Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Does Muir have to be here for the announcement?
For all we know, whilst he was over here, he may have already staged the scarfy photos in different parts of the ground/on the pitch etc, shaking hands with all and sundry required for the press/news release.
If as suspected, Murphy is to be Chairman/CEO, he would remain here for day to day business5 -
With all the recent delays, engineering works, and lightning strikes, we might be hanging around for a bit longer!killerandflash said:
We can have welcoming party at Charlton station when his train arrives from London Bridge.seth plum said:
If it's announced before we could then organise a welcoming party at Terminal Five or wherever.JamesSeed said:
He said ‘we’ve done our bit, it’s with the EFL’.Shrew said:
So where is the actual quote that states this clearly James ? it might well be hidden between pages of fish jokes but most things I have read have been a bit on the vague side. Fingers and toes crossed that it will all go through fine and soon but a clear statement from the Aussies or from anyone not CL related would make me feel much more positive.JamesSeed said:If you believe the Aussies they're with the EFL and have been for some time. I believe them. Why would they make that up?
As you say fingers crossed. Hopefully we’ll hear everything when Muir gets back, or something might leak before.
A bit like this...only bigger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Diyy4SYFE1 -
All this talk of travel and staged photos is so dated.
He could simply link up live to do any interviews or to make the announcement. He could even have a lovely picture of the Valley behind him and be wearing his new scarf. Catch up chaps.
PS. How do you load a boarding pass onto your phone if it has been emailed to you?1 -
Today...
Is Wednesday1 -
As if there’d be any vol-au-vents! Someone would have hoovered them up long before you get the chancegrumpyaddick said:I will be back in the UK on 13th June and will be very upset if, after all this buggering about, they conclude everything while both Mr Muir and I are both out of the country. Have a meeting with a solictor in Gravesend on 13th at 3pm so could be at the Valley for the formal announcement and VIP champagne reception about 5pm, if that helps with the event planning at all.
(Not that keen on vol-au-vents, by the way).1 -
Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.1
-
More like he's gone walkabout & he is propping up the bar.Henry Irving said:
He's going to Australia to complete the checks? There's dedication for you. Thanks for the inside info @AddicktedAddickted said:
One panel who look at making the final decision.J BLOCK said:
We’ve established from credible sources that their is only one panel who can look at each case at a timeDucktapeshoerepairs said:
The ‘EFL can only look at one takeover at a time’ theory is absolute nonsense !J BLOCK said:
Might be wrong but don’t think it was confirmed it was with EFL no more than ten days ago and that it would only be completed once the Sunderland takeover had gone through, believe that went through last week so they’ve only spent a few days looking at our takeover so farnth london addick said:I thought it was said on here that it was at EFL weeks a go
I would of presumed it was true back then and awaiting ratification once all the ticks were in the boxes our end
It may well have been the EFL that wanted the proof and it was them waiting who knows
Plenty of people running around in the background carrying out DD, financial and legal checks on not only proposed new owners, but current and existing owners.
@Henry Irving no news from my EFL contact and he's off to sunnier climes with his family this week.0 -
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
0 -
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.15 -
.....and hence the protracted sale of the Club.Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Has the EFL ever explained how that lot were deemed 'fit and proper?'Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.8 -
Wouldn't it be funny if the sale of the club to the aussies hit a snag because Roland didn't buy it properly from the spivs, and the EFL has just found out that they didn't check things out fully previously?!? No, maybe not...0
-
Although it takes weeks to do, it just involves asking the question "are you currently serving time in a high security prison?"The Red Robin said:
Has the EFL ever explained how that lot were deemed 'fit and proper?'Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.8 -
As it was a 'distressed' sale at the time - they were probably under pressure to let it through otherwise they (the EFL) would be seen to let another club go into administration...The Red Robin said:
Has the EFL ever explained how that lot were deemed 'fit and proper?'Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.
0 -
I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(46 -
look on the bright side, he was going to sponsor you to the tune of 1m but spent it on solicitors and doing due diligence ...JamesSeed said:I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(
0 -
Be thankful then, it could well of been Roland - (after his successful renewal of the pitch undersoil heating, with no heater) he might of brought you a bike (with interest attached per mile) and no wheels on it!JamesSeed said:I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(1 -
I am beginning to think there is a lot of brinkmanship going on now. Two parties still interested ,one if not two in for EFL approval, but deal dragging on.JamesSeed said:I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(
Neither of them seem to be in a rush probably because they both have long term plans and the short term pain to Roland with next season planning and summer wages to pay leaves him in a difficult position.
I have mentioned this before but I think his actions of playing one off against the other has done nothing but drive price lower and delay takeover.
