the EFL may have shrunk the overall pot (there's zero proof of this, but lets play that game anyway), in which case C shrinks and the pressure to minimise A is higher.
When it is stated that the Aussies don't have the money, that is clearly false. That they may not want to spend as much on A as Roland wants is almost certainly true. The question is, will Roland lower A (through desperation to get out, sale of assets or some sort of leasing arrangement) to a point where the Aussies are happy that it won't impact on C and the ability to meet their stated aims.
Sounds like RD is trying to help with A by settling with ex-directors, as he has realised he's not going to sell the club for his ridiculous overvaluation.
@Airman Brown you've now stated the British party interest is legitimate. A few questions on that to anyone with knowledge.
1. Why are they so quiet / why have they not been aggressive in trying to outdo the Aussies? 2. Do the Aussies have a period of exclusivity over the British bid? 3. Why did RD not mention them in the statement last Wednesday?
all very good questions. Maybe they are not in a position, yet, to get involved. For example, if Mike Ashley were interested he needs to dispose of Newcastle first but is keeping an eye on the situation. Or maybe the Aussies are the preferred bidders but if they drop out then the other party can step in.
I chose this site because it was above the forum bashing of the others. Would be nice if we could keep it that way.
I agree entirely, but I was alerted by someone here about some disgusting things being said about me on there, by some weirdo who's banned from here and ittv, has never met me, and knows nothing about me. He has a thing about someone here, who he believes is my best mate (he's my second best mate). I had to defend my name, and tried to do so. But some of his mates come here occasionally and have a pop ar me, and I'm not the sort of person to take it lying down. I really enjoy this forum and the people on it, so don't want to quit.
WIOTOS is a fine assessment, But for me until I see the James Seed prediction site say August 15th or another vacant date, @Douchebagiamoutofhere I won't believe it.
even IF funding is proved by Friday a completion date of mid July leaves us up a creek without a paddle, without a boat even, unless RD sanctions signings/appointments before completion. IF funding isn't found and this mysterious other party enters the fray then we will start the season with Roland in charge still and that is unpalatable so my mantra is Go Aussies !!
Also, what's the point of a Spanish tour without a squad/new signings? Would be like the Irish one under Parky.
That piece does seem to confirm my suspicion that many of the delays have been from the Aussie side and not Roland.
This second bidder is mysterious, we know little about them, and why are they second bidders, and what does that mean? Were they offering less, is their bid less attractive to the club than the Aussie bid?
I'm sure the Aussie group are the only group deluded enough to be prepared to pay 40M , if the British group does exist they will only come forward if the Aussies drop out and the offer will be a lot lower. This could mean it could drag on for months. I hope the Aussies can do the deal and pay Roland as little as possible and leave more money left over to invest in the club. But if Roland was still to own The Valley that will be a disaster. The ex directors should hold out for full payment and the money should be paid by Roland not the Aussies , it's his mess
even IF funding is proved by Friday a completion date of mid July leaves us up a creek without a paddle, without a boat even, unless RD sanctions signings/appointments before completion. IF funding isn't found and this mysterious other party enters the fray then we will start the season with Roland in charge still and that is unpalatable so my mantra is Go Aussies !!
Also, what's the point of a Spanish tour without a squad/new signings? Would be like the Irish one under Parky.
Not sure young Charlton players going to Spain is a good idea at present, but I must admit the trip my son and I did to Mijas on the costa del sol was a fun trip 4 years ago(Big Bob had just taken over) even if the vol au vent Queen had to send us directions when we got lost in the Mijas hills and Joe Pigott's dad kindly gave as a lift back to our resort on the coast. (Saving a cab and bus ride)
Surely, with their stated plan, the Aussies have a large pot of money. That pot would be divided into 3 sections: A: The money to buy the club (£25m - £50m) B: The money to run the club (circa. £1m a month) C: The money to fund transfers for the stated promotion ambitions
B is pretty much set in stone, there are things you can do to try to raise revenue and/or lower costs, but it's not going to make a massive difference, especially in the short term.
Therefore, the most sensible route is to try and minimise A to maximise C. Now the complications with the EFL may have shrunk the overall pot (there's zero proof of this, but lets play that game anyway), in which case C shrinks and the pressure to minimise A is higher.
When it is stated that the Aussies don't have the money, that is clearly false. That they may not want to spend as much on A as Roland wants is almost certainly true. The question is, will Roland lower A (through desperation to get out, sale of assets or some sort of leasing arrangement) to a point where the Aussies are happy that it won't impact on C and the ability to meet their stated aims.
Sounds like RD is trying to help with A by settling with ex-directors, as he has realised he's not going to sell the club for his ridiculous overvaluation.
@Airman Brown you've now stated the British party interest is legitimate. A few questions on that to anyone with knowledge.
1. Why are they so quiet / why have they not been aggressive in trying to outdo the Aussies? 2. Do the Aussies have a period of exclusivity over the British bid? 3. Why did RD not mention them in the statement last Wednesday?
all very good questions. Maybe they are not in a position, yet, to get involved. For example, if Mike Ashley were interested he needs to dispose of Newcastle first but is keeping an eye on the situation. Or maybe the Aussies are the preferred bidders but if they drop out then the other party can step in.
