So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
Any of us answering that question would be speculating, which is fine, but it doesn't really get us anywhere. My source remains very tight lipped, and noticeably Doucher and NLA haven't posted much info or opinion recently, so maybe the 'other side' have tightened up too. Rich Crawley's tweet today about 'trying to get it done before the season starts' is similar to one of my 'we're still working at it' posts. Better than nothing, but hardly informative. It's maddening that after thinking they/we were on the brink, it seems like an impasse has developed.
So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
Any of us answering that question would be speculating, which is fine, but it doesn't really get us anywhere. My source remains very tight lipped, and noticeably Doucher and NLA haven't posted much info or opinion recently, so maybe the 'other side' have tightened up too. Rich Crawley's tweet today about 'trying to get it done before the season starts' is similar to one of my 'we're still working at it' posts. Better than nothing, but hardly informative. It's maddening that after thinking they/we were on the brink, it seems like an impasse has developed.
Roland is still here, he isn’t to be trusted at all. Therefore until he’s gone I don’t believe anything that is speculated about regarding any potential deal. Boycotting and protesting are all we have until we know for sure that he’s gone.
So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
Well it is only my opinion, and only very generalized, but if I weigh up what we have learnt about RDs behaviour, actions, and personal characteristics in the last 4 years, it is because basically he is being a ****.
His overall goal is to walk away from football with a tidy profit, so that he can say to his peer group in Belgium "told you it's possible to make money from football". So I believe he will be trying to do shit in SE7 to get money into his pocket before he leaves, as he did in Liege. And the Aussies are not as strapped for cash or as naive as Mr Venanzi, who bought Standard off him.
I still don't believe the story of the EFL as the stumbling block, although my CAST friends who actually were at the meeting with this de Turck geezer, do. Something doesn't sit right in the timeline for that to be the big issue. And that's before we take into account @Addickted interesting source, who has twice told him ' it's passed the test'.
Finally I have learnt that there have been other heavy duty potential buyers - nationalities never mentioned on here - sniffing around Charlton, in the last 3 months. It seems to me that if RD was having trouble getting the Aussies to move in a reasonable way towards a closed deal, he would have been all over these other parties.
That's why I firmly believe that ROT makes eminent sense. He thinks he can take his time until he gets the wedge he thinks he deserves. He might think again if a left field local election campaign casts an unwelcome spotlight on his activities in Sint Truiden and as a result get plastered across Belgium.
So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
That's why I firmly believe that ROT makes eminent sense. He thinks he can take his time until he gets the wedge he thinks he deserves. He might think again if a left field local election campaign casts an unwelcome spotlight on his activities in Sint Truiden and as a result get plastered across Belgium.
Exactly.
And that's why ROT needs help. So far our campaign has niggled Roland enough to get the chief of staff of police involved.
But ROT has a serious message about Roland and his very 'questionable' activities in St Truiden during his time with the Council. Spreading the word of this in St Truiden will put the pressure on in a big way.
I can't say it enough- ROT needs people to commit to coming out to Belgium to help with the campaign to make this work. It's an opportunity that shouldn't be missed.
So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
That's why I firmly believe that ROT makes eminent sense. He thinks he can take his time until he gets the wedge he thinks he deserves. He might think again if a left field local election campaign casts an unwelcome spotlight on his activities in Sint Truiden and as a result get plastered across Belgium.
Exactly.
And that's why ROT needs help. So far our campaign has niggled Roland enough to get the chief of staff of police involved.
But ROT has a serious message about Roland and his very 'questionable' activities in St Truiden during his time with the Council. Spreading the word of this in St Truiden will put the pressure on in a big way.
I can't say it enough- ROT needs people to commit to coming out to Belgium to help with the campaign to make this work. It's an opportunity that shouldn't be missed.
It is in fact a one-off opportunity within the context of continued dissent against Duchâtelet's ownership, and if the takeover fails what else is there?
ROT may yet help Duchâtelet focus his energies into ridding himself of a particularly troublesome 1.5% of his business interests.
