The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Airman Brown said:

ken_shabby said:

I've tried to steer clear of this but for what it's worth...
If the Aussie's can't scrape up the purchase price they cannot run the club and manage the debts. If they are loaded, this should be done and dusted now.
And if it's RD who is playing silly buggers they should grow a pair, give him a price and a deadline with all club assets attached, and if he farts about, walk away. This ridiculous affair is damaging the club. The image of these guys as potential buyers is looking more and more like Jimenez and Co every day.

Really? How many times has Muir appeared at the High Court?

Addickted said:

T_C_E said:

To be fair, I think the Trust were correct in asking questions and with Leanne busy with Bowyers list of wanted players for the coming season. That only left him, they merely reported what he said.

Well than that is just not good enough from the Trust - as I said earlier, appears to be far too much flat cap dothing to Murray and some serious robust questioning as to what the fuck is going on. The 'I know nothing' line is patently just not true.

And still official word from the @castrust since their earlier post to say they'd spoken to 'Mr Murray'. Again, disappointing seeing as several of the Trust Board post on here.

When are the next Trust elections?

Chizz said:

SX_Addick said:

Chizz said:

Airman Brown said:

Chizz said:

golfaddick said:

Chizz said:

I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".

But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.

Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.

Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.

But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).

So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).

All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.

THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.

If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.

Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.

If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.

And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.

I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.

How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?

My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.

There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.

To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.

Could it be that if Brentford were to sell Konsa on to (say) Chelsea for (say) £10m in two years time, RD’s sell on clause gets him (not Charlton) a significant percentage of the fee? I can imagine that would derail the agreement if the Aussies hadn’t planned for that.

That's exactly my suggestion. In that circumstance, RD will gain a huge fee for a player being sold from one club to another. And, as he won't (we hope!) have anything to do with Charlton or any other club, he could be in Konsa's ear every day and could be on the phone to Chelsea (or any other club) every day, without risk of "tapping up".

Arsenetatters said:

Big in Brasov said:

KBslittlesis said:

I'm really really really disappointed with the Trust.
Why on earth would you talk to RM?
All it's done is confirm the man talks shit and has made us all mad (OK madder).

Whatever happens I don't want him given any airtime ever again.

I think the trust board had very few options.

With the sale of Konsa, the horrible news from Ibiza and the apparent breakdown of the takeover, I think they were absolutely right to seek comment and/or clarity from the club. Anyway, some form of communication from the club was long overdue. The problem is that Murray is the only one left in SE7 in any way qualified to cast any light on recent developments.

We know that Murray panders to the whims of Duchatelet, and he proved that again by reiterating what Duchatelet said to members of ROT last month. He went on to make a lame attempt at being positive about the club's footballing prospects, despite the obvious shortcomings in the playing and coaching staff, but then what else would we expect?

Yes, you can argue that Murray should not have been allowed to fob us all off with meaningless platitudes, and I think that is fair comment, but if pressed hard, how would he react? Would he be more forthcoming (unlikely), or would he shut down dialogue (probably)? Perhaps this should be tested by the trust board.

The point is the trust recognised the time had come for questions to be asked. Having said that, the account of the dialogue might be viewed as somewhat sympathetic towards Murray, and the fact that his responses are not criticised in any way is disappointing.

This 100%

I am wondering if the Trust approached the club or Murray (sorry if already stated)? What's happened to the communications bloke? Rubashow? Isn't that what he's paid for? Seems a pointless exercise if the club just wheel Murray out UNLESS he is also asked some difficult questions.

Addickted said:

T_C_E said:

To be fair, I think the Trust were correct in asking questions and with Leanne busy with Bowyers list of wanted players for the coming season. That only left him, they merely reported what he said.

Well than that is just not good enough from the Trust - as I said earlier, appears to be far too much flat cap dothing to Murray and some serious robust questioning as to what the fuck is going on. The 'I know nothing' line is patently just not true.

And still official word from the @castrust since their earlier post to say they'd spoken to 'Mr Murray'. Again, disappointing seeing as several of the Trust Board post on here.

When are the next Trust elections?

StigThundercock said:

Chizz said:

SX_Addick said:

Chizz said:

Airman Brown said:

Chizz said:

golfaddick said:

Chizz said:

I've no idea what the price agreed might be or what any delays might have been for. I don't know the structure of the deal. Or who other parties might be. I don't know what's happening at The Valley or the training ground. And I don't know where Muir or RD are. So don't take anything on this post as "ITK".

But I'm having a guess at what one tiny piece of hold up might be.

Charlton have sold Konsa. The fee hasn't been disclosed. Its likely that the sale price agreed also includes an element whereby any player sale revenue is deducted from the selling price.

