The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

dickplumb said:

JamesSeed said:

nth london addick said:

Jimmy it’s not incorrect the difference is I have no bias in what I share all I want is RD gone your source does not want to release the info that has dogged them from the start ref funds

I assure you the pup lines being told from within are not the ones I speak

Be careful who you believe mate is all i say

I could say exactly the same as you nth, with all due respect. They’ve certainly told me no lies up to now. The fact that they don’t want to tell me all about their financing is hardly a surprise is it? Why the hell would they tell me?

They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.

How do you know they have told you no lies? If they tell you something and you in good faith post it on here. You have not been lying but they might have been.
I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.

Show me one post where I've passed on a lie?

Scoham said:

They might not have value on he books but surely if a group of first team players from the academy were sold the buyers would value the club differently?

Yes, but If it is used to pay off third party debt that would otherwise remain a liability on the books the net effect could be positive.

JamesSeed said:

dickplumb said:

JamesSeed said:

nth london addick said:

Jimmy it’s not incorrect the difference is I have no bias in what I share all I want is RD gone your source does not want to release the info that has dogged them from the start ref funds

I assure you the pup lines being told from within are not the ones I speak

Be careful who you believe mate is all i say

I could say exactly the same as you nth, with all due respect. They’ve certainly told me no lies up to now. The fact that they don’t want to tell me all about their financing is hardly a surprise is it? Why the hell would they tell me?

They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.

How do you know they have told you no lies? If they tell you something and you in good faith post it on here. You have not been lying but they might have been.
I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.

Show me one post where I've passed on a lie?

I keep coming back to the thought of why would anyone coming in want to lie, or not have the clout to back up their intention. They MUST know what they are up against with the fan base. What would be the advantage? It's not in their interest.

Seller on the other hand maybe.....

Call me naive, call me too optimistic. We have no real concrete evidence either way, so we are only going on what little we get (if indeed we are getting anything) and filling in the rest.

Imnot Athletic said:

Whats in the books is irrelevant in terms of the value that's placed on the business. Having less liabilities as a result of selling assets (on the books or otherwise) is a zero sum game, unless you realise more for the player than the other party thought, which could have been the case with Ezri I suppose.

Most likely scenario in removing the liabilities of the old directors is to either allow first charge on the assets of the business for any new loans (from Rolly or anyone else) or to allow the football business and the property business to be split, with only one of these sold.

I guess it's possible that Roly could offload the club to the Aussies with a loan in place for the amount they don't have, rather than separating the club from the property. By settling the director's charges, then a new charge can be put in place to ensure Duchatelet get's paid before anybody else in the future. I would be far happier with this situation than with the property being split from the club.

At this point I want Duchatelet gone, but not at the expense of losing the ground and/or training ground to him. I was at Selhurst Park regularly and will never forget what a shit time it was for us back then. If any deal means losing these things, I'd rather there be no deal for now.

WestCountryAddick said:

Imnot Athletic said:

Whats in the books is irrelevant in terms of the value that's placed on the business. Having less liabilities as a result of selling assets (on the books or otherwise) is a zero sum game, unless you realise more for the player than the other party thought, which could have been the case with Ezri I suppose.

Most likely scenario in removing the liabilities of the old directors is to either allow first charge on the assets of the business for any new loans (from Rolly or anyone else) or to allow the football business and the property business to be split, with only one of these sold.

I guess it's possible that Roly could offload the club to the Aussies with a loan in place for the amount they don't have, rather than separating the club from the property. By settling the director's charges, then a new charge can be put in place to ensure Duchatelet get's paid before anybody else in the future. I would be far happier with this situation than with the property being split from the club.

At this point I want Duchatelet gone, but not at the expense of losing the ground and/or training ground to him. I was at Selhurst Park regularly and will never forget what a shit time it was for us back then. If any deal means losing these things, I'd rather there be no deal for now.

Agree its a lot more palatable, Charlton would be more in control, but with similar issues to those we are going through at the moment. However terms of the loan notes could be an issue. I don't see Roly giving them to us interest free but then again he probably wouldn't let us use the valley or the training ground rent free

Some don’t I have even had some prick called Colin call me a liar who the fuck is Colin

Airman Brown said:

LargeAddick said:

Scoham said:

kentaddick said:

Scoham said:

Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.

he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.

Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?

Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'

I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.

However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.

There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.

This is correct and what I posted after the konsa sale and has been the case since Tuesday RD reducing the debt not the sale price hence making a reduction more in line with the Aussie shortage of funds

On weds this changed a bit more all the way up to yesterday eve when the negotiations returned to where they were around 8 - 12 weeks ago pre the investors that were found that led to the earlier leaks that things could be concluded quickly

Who subsequently failed a section of the EFL tests and meant they had joint interests and couldn’t invest

And the this resulted in issue of purchasing without the ground and training ground as part of the deal (unsure how long term that view is ) hence the Aussies do want to buy lock stock and barrel but may not be able to outright at the same time as the rest of the purchase

Releasing RD from the monthly running costs and keeping him content till he gets his full amount or the assets purchased separately later on

JamesSeed said:

nth london addick said:

We will see the clock is ticking the deadline looming for this to be concluded

If the Aussies find investors then it won’t happen

If the club is sold and the ground and training ground is not sold with it then we will see

But the Aussies ascot 1327 today do not have the money available to buy us FACT

It's not a FACT if it's just something you've been told, and you haven't seen proof yourself.

What is this deadline?
The Aussies are saying your post is 100% incorrect, it's not a third party saying it, so are you being used by someone? An ex director?

Nope the Aussies are not telling you the truth

And it is a fact

nth london addick said:

I only deal in facts nothing else

Cheers Rafa.

WSS said:

nth london addick said:

I only deal in facts nothing else

Cheers Rafa.

No worries 8)

I feel that #TeamWIOTOS will be gaining a few more members soon after today's back and forth :-)

Henry Irving said:

cafcwill said:

I feel that #TeamWIOTOS will be gaining a few more members soon after today's back and forth :-)

Say it again, brother

I remember when NLA rightly broke the news that the spivs never had a pot to piss in.

Never made its way to the OS...ever.

nth london addick said:

Some don’t I have even had some prick called Colin call me a liar who the fuck is Colin

Airman Brown said:

LargeAddick said:

Scoham said:

kentaddick said:

Scoham said:

Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.

he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.

Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?

Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'

I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.

However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.

There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.

This is correct and what I posted after the konsa sale and has been the case since Tuesday RD reducing the debt not the sale price hence making a reduction more in line with the Aussie shortage of funds

On weds this changed a bit more all the way up to yesterday eve when the negotiations returned to where they were around 8 - 12 weeks ago pre the investors that were found that led to the earlier leaks that things could be concluded quickly

Who subsequently failed a section of the EFL tests and meant they had joint interests and couldn’t invest

And the this resulted in issue of purchasing without the ground and training ground as part of the deal (unsure how long term that view is ) hence the Aussies do want to buy lock stock and barrel but may not be able to outright at the same time as the rest of the purchase

Releasing RD from the monthly running costs and keeping him content till he gets his full amount or the assets purchased separately later on

How the hell did the Aussies not realise this would be a problem?

DOUCHER said:

StigThundercock said:

DOUCHER said:

AFKABartram said:

Chizz said:

It's going to reach 1,000 pages. Isn't it?

It may well not.

Just to add an additional band of excitement to this, but we can't find any other site that uses the same platform software carrying a thread beyond 3 digit pages. So your guess is as good as ours.

Should CL spontaneously combust. It was nice knowing you all :-)

If it does reach 1000 pages, do NLA and I get some sort of award?

Douche, what accolade could possibly brighten your existence there in the depths of your orgy of self-congratulation?
It ruins your eyesight, you know?

Don't try and get me back on side now - I've owned this thread, smashed it, made it my own? Nailed it? made it relevant? - if Simon cowell were judging I would be in boot camp by now about to go global

Ruined his eyesight already it seems, either that or English not his first language.
(speaks slowly and loudly) Would you like me to say it again but with fewer long difficult words?
I have no flemish but I could have a go at french if that helps?