So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
That's why I firmly believe that ROT makes eminent sense. He thinks he can take his time until he gets the wedge he thinks he deserves. He might think again if a left field local election campaign casts an unwelcome spotlight on his activities in Sint Truiden and as a result get plastered across Belgium.
Exactly.
And that's why ROT needs help. So far our campaign has niggled Roland enough to get the chief of staff of police involved.
But ROT has a serious message about Roland and his very 'questionable' activities in St Truiden during his time with the Council. Spreading the word of this in St Truiden will put the pressure on in a big way.
I can't say it enough- ROT needs people to commit to coming out to Belgium to help with the campaign to make this work. It's an opportunity that shouldn't be missed.
It is in fact a one-off opportunity within the context of continued dissent against Duchâtelet's ownership, and if the takeover fails what else is there?
ROT may yet help Duchâtelet focus his energies into ridding himself of a particularly troublesome 1.5% of his business interests.
I'm so confused by the hostility towards fellow Charlton fans here. It happened with the CARD season ticket thread as well. Aren't we all on the same side?
I'm stuck across the other side of the world otherwise I'd be on the first Eurostar at this point. The protests cannot stall now.
Roland is acting like a petulant child that won't get rid of his old toys that you told him to throw out months ago. Yes he is apparently getting rid but is he asking for a realistic price?
Possibly not. But we were told months ago the price has been agreed. If the price has not been agreed then perhaps someone should tell us.
Well why don't you go back to the authoritative person who told you definitively that the price has been agreed, and ask him why the sale has not gone through.
The difficulty you would have is that this person does not exist, does he? It is simply a viewpoint that became prevalent on this forum. Am I not right?
That person was Richard Murray, Prague. In a statement published on the club’s official website.
I'm so confused by the hostility towards fellow Charlton fans here. It happened with the CARD season ticket thread as well. Aren't we all on the same side?
I'm stuck across the other side of the world otherwise I'd be on the first Eurostar at this point. The protests cannot stall now.
Roland is acting like a petulant child that won't get rid of his old toys that you told him to throw out months ago. Yes he is apparently getting rid but is he asking for a realistic price?
Possibly not. But we were told months ago the price has been agreed. If the price has not been agreed then perhaps someone should tell us.
Well why don't you go back to the authoritative person who told you definitively that the price has been agreed, and ask him why the sale has not gone through.
The difficulty you would have is that this person does not exist, does he? It is simply a viewpoint that became prevalent on this forum. Am I not right?
That person was Richard Murray, Prague. In a statement published on the club’s official website.
But as you and others keep saying, there have been increasing reasons to question whether his statements to fans can be taken as accurate. He told members of the Trust board that he was confident that the deal might go through by the end of Jan, and certainly in Feb. Patently, that was never true.
Now the question for me is whether RM was simply being untruthful, for whatever reason, or whether he is in fact no longer an authoritative person. He is only a non-exec chairman. RD is under no obligation whatsoever to involve him in the negotiations of a sale, nor to tell him the truth about the sale. You of course have your views on RM. For my part I note that in the earlier part of the regime when he tried to keep dialogue going with the Trust, he had difficulty disguising his frustration at not being able to properly understand and explain RDs actions, strategy and true goals. I am sure that is even more true of the sale process now. However RM for better or for worse seems to think it paramount to display loyalty to the owner, I think because that is how non exec directors behave in the corporate world.
There is one reason for me to doubt whether he simply was in the dark. He certainly knew then that any deal would be subject to an EFL test. If he was referring in Jan-Feb to the Aussies, he must have known that at the point he spoke, they had not submitted to the EFL. Had another buyer submitted at that time to the EFL? No one has info on that, it seems. The only positive explanation I can give for this discrepancy is that until recently the EFL test had looked like a rubber-stamp exercise and RM assumed it would be a formality.