This EFL approval is also strange, put yourself in Roland's position, wouldn't you want that done when proof of funds was done,so as to not waste time and Lawyers fees only to find out your buyer didn't get approval?
This is going to drag on for a while longer yet is my guess.6 -
Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.
The post Curbs era will make a pretty interesting book for anyone with the inside knowledge to write it.
Anybody got any ideas who might be capable ?
3 -
El Presidente, an autobiography, by Richard Murray out, August 2018.ShootersHillGuru said:Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.
The post Curbs era will make a pretty interesting book for anyone with the inside knowledge to write it.
Anybody got any ideas who might be capable ?4 - Sponsored links:
-
EFL approval is the last piece in the jigsaw though isn't it? You can't apply until everything else is done surely?Davidsmith said:
I am beginning to think there is a lot of brinkmanship going on now. Two parties still interested ,one if not two in for EFL approval, but deal dragging on.JamesSeed said:I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(
Neither of them seem to be in a rush probably because they both have long term plans and the short term pain to Roland with next season planning and summer wages to pay leaves him in a difficult position.
I have mentioned this before but I think his actions of playing one off against the other has done nothing but drive price lower and delay takeover.
This EFL approval is also strange, put yourself in Roland's position, wouldn't you want that done when proof of funds was done,so as to not waste time and Lawyers fees only to find out your buyer didn't get approval?
This is going to drag on for a while longer yet is my guess.
5 -
Sue Parkes?ShootersHillGuru said:Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.
The post Curbs era will make a pretty interesting book for anyone with the inside knowledge to write it.
Anybody got any ideas who might be capable ?6 -
I'm always sceptical of the fit and proper persons test.
It was triggered when Portsmouth had 3 "fit and proper" owners in the course of one season...6 -
EFL approval is the last piece in the jigsaw though isn't it? You can't apply until everything else is done surely?
I make you right there large hence my doubt as to anything being lodged.2 -
I make you right there large hence my doubt as to anything being lodged.eaststandmike said:
EFL approval is the last piece in the jigsaw though isn't it? You can't apply until everything else is done surely?
We know it has.
1 -
Thanks @Davidsmith.Davidsmith said:
.JamesSeed said:I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(
This EFL approval is also strange, put yourself in Roland's position, wouldn't you want that done when proof of funds was done,so as to not waste time and Lawyers fees only to find out your buyer didn't get approval?
This is going to drag on for a while longer yet is my guess.
Are you saying there you’ve heard that one of the parties is having difficulty attaining EFL approval?
Cheers0 -
The Red Robin said:
Has the EFL ever explained how that lot were deemed 'fit and proper?'Airman Brown said:
The court ruled that neither Jiminez nor Cash owned the club, although they had obtained a loan by (falsely) saying they controlled it. It also found that Slater did have substantial shareholding, although few people believe that to be the full truth and Jiminez referred to Slater in an an email as being “a method actor” playing a part. In reality it appears they had set out to obscure the ownership through BVI trusts and then couldn’t satisfy the judge that they had ownership when it suited them to do so.cantersaddick said:
Don't think Jiminez actually owned that much of the club either. Didn't the recent court case struggle to show that?kentaddick said:Tony Jiminez was technically the owner of CAFC when they took over, but it was slater who was doing the photos and the tv interviews on the day they took over, iirc.
The court ruling effectively meant the club broke league rules by publishing bogus and/or incomplete ownership information in its official declaration, in turn making nonsense of the fit and proper persons test.
10 -
Are there two parties still involved?Davidsmith said:
I am beginning to think there is a lot of brinkmanship going on now. Two parties still interested ,one if not two in for EFL approval, but deal dragging on.JamesSeed said:I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(
Neither of them seem to be in a rush probably because they both have long term plans and the short term pain to Roland with next season planning and summer wages to pay leaves him in a difficult position.
I have mentioned this before but I think his actions of playing one off against the other has done nothing but drive price lower and delay takeover.
This EFL approval is also strange, put yourself in Roland's position, wouldn't you want that done when proof of funds was done,so as to not waste time and Lawyers fees only to find out your buyer didn't get approval?
This is going to drag on for a while longer yet is my guess.
No one seems to know who this "British" is and I personally am very dubious as to whether they even exist. Especially as the source seems to only be Roland.12 -
I dont trust RD as much as I don’t rust Richard Murray it does strike me as confusing though that a few months ago there was demands of one liar to talk and now another one is talking there is a ground swell not to hear
Right now I think it’s fair to say all parties are not being totally truthful with what is being said and to whom
And @Davidsmith has said about this having a bit longer to play out is going to be bang on the money3 -
I wonder if the EFL might have a view about the club sending it fit and proper person paperwork to process without the intention to proceed?1
This discussion has been closed.
