The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

SID said:

cafcfan said:

SID said:

I wonder whether all you pun specialists try them out on your other halves first before you submit them just to check how hilarious they are. Of course for anyone wanting to catch up on probably the most important period of our clubs history since the homecoming, they're not funny at all and you come across as a bunch of wankers.

If you think they are supposed to be hilarious then there's no helping you. The basic premise is just to garner a chuckle, grin, the merest hint of a smile, a guffaw or even a groan.

So what got you up so crabby today?

So start a fucking pun thread then, you can guffaw yourself 24/7 without filling this one up with shit.

Well something has sardinely got your back up.

I agree with you though, i absolutely hake it when the thread goes off topic.

SID said:

cafcfan said:

SID said:

I wonder whether all you pun specialists try them out on your other halves first before you submit them just to check how hilarious they are. Of course for anyone wanting to catch up on probably the most important period of our clubs history since the homecoming, they're not funny at all and you come across as a bunch of wankers.

If you think they are supposed to be hilarious then there's no helping you. The basic premise is just to garner a chuckle, grin, the merest hint of a smile, a guffaw or even a groan.

So what got you up so crabby today?

So start a fucking pun thread then, you can guffaw yourself 24/7 without filling this one up with shit.

cabbles said:

Johnnysummers5 said:

HandG said:

Johnnysummers5 said:

JamesSeed said:

Has anybody else ever noticed that although there are loads of bands with fish related names, none of them are very good?

I liked Noah and the Whale and thought they were good

Sorry to be a pedant but a whale isn’t a fish.

Also, I thought you were finished on Charlton Life? You saw the fish bands and were reeled back in?

Can you show me, where I said I was finished with Charlton Life please

I think he means Seed

SID said:

I wonder whether all you pun specialists try them out on your other halves first before you submit them just to check how hilarious they are. Of course for anyone wanting to catch up on probably the most important period of our clubs history since the homecoming, they're not funny at all and you come across as a bunch of wankers.

cashncarry said:

WhenIwasLittleBoy said:

What a load bollocks. You have a guy who has a direct line to someone who is part of the takeover that has been going on for over three plus months and has now switched his focus to talking about fish. Unbelievable

Pollocks

JamesSeed said:

PopIcon said:

@JamesSeed why do you have so much faith in the Aussies?

@PopIcon

1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.

2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.

3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.

4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.

5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.

6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.

Of course there are negatives too.

It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.

I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance.
If they actually buy the club of course.

clb74 said:

JamesSeed said:

PopIcon said:

@JamesSeed why do you have so much faith in the Aussies?

@PopIcon

1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.

2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.

3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.

4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.

5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.

6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.

Of course there are negatives too.

It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.

I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance.
If they actually buy the club of course.

Be it on your head.

killerandflash said:

JamesSeed said:

PopIcon said:

@JamesSeed why do you have so much faith in the Aussies?

@PopIcon

1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.

2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.

3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.

4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.

5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.

6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.

Of course there are negatives too.

It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.

I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance.
If they actually buy the club of course.

A well argued and balanced argument, but no fish puns though

I would caution that 5 year plans aren't necessarily a sign of ambition, as

a) it depends on what the plan actually covers, a plan that sees us as a mid table Championship team after 5 years would be an improvement on our current state, but hardly very inspiring
b) are the plans realistic, and proportional to the level of funding they are investing? It's easy to talk big, but in a world where there are some very rich owners splashing the cash to get in the PL, relying on Aussie sports know how and scouting as a secret weapon won't cut it.

Johnnysummers5 said:

cabbles said:

Johnnysummers5 said:

HandG said:

Johnnysummers5 said:

JamesSeed said:

Has anybody else ever noticed that although there are loads of bands with fish related names, none of them are very good?

I liked Noah and the Whale and thought they were good

Sorry to be a pedant but a whale isn’t a fish.

Also, I thought you were finished on Charlton Life? You saw the fish bands and were reeled back in?

Can you show me, where I said I was finished with Charlton Life please

I think he means Seed

Thank you for that, I know I never said it

Redrobo said:

JamesSeed said:

PopIcon said:

@JamesSeed why do you have so much faith in the Aussies?

@PopIcon

1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.

2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.

3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.

4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.

5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.

6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.

Of course there are negatives too.

It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.

I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance.
If they actually buy the club of course.

So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?

I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.

If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?

The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.

At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.

So do I.

Covered End said:

Redrobo said:

JamesSeed said:

PopIcon said:

@JamesSeed why do you have so much faith in the Aussies?

@PopIcon

1. GM is a decent bloke, and he’s definitely not a crook.

2. They’re not in it in order to sell us down the river in some sort of land/property scam involving a move from The Valley.

3.At least two of the consortium have previous involvement in sport, and are sports fans.

4. I believe (and this is fingers crossed time) that they’ll offer medium to long term financial stability, because the consortium model should spread the risk, and bypasses the risk nof having a single owner who might lose interest or go bust.

5. They seem to have ambition, backed by a five year plan. Of course the proof will be in the pudding.

6. They are at least aware that Charlton fans have earned the right to be taken seriously.

Of course there are negatives too.

It’s possible that they’ve had problems replacing a wealthy backer as some have speculated, and it’s possible that they’ve made mistakes along the way with the paperwork (purely speculation because I have no knowledge of this). It’s possibe we’ll end up with two or three Aussie players, although they’ve denied that.

I understand people’s scepticism. As people have said, they’ve proved nothing yet. But I’m prepared to give them a chance.
If they actually buy the club of course.

So when I suggested the delay had nothing to do with Roland, ex Directors, or loans, why did you say that this was not true? You don’t seem to know what the hell is going on so how do you know my theory is wrong?

I still find it unbelievable that all those in the know still don’t know the price of the club or who is buying us. Muir I know, but who else? Who were the two who failed the test for example? Who is the wealthy backer? If you don’t know this, how do you know what is in the 5 year plan or how valid it is? Or is this based on a beer you had with an Australian you know? Everything you say above is merely speculation. Nothing is a fact, but to be fair, you don’t claim it to be either.

If you know the names of consortium individuals name them. It can’t be secret or you would not have been told. Or are you in the dark as well?

The use of the word “possible” is wearing thin. Just tell us exactly what you have been told. You confuse the message by introducing speculation because the reader is not sure what you have been told and what is your interpretation of what has been said.

At this point in time, all I think I know is that you had a beer with someone and you think we will be taken over by an Australian consortium at some point.

So do I.

No one knows, they just think they do or word their comments carefully so as not to be challenged.
If you ask them direct questions, they tend to disappear for the rest of the day.