@JamesSeed has been given to understand that the Aussie consortium submitted its docs to the EFL only in May. I treat that source as authoritative. @Addickted has confirmed with his source that the EFL papers required include a Heads of Agreement outlining the financial basis of the purchase. That is also authoritative, it is not CAFC specific. It implies that the first time the Aussies thought they had a deal was in May. Not in January or February. Unless another bid went to the EFL earlier, I therefore discount anything RM said in public earlier this year as being factually incorrect.
We have learnt from Standard Liege Socios that it was only after agreeing the deal, and taking over, did Bruno Venanzi discover certain transactions that RD carried out which in their words "emptied the bank account". It follows that if that is true, and if Venanzi had known in advance what RD was going to do, the terms of the purchase would have needed to be re-negotiated. Such information also informs my opinion on what is going on now.
You can discount it if you like, but it doesn’t make RM an imaginary person, nor what he said a view confined to a forum, as you told Covered End.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC ones.
We all agree that EFL paperwork was submitted in May and that no attempt was made to settle the ex-directors’ loans until mid-June. What was going on between February and May-June and between then and now is the question.
You can discount it if you like, but it doesn’t make RM an imaginary person, nor what he said a view confined to a forum, as you told Covered End.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC.
It’s entirely possible that the price was agreed in Feb, but the question is, why were the Aussies only happy to submit everything to the EFL just before 18th May? Were they still dealing with issues from the pre Roland era up til then? Were the directors’ loans known about in February? We’re they known about by May 18th? There were certainly no issues with the funding or the make up of the consortium as of May 18th.
And if as has been rumoured RM was trying to set up a rival bid throughout the process, (and may still be doing so), why has he been allowed anywhere near the sale process, when there’s a clear conflict of interest?
This is a correct thread. Roland is a selfish, nasty piece of work. KM was useless but worse than that she was pro actively damaging the club. She has gone and apathy has set in. The sale was scheduled for February, still nothing has happened. I am a supporter of 50 plus years and the season starts next week!, does it? I do not really care. The squad is thinner than ever, the club is not even treading water, it’s sinking. My neighbour in Spain is a Belgium, As the World Cup was on we talked football( in broken English). Appears he supports Standard Liege, I mentioned Roland. His reply a bad man has a number of clubs, he has no interest in football. He thinks he can make money from football by selling them for a profit. Sums it up really.
We really need someone from the consortium to break ranks or Muir to explain what really is going on with them,what the real hold up is what the time frame is before they walk/give up,they are losing support before theyve even started.What difference would it make by telling us the truth, Muir said he wants to work with supporters, well tell us whats happening now!!Release a statement for fuck sake coz at the moment from here it dont look like you care 2 fucks about us supporters either,Stop the speculation and give it to us straight.And if you(muir) believe in your five year plan why cant you buy the club with all your wealth and get your investors on board once Roland has fucked off.
I totally get that, but I also get the confidentiality thing that is so important in the business world, as confirmed by some CL big hitters who know about this sort of thing. It's so frustrating, but GM will NOT spill the beans.
Any reason why they can't just release something to a press contact to try and put pressure on Roland? Not an official statement, but get the journo to write a report that goes out as "our sources tell us........"
Roland could never 'prove' the info became public because of them and even if he could, he wouldn't do anything as they are (we assume) his only buyer.
This is just going round in circles now. Roland Duchatelet is the man all our anger and frustration should be aimed at, not each other.
I couldn’t care less if people choose to protest, wear blue and yellow uniforms, fly over to Belgium and take a shit on Duchatelet’s lawn or just continue to go to every single game quietly and get behind the team, entirely up to them.
I agree the whole takeover has raised concerns given the Aussies first turned up 80 days ago or whatever it was, but not being in any way shape or form in the know, and at the mercy of what I read on the takeover thread, I’ve just got to follow HI’s advice and wait until it’s on the official site.
It’s frustrating, it’s shit and everyone of us deserves better, but it is what it is. The worry for me is the longer it goes on, the more we seem to be turning on each other (on here anyway).