Let's say the fee was £4m. That could represent about 10 per cent of the sale price, so is pretty significant.

But it's very unlikely that a Championship club would pay the whole fee up front. (Premier League clubs would be more likely to pay £4m up front, but even then would probably spread the total over a number of years).

So there may be a disagreement as to whether the sale price should be reduced by the whole fee (say £4m) or just the initial payment (maybe £1m).

All these figures are guesses. But the point remains that there could be a disagreement between the seller's sale of the club and the buyer's valuation if a diminished asset.

THIS. Also to add he may be insisting any sell on clause money goes to him......done this at SL when selling them.

If all this is the case then the Aussies should go public. Tell the world & the EFL. Sod any NDA...... RD is a fuckwit.

Any sell-on or other monies should go to the club, whoever owns it at the time. So, to extend my earlier guess, if it's £1m now and £3m later (either on appearances, goals, caps, sell-on or anything else), the £1m goes to Charlton while RD is the owner and the £3m goes to Charlton while Muir is the owner.

If RD is trying to ensure he gets the £3m (especially if it's for sell-on) then Konsa will be, de facto, under third-party influence. Illegal. Neither fit nor proper.

And until that is ironed out, the Aussies shouldn't buy the club. RD has flogged Konsa with the intention of hurrying the Aussies up and, instead has caused them to delay.

I think RD has tried to be really clever. Again. And failed. Again.

How would Konsa be under the influence of a party that has sold him?

My (extraordinarily limited) understanding is that if (say) RD were in a position to benefit from (say) Konsa being sold by Brentford to (say) Chelsea, in the form of a sell-on clause, he could influence the player to move on.

There would be a financial advantage to a third party for one player to break his contract by being sold.

To reiterate, I don't know whether that's strictly proscribed. But it doesn't seem right that a player's sale can be of financial benefit to a party that is neither a player, club or agent.

Could it be that if Brentford were to sell Konsa on to (say) Chelsea for (say) £10m in two years time, RD’s sell on clause gets him (not Charlton) a significant percentage of the fee? I can imagine that would derail the agreement if the Aussies hadn’t planned for that.

That's exactly my suggestion. In that circumstance, RD will gain a huge fee for a player being sold from one club to another. And, as he won't (we hope!) have anything to do with Charlton or any other club, he could be in Konsa's ear every day and could be on the phone to Chelsea (or any other club) every day, without risk of "tapping up".

After Konsa's registration is transferred to Brentford, if roly were to benefit directly personally from a subsequent transfer that would be 3rd party ownership/control/influence which is proscribed, cos he isn't a registered agent, nor we presume Ezri's agent/manager. What roly does with the proceeds to CAFC from the transfer to BFC is up to him. Any (frankly really unlikely) sell-on revenue has to come to CAFC, as that was the entity which owned EK's registration. What deal the septic old cunt might make with the next CAFC owners as regards sell on revenues from players who wiped their feet at Sparrows Lane or The Valley during his catastrophic shitshow, is a matter between arsefeatures and the nextguys.
Entirely academic cos the cadaverous wankstain was just after immediate liquid funds to ameliorate the haemorrhaging cashflow. Theoretical future revenues from some happenstance over which he can bring no influence won't even register with him as he knows the square root of fucknothing about the business of football.

Sage said:

Redhenry said:

The rejection by the EFL, still worries me.

Was this due to the apparent two other investors that the EFL were not happy with but said to have been sorted, or is the problem greater than this?

Redhenry said:

Sage said:

Redhenry said:

The rejection by the EFL, still worries me.

Was this due to the apparent two other investors that the EFL were not happy with but said to have been sorted, or is the problem greater than this?

I don't know why, i have heard from 3 different sources that it was rejected

JamesSeed said:

Addickted said:

T_C_E said:

To be fair, I think the Trust were correct in asking questions and with Leanne busy with Bowyers list of wanted players for the coming season. That only left him, they merely reported what he said.

Well than that is just not good enough from the Trust - as I said earlier, appears to be far too much flat cap dothing to Murray and some serious robust questioning as to what the fuck is going on. The 'I know nothing' line is patently just not true.

And still official word from the @castrust since their earlier post to say they'd spoken to 'Mr Murray'. Again, disappointing seeing as several of the Trust Board post on here.

When are the next Trust elections?

Slightly unfair, as the trust spoke to Murray because they were asked to. There was a load of posts on here saying it was disgraceful that the club hadn’t issued a statement, or spoken about what’s going on with the sale.
Murray is the only one who will talk about these matters, and you can hardly expect the trust to do more than report what he said. It’s up to others to say whether they give his comments credence or not.
Personally I’d rather hear what he has to say, than hear nothing at all.