If it's Ashley we're relying on and the Aussies do drop out we're stuck with Roland for a fair while yet. He is nowhere near selling Newcastle. May not be him of course.
That piece does seem to confirm my suspicion that many of the delays have been from the Aussie side and not Roland.
This second bidder is mysterious, we know little about them, and why are they second bidders, and what does that mean? Were they offering less, is their bid less attractive to the club than the Aussie bid?
I think the delays come from both sides. Roland asking too much to begin with, the Aussies not wanting to pay that, especially when he sold Konsa and Lennon with possibly more to follow, and now RD delaying it by trying to pay off ex-directors.
That piece does seem to confirm my suspicion that many of the delays have been from the Aussie side and not Roland.
This second bidder is mysterious, we know little about them, and why are they second bidders, and what does that mean? Were they offering less, is their bid less attractive to the club than the Aussie bid?
I think the delays come from both sides. Roland asking too much to begin with, the Aussies not wanting to pay that, especially when he sold Konsa and Lennon with possibly more to follow, and now RD delaying it by trying to pay off ex-directors.
The article does indicate that the Aussies had agreed a price, but that an investor dropping out (due to the EFL tests) meant that they were struggling to meet it now.
There is some evidence to suggest that at least one investor was forced to drop out as a result of the EFL’s fit and proper person test, which in turn has hindered the group’s ability to meet a previously agreed valuation.
No info but it’s looking to me like this will now fall over. Good that there is someone waiting in the wings but if the Aussies don’t meet the Friday deadline I think the best we can hope for is a sale in January.
That piece does seem to confirm my suspicion that many of the delays have been from the Aussie side and not Roland.
This second bidder is mysterious, we know little about them, and why are they second bidders, and what does that mean? Were they offering less, is their bid less attractive to the club than the Aussie bid?
It's likely that either the amount offered was not as much as the Aussies or possibly that the Aussies were in a more favourable position to proceed. It's nice to know that there is a back up should the Aussies not managed to get the deal over the line.
The most important issue is, of course, the ownership and ongoing stability of the club. But I wonder what would happen to the Aussie consortium if its purchase of Charlton were to fail.
A group of investors committed to sinking +/- £40million into a European football club surely doesn't disband if their intention is (expensively) scuppered. Does it?
Whatever their intentions are for Charlton, if the sale fails, will they turn their intentions elsewhere? Do they have a solid business plan that takes a loss-making, L1 club into profit via the Championship (or further)? And if they do (which is the general assumption) does that work get discarded if the prime target disappears, or do they go after another target?
My thoughts are that they have formulated and finessed a plan which takes Charlton high enough up the ladder to make money, and they have spent seven figures getting to that stage. And it's based on "Charlton", not on "an average L1 club". So the investment (time and money) made so far is not reusable were another club to become available.
My conclusion? The Aussies have spent enough time and money on this project already that walking away doesn't make sense for anyone. A middle-ground price will be found that enables the business plan to be started. And, with both sides taking a further haircut, the club, the Valley and the training ground will be under Aussie ownership.
Comments
@Airman Brown you've now stated the British party interest is legitimate. A few questions on that to anyone with knowledge.
1. Why are they so quiet / why have they not been aggressive in trying to outdo the Aussies?
2. Do the Aussies have a period of exclusivity over the British bid?
3. Why did RD not mention them in the statement last Wednesday?
Done.
In fact there would be no charltonlife without it.
Google it.
all very good questions. Maybe they are not in a position, yet, to get involved. For example, if Mike Ashley were interested he needs to dispose of Newcastle first but is keeping an eye on the situation. Or maybe the Aussies are the preferred bidders but if they drop out then the other party can step in.
But for me until I see the James Seed prediction site say August 15th or another vacant date,
@Douchebagiamoutofhere I won't believe it.
This second bidder is mysterious, we know little about them, and why are they second bidders, and what does that mean? Were they offering less, is their bid less attractive to the club than the Aussie bid?
The ultimate paradox - the football club that itself became a football.
And Welling in 12 days ....
A group of investors committed to sinking +/- £40million into a European football club surely doesn't disband if their intention is (expensively) scuppered. Does it?
Whatever their intentions are for Charlton, if the sale fails, will they turn their intentions elsewhere? Do they have a solid business plan that takes a loss-making, L1 club into profit via the Championship (or further)? And if they do (which is the general assumption) does that work get discarded if the prime target disappears, or do they go after another target?
My thoughts are that they have formulated and finessed a plan which takes Charlton high enough up the ladder to make money, and they have spent seven figures getting to that stage. And it's based on "Charlton", not on "an average L1 club". So the investment (time and money) made so far is not reusable were another club to become available.
My conclusion? The Aussies have spent enough time and money on this project already that walking away doesn't make sense for anyone. A middle-ground price will be found that enables the business plan to be started. And, with both sides taking a further haircut, the club, the Valley and the training ground will be under Aussie ownership.
Everything I said on sat is now being reported to AB and posted
So I had no agenda @Grapevine49 @JamesSeed I was merely posting what I had heard
Deadline this week
RD trying to remove debt
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
Actually you don't have to answer that, i've seen a photo of you in recent training on the boxing thread!