We really need someone from the consortium to break ranks or Muir to explain what really is going on with them,what the real hold up is what the time frame is before they walk/give up,they are losing support before theyve even started.What difference would it make by telling us the truth, Muir said he wants to work with supporters, well tell us whats happening now!!Release a statement for fuck sake coz at the moment from here it dont look like you care 2 fucks about us supporters either,Stop the speculation and give it to us straight.And if you(muir) believe in your five year plan why cant you buy the club with all your wealth and get your investors on board once Roland has fucked off.
I totally get that, but I also get the confidentiality thing that is so important in the business world, as confirmed by some CL big hitters who know about this sort of thing. It's so frustrating, but GM will NOT spill the beans.
Any reason why they can't just release something to a press contact to try and put pressure on Roland? Not an official statement, but get the journo to write a report that goes out as "our sources tell us........"
Roland could never 'prove' the info became public because of them and even if he could, he wouldn't do anything as they are (we assume) his only buyer.
Because once you start leaking you've broken your NDA, and your word, whether anyone can prove it or not. Perhaps GM gets on well with Lieven who's doing RD's negotiating and didn't want to sit opposite him in negotiations with both of them knowing he was leaking to journalists?
So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
Any of us answering that question would be speculating, which is fine, but it doesn't really get us anywhere. My source remains very tight lipped, and noticeably Doucher and NLA haven't posted much info or opinion recently, so maybe the 'other side' have tightened up too. Rich Crawley's tweet today about 'trying to get it done before the season starts' is similar to one of my 'we're still working at it' posts. Better than nothing, but hardly informative. It's maddening that after thinking they/we were on the brink, it seems like an impasse has developed.
James, have you ever sat back and reflected on all of your meetings with your 'source'?
If you have, you may have come to the conclusion that he's treating you like a mushroom. That is, he keeps you in the dark and every now and again feeds you titbits of s*** just to keep you ticking over.
You can discount it if you like, but it doesn’t make RM an imaginary person, nor what he said a view confined to a forum, as you told Covered End.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC.
It’s entirely possible that the price was agreed in Feb, but the question is, why were the Aussies only happy to submit everything to the EFL just before 18th May? Were they still dealing with issues from the pre Roland era up til then? Were the directors’ loans known about in February? We’re they known about by May 18th? There were certainly no issues with the funding or the make up of the consortium as of May 18th.
And if as has been rumoured RM was trying to set up a rival bid throughout the process, (and may still be doing so), why has he been allowed anywhere near the sale process, when there’s a clear conflict of interest?
On 18th May I was one of a small group who spoke with Duchâtelet face-to-face.
We discussed with him many things, including the takeover. He told us the Australians were having funding difficulties at that time. He also said he'd tried to arrange things so he could keep the real estate and have a lease deal with the Aussies. He said that 3 ex-directors (including RM), had agreed to this but 4 ex-directors did not agree.
Duchâtelet and his associates all have a history of telling lies whenever it serves them to do so. So perhaps we should take what he says with a big pinch of salt. However, if Duchâtelet was being honest on this occassion, it tells us there were issues of funding and the Aussies must have known about the ex-director loans at that time.
So why Prague in your opinion has it not happened mate?
Any of us answering that question would be speculating, which is fine, but it doesn't really get us anywhere. My source remains very tight lipped, and noticeably Doucher and NLA haven't posted much info or opinion recently, so maybe the 'other side' have tightened up too. Rich Crawley's tweet today about 'trying to get it done before the season starts' is similar to one of my 'we're still working at it' posts. Better than nothing, but hardly informative. It's maddening that after thinking they/we were on the brink, it seems like an impasse has developed.
James, have you ever sat back and reflected on all of your meetings with your 'source'?
If you have, you may have come to the conclusion that he's treating you like a mushroom. That is, he keeps you in the dark and every now and again feeds you titbits of s*** just to keep you ticking over.
lol I know what you mean, but he doesn't even feed me titbits of of s***, merely denials that they've withdrawn. If you're hinting that he's using me, he really isn't.
I don't take it personally, as I know that it's confidential info I'm asking for. I take my hat off to him for keeping schtum, if I'm honest. He'll hopefully spill the beans when it's over. Or at least some of the beans. Or maybe they'll pull out and he'll jump on the first plane back to Oz, leaving us with RD, or RM, or someone else.
Surprised no one has mentioned it but the point of going to Belgium whilst there is a deal available would surely be to force Roland to lower his asking price, maybe with enough disruption it could be achievable, worth it anyway to try and to guarantee pissing him off.
You can discount it if you like, but it doesn’t make RM an imaginary person, nor what he said a view confined to a forum, as you told Covered End.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC ones.
We all agree that EFL paperwork was submitted in May and that no attempt was made to settle the ex-directors’ loans until mid-June. What was going on between February and May-June and between then and now is the question.
Actually in business acquisitions it is pretty common for the parties to say (if only among themselves) that a price has been agreed, only for the talks to drag on for months and for it to turn out that it was not "agreed" in contractual terms at all, and for a whole load of new negotiation to be necessary.
In this respect, one of the things we have both failed to mention is due diligence. Until that is completed, there is no point in anyone saying with any authority that a price has been agreed. Again, there have been various theories aired on this forum, some of which become popular on this forum, and which then some people believe to be true. Are you inferring that the Aussies completed due diligence by the end of Feb?
Even if that is the timeline we must remember that due diligence is conducted by the buyer who is then free to make conclusions, based on the findings, about whether the "agreed" price remains one they are prepared to pay. You rightly ask what has happened since Feb, one of the possible scenarios is that the buyer did not like what the due diligence uncovered. That is quite common, when it is done properly (RD himself patently did not do it properly).
Anyway this is diverting towards a pseudo -takeover thread . The question of this thread is why more people are not prepared to support ROT. The only rational reason I could think of, is if we consider that the current stalling is in large part the fault of the buying parties. Given all we know about RD that would be a pretty heroic assumption and very generous towards someone whom not just Charlton fans describe as being a ****.
You can discount it if you like, but it doesn’t make RM an imaginary person, nor what he said a view confined to a forum, as you told Covered End.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC.
It’s entirely possible that the price was agreed in Feb, but the question is, why were the Aussies only happy to submit everything to the EFL just before 18th May? Were they still dealing with issues from the pre Roland era up til then? Were the directors’ loans known about in February? We’re they known about by May 18th? There were certainly no issues with the funding or the make up of the consortium as of May 18th.
And if as has been rumoured RM was trying to set up a rival bid throughout the process, (and may still be doing so), why has he been allowed anywhere near the sale process, when there’s a clear conflict of interest?
On 18th May I was one of a small group who spoke with Duchâtelet face-to-face.
We discussed with him many things, including the takeover. He told us the Australians were having funding difficulties at that time. He also said he'd tried to arrange things so he could keep the real estate and have a lease deal with the Aussies. He said that 3 ex-directors (including RM), had agreed to this but 4 ex-directors did not agree.
Duchâtelet and his associates all have a history of telling lies whenever it serves them to do so. So perhaps we should take what he says with a big pinch of salt. However, if Duchâtelet was being honest on this occassion, it tells us there were issues of funding and the Aussies must have known about the ex-director loans at that time.
On that very date (18th May) GM told me unequivocally that they were buying the club, and the ground and Sparrow's Lane. He also said that everything was done, papers were with the EFL and they were expecting the sale to be completed by the end of the next week, so no issues with funding (at that time at least).
No wisecracks required about how the club wasn't sold etc, we all know that, but given the choice of believing Roland and believing GM, well it isn't even a choice. So I don't think Duchâtelet was being honest on that occasion.
Is it not possible that a price was agreed in principle and then all this nonsense came out into the open upon further scrutiny? Stuff that Roland was less than happy to disclose originally? Directors loans being the obvious one among possibly others.
No wonder other interested parties walked away between that February and May period.
There is a window of opportunity to apply real pressure to Roland under the umbrella of canvassing in the local elections. However, there are certain deadlines which ROT will need to satisfy in order to proceed. It is no good the fanbase waking up a month ahead of the October polls and expecting a ROT campaign to magically spring to life. The ship will have sailed by then, and we will be back to throwing things on the pitch.
THIS 100%
The election only happens once every four years and its timing couldn't be more, well, timely.
But it needs people behind ROT. There's a core group of us going out there but we need more help.
This is a one-off opportunity. If Roland goes this week, next week, February, the next two weeks will be interesting etc etc then fine. If not then we are further down the line of destroying our club.
Now, this is quite a different matter. I respectfully suggest you badly worded the title and original post, if you were calling for assistance for ROT's election campaign, then perhaps it would have been a good idea to mention it at some point ?
My post was stating how I feel about the protests/campaigns for getting Roland out and wondering why there's so much apathy. There was a call for help with ROT in another thread 'ROT needs you' but with little help forthcoming (@ROT correct me if I'm wrong). So yes, ROT does need help.
No, sorry but I think it's a good idea if it's taken seriously.
I wasn't keen on the photo I saw of a group of fans, dressed in yellow and blue and looking a little like morris dancers/court jesters/clowns. I'm not sure how you can be taken seriously dressed like Ronald MacDonald.
You can discount it if you like, but it doesn’t make RM an imaginary person, nor what he said a view confined to a forum, as you told Covered End.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC ones.
We all agree that EFL paperwork was submitted in May and that no attempt was made to settle the ex-directors’ loans until mid-June. What was going on between February and May-June and between then and now is the question.
Actually in business acquisitions it is pretty common for the parties to say (if only among themselves) that a price has been agreed, only for the talks to drag on for months and for it to turn out that it was not "agreed" in contractual terms at all, and for a whole load of new negotiation to be necessary.
In this respect, one of the things we have both failed to mention is due diligence. Until that is completed, there is no point in anyone saying with any authority that a price has been agreed. Again, there have been various theories aired on this forum, some of which become popular on this forum, and which then some people believe to be true. Are you inferring that the Aussies completed due diligence by the end of Feb?
Even if that is the timeline we must remember that due diligence is conducted by the buyer who is then free to make conclusions, based on the findings, about whether the "agreed" price remains one they are prepared to pay. You rightly ask what has happened since Feb, one of the possible scenarios is that the buyer did not like what the due diligence uncovered. That is quite common, when it is done properly (RD himself patently did not do it properly).
Anyway this is diverting towards a pseudo -takeover thread . The question of this thread is why more people are not prepared to support ROT. The only rational reason I could think of, is if we consider that the current stalling is in large part the fault of the buying parties. Given all we know about RD that would be a pretty heroic assumption and very generous towards someone whom not just Charlton fans describe as being a ****.
The due diligence was complete as far as the lawyers responsible for it were concerned - I accept that further questions can arise at any stage, but the heavy lifting had certainly been done by then.
You can discount it if you like, but it doesn’t make RM an imaginary person, nor what he said a view confined to a forum, as you told Covered End.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC.
It’s entirely possible that the price was agreed in Feb, but the question is, why were the Aussies only happy to submit everything to the EFL just before 18th May? Were they still dealing with issues from the pre Roland era up til then? Were the directors’ loans known about in February? We’re they known about by May 18th? There were certainly no issues with the funding or the make up of the consortium as of May 18th.
And if as has been rumoured RM was trying to set up a rival bid throughout the process, (and may still be doing so), why has he been allowed anywhere near the sale process, when there’s a clear conflict of interest?
On 18th May I was one of a small group who spoke with Duchâtelet face-to-face.
We discussed with him many things, including the takeover. He told us the Australians were having funding difficulties at that time. He also said he'd tried to arrange things so he could keep the real estate and have a lease deal with the Aussies. He said that 3 ex-directors (including RM), had agreed to this but 4 ex-directors did not agree.
Duchâtelet and his associates all have a history of telling lies whenever it serves them to do so. So perhaps we should take what he says with a big pinch of salt. However, if Duchâtelet was being honest on this occassion, it tells us there were issues of funding and the Aussies must have known about the ex-director loans at that time.
On that very date (18th May) GM told me unequivocally that they were buying the club, and the ground and Sparrow's Lane. He also said that everything was done, papers were with the EFL and they were expecting the sale to be completed by the end of the next week, so no issues with funding (at that time at least).
No wisecracks required about how the club wasn't sold etc, we all know that, but given the choice of believing Roland and believing GM, well it isn't even a choice. So I don't think Duchâtelet was being honest on that occasion.
To be fair both were wrong so we shouldn’t have believed either!
Comments
It's maddening that after thinking they/we were on the brink, it seems like an impasse has developed.
His overall goal is to walk away from football with a tidy profit, so that he can say to his peer group in Belgium "told you it's possible to make money from football".
So I believe he will be trying to do shit in SE7 to get money into his pocket before he leaves, as he did in Liege. And the Aussies are not as strapped for cash or as naive as Mr Venanzi, who bought Standard off him.
I still don't believe the story of the EFL as the stumbling block, although my CAST friends who actually were at the meeting with this de Turck geezer, do. Something doesn't sit right in the timeline for that to be the big issue. And that's before we take into account @Addickted interesting source, who has twice told him ' it's passed the test'.
Finally I have learnt that there have been other heavy duty potential buyers - nationalities never mentioned on here - sniffing around Charlton, in the last 3 months. It seems to me that if RD was having trouble getting the Aussies to move in a reasonable way towards a closed deal, he would have been all over these other parties.
That's why I firmly believe that ROT makes eminent sense. He thinks he can take his time until he gets the wedge he thinks he deserves. He might think again if a left field local election campaign casts an unwelcome spotlight on his activities in Sint Truiden and as a result get plastered across Belgium.
And that's why ROT needs help. So far our campaign has niggled Roland enough to get the chief of staff of police involved.
But ROT has a serious message about Roland and his very 'questionable' activities in St Truiden during his time with the Council. Spreading the word of this in St Truiden will put the pressure on in a big way.
I can't say it enough- ROT needs people to commit to coming out to Belgium to help with the campaign to make this work. It's an opportunity that shouldn't be missed.
ROT may yet help Duchâtelet focus his energies into ridding himself of a particularly troublesome 1.5% of his business interests.
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5a96be566a1b3/richard-murray-provides-a-takeover-update-for-fans-as-february-draws-to-a-close
Now the question for me is whether RM was simply being untruthful, for whatever reason, or whether he is in fact no longer an authoritative person. He is only a non-exec chairman. RD is under no obligation whatsoever to involve him in the negotiations of a sale, nor to tell him the truth about the sale. You of course have your views on RM. For my part I note that in the earlier part of the regime when he tried to keep dialogue going with the Trust, he had difficulty disguising his frustration at not being able to properly understand and explain RDs actions, strategy and true goals. I am sure that is even more true of the sale process now. However RM for better or for worse seems to think it paramount to display loyalty to the owner, I think because that is how non exec directors behave in the corporate world.
There is one reason for me to doubt whether he simply was in the dark. He certainly knew then that any deal would be subject to an EFL test. If he was referring in Jan-Feb to the Aussies, he must have known that at the point he spoke, they had not submitted to the EFL. Had another buyer submitted at that time to the EFL? No one has info on that, it seems. The only positive explanation I can give for this discrepancy is that until recently the EFL test had looked like a rubber-stamp exercise and RM assumed it would be a formality.
@JamesSeed has been given to understand that the Aussie consortium submitted its docs to the EFL only in May. I treat that source as authoritative. @Addickted has confirmed with his source that the EFL papers required include a Heads of Agreement outlining the financial basis of the purchase. That is also authoritative, it is not CAFC specific. It implies that the first time the Aussies thought they had a deal was in May. Not in January or February. Unless another bid went to the EFL earlier, I therefore discount anything RM said in public earlier this year as being factually incorrect.
We have learnt from Standard Liege Socios that it was only after agreeing the deal, and taking over, did Bruno Venanzi discover certain transactions that RD carried out which in their words "emptied the bank account". It follows that if that is true, and if Venanzi had known in advance what RD was going to do, the terms of the purchase would have needed to be re-negotiated. Such information also informs my opinion on what is going on now.
As to whether a deal was actually agreed in February, that was the view of the club’s own lawyers and it was certainly coming from other sources than CAFC ones.
We all agree that EFL paperwork was submitted in May and that no attempt was made to settle the ex-directors’ loans until mid-June. What was going on between February and May-June and between then and now is the question.
And if as has been rumoured RM was trying to set up a rival bid throughout the process, (and may still be doing so), why has he been allowed anywhere near the sale process, when there’s a clear conflict of interest?
The sale was scheduled for February, still nothing has happened.
I am a supporter of 50 plus years and the season starts next week!, does it? I do not really care. The squad is thinner than ever, the club is not even treading water, it’s sinking.
My neighbour in Spain is a Belgium, As the World Cup was on we talked football( in broken English). Appears he supports Standard Liege, I mentioned Roland. His reply a bad man has a number of clubs, he has no interest in football. He thinks he can make money from football by selling them for a profit. Sums it up really.
Roland could never 'prove' the info became public because of them and even if he could, he wouldn't do anything as they are (we assume) his only buyer.
I couldn’t care less if people choose to protest, wear blue and yellow uniforms, fly over to Belgium and take a shit on Duchatelet’s lawn or just continue to go to every single game quietly and get behind the team, entirely up to them.
I agree the whole takeover has raised concerns given the Aussies first turned up 80 days ago or whatever it was, but not being in any way shape or form in the know, and at the mercy of what I read on the takeover thread, I’ve just got to follow HI’s advice and wait until it’s on the official site.
It’s frustrating, it’s shit and everyone of us deserves better, but it is what it is. The worry for me is the longer it goes on, the more we seem to be turning on each other (on here anyway).
If you have, you may have come to the conclusion that he's treating you like a mushroom. That is, he keeps you in the dark and every now and again feeds you titbits of s*** just to keep you ticking over.
We discussed with him many things, including the takeover. He told us the Australians were having funding difficulties at that time. He also said he'd tried to arrange things so he could keep the real estate and have a lease deal with the Aussies. He said that 3 ex-directors (including RM), had agreed to this but 4 ex-directors did not agree.
Duchâtelet and his associates all have a history of telling lies whenever it serves them to do so. So perhaps we should take what he says with a big pinch of salt. However, if Duchâtelet was being honest on this occassion, it tells us there were issues of funding and the Aussies must have known about the ex-director loans at that time.
I don't take it personally, as I know that it's confidential info I'm asking for. I take my hat off to him for keeping schtum, if I'm honest. He'll hopefully spill the beans when it's over. Or at least some of the beans.
Or maybe they'll pull out and he'll jump on the first plane back to Oz, leaving us with RD, or RM, or someone else.
In this respect, one of the things we have both failed to mention is due diligence. Until that is completed, there is no point in anyone saying with any authority that a price has been agreed. Again, there have been various theories aired on this forum, some of which become popular on this forum, and which then some people believe to be true. Are you inferring that the Aussies completed due diligence by the end of Feb?
Even if that is the timeline we must remember that due diligence is conducted by the buyer who is then free to make conclusions, based on the findings, about whether the "agreed" price remains one they are prepared to pay. You rightly ask what has happened since Feb, one of the possible scenarios is that the buyer did not like what the due diligence uncovered. That is quite common, when it is done properly (RD himself patently did not do it properly).
Anyway this is diverting towards a pseudo -takeover thread . The question of this thread is why more people are not prepared to support ROT. The only rational reason I could think of, is if we consider that the current stalling is in large part the fault of the buying parties. Given all we know about RD that would be a pretty heroic assumption and very generous towards someone whom not just Charlton fans describe as being a ****.
No wisecracks required about how the club wasn't sold etc, we all know that, but given the choice of believing Roland and believing GM, well it isn't even a choice. So I don't think Duchâtelet was being honest on that occasion.
No wonder other interested parties walked away between that February and May period.