Thanks, although I’m not getting much of any use at the moment. I have no problem with someone like @Addickted because he’s motivated by his love for the club and obviously seriously thinks the Aussies would be bad for us. I disagree of course, but I can see where he’s coming from. The couple who always pop up if someone criticises me are just bottom feeders.
Where have I said I think the Aussies would be bad for us?
My beef is with their procrastination and their inability to communicate with some seriously frustrated fans other than through some cosy chats with you.
Not knocking you for at least attempting to get some information out of them, but if they are that serious, why are you having to rely on contacting them, rather than vice versa. A quick call to say - "don't worry Jimbo, we're still in the game and the hold up is because of some gnarled old tosser in Belgium".
Hence my question about them stringing you along - which I notice you still haven't deemed to answer.
Murray & the Aussies have a lot in common - they’ve both gone missing
Thanks, although I’m not getting much of any use at the moment. I have no problem with someone like @Addickted because he’s motivated by his love for the club and obviously seriously thinks the Aussies would be bad for us. I disagree of course, but I can see where he’s coming from. The couple who always pop up if someone criticises me are just bottom feeders.
Where have I said I think the Aussies would be bad for us?
My beef is with their procrastination and their inability to communicate with some seriously frustrated fans other than through some cosy chats with you.
Not knocking you for at least attempting to get some information out of them, but if they are that serious, why are you having to rely on contacting them, rather than vice versa. A quick call to say - "don't worry Jimbo, we're still in the game and the hold up is because of some gnarled old tosser in Belgium".
Hence my question about them stringing you along - which I notice you still haven't deemed to answer.
Ok fair enough - tbh I thought it was more of a rhetorical question. Sorry. So in May Gerard told me the basics about what they wanted to do, but couldn’t tell me any of the nuts and bolts stuff that everyone wants to know about. He said it was ok to share. (Only one cosy chat). Then he regretted that decision, but accepted he’d said it was ok. Since then nothing other than ‘it’s still on’, or ‘not true’, or the ‘tough couple of weeks’. But only because I asked. I got stick for that last one because nothing happened after two weeks, although I’m not sure he said anything would. (Oh and a call asking me not to make my personal protest at that particular time, a call instigated by Paul Elliott.)
Maybe they monitor social media and decided to say nothing more. Maybe the lawyers have told them to say nothing at all, because of the NDA, or for some other reason. Maybe he’s embarrassed about the delay (but I doubt that personally).
I know nothing about the recent delays. I just know the early ones were to do with legal stuff. Yes it would be much better if there hadn’t been any. It’s all got so unpleasant since the end of May.
And yes I wish they’d release some info, and I can only speculate as to why they won’t at the moment. Most likely is the lawyers advice I’d say.
So I hope that answers the stringing along question. I’m totally irrelevant.
My take is that were they out, they would certainly have said so by now....what is there to gain by keeping us all in suspense if they know they’ve pulled the plug....none whatever. There’s certainly something afoot.....good or bad.....who knows but as things stand I’m betting they are still in the hunt in some way or another.
I hesitate to step into such an entrenched space but we are moving into some real flights of fantasy largely based on 3rd hand information, speculation and subjective conjecture.
I can but embellish my comments of 22Jul.
There is one party responsible for the current fiasco. The responsibility starts and stops with the clubs beneficial owner
We have seen from the nature of the man his rudderless infrastructure, divisive culture, alienation of thousands, and catastrophic failure to empower the football clubhouse all but destroy any vestige of a competitive senior professional football organisation.
After this appalling stewardship any new people will need to put considerably more than £40mn at risk to restore this club to any industry credibility,
Yet some wish to vilify a group who appear to be prepared to pay an exorbitant fee for the man to just go away and then take on that very challenge. It is beyond bizarre.
NLA I respect your contacts and much of your opinion but your comments re the Australians now no longer stand scrutiny.
You assert there is/was no problem with the Owners & Directors Test the primary purpose of which is to determine if the financial suitability of an ownership is sufficient to ensure the club is able to fulfill its obligations to the EFL, its competitions and other members.
Why then do you think the EFL would clear the Australian bid if they did not evidence the ability to a) acquire the club b) fund operations going forward?
Whether the EFL criteria is ever valid is always debatable but with the court revelations re Jiminez, Cash and a BVI family trust nobody was going to just nod this transaction through.
Any interested party is free to bid what they are prepared to pay. The object of the exercise is to win the bid. Had the Australians met the full EFL criteria at the outset I suspect the deal would have been done. Hence the over confident appearance of consortium members on match days.
That the EFL requirements may have had any number of stipulations requiring certain parties to complete time consuming divestment of other interests or provide legal clarifications will have caused delays. The time lapse will have meant key timelines were missed and subsequent club trading will have moved the goalposts.
Perversely the delayed EFL sanction in certifying the Australians has changed the dynamic of the deal. It strengthened the Australian negotiating position.
Thus a takeover involving multiple issues has evolved into a protracted transaction. Such transactions do not move in a straight line. They are an ever changing iterative process. The value of every trading entity is ever changing. The value of "the club" today is not what it was when negotiations began.
It is too quiet but the Australians apart from announcing they have walked away are legally prevented from a public position or platform in this matter. Any attempt to talk to any interested party be they fans or ex directors, unless approved by the club will breach the NDA, with prejudice.
Without a legal standing such dialogue would be totally inappropriate in terms of directly interfering with the vendors financial & trading position.
No matter who is involved please register the possible scale of finance involved. With contingency & margins project finance of £120-150mn is not excessive.
Acquisition £35-40mn (a grossly inflated price), 5yrs Working capital £60-75mn, Facilities infrastructure (Training ground/ Academy) £10-15mn, Playing infrastructure (Signings) £15-20mn
To deliver a 5yr plan you secure the full funding before stepping through the door. Chasing finance mid term to deliver any project is fraught with problems. Lack of working capital is precisely why Chappell, Murray, Slater & Jimenez failed and why the training ground work has stalled.
The delay is hugely frustrating but like it or not in truth the now EFL certified Australians need do absolutely nothing. They are established in pole position.
For now they need only respond to developments. It is a risk but they appear confident nobody will match their offer. With the inflated price, the club modus operandi and the current turmoil who could argue with such confidence?
Operationally there is now no burning need for any buyer to close any deal before the end of October. No one can meaningfully impact this or any other clubs fortunes until the January window.
In the meantime M.Duchatellet will continue to incur losses. The turmoil of this week revealing his scorched earth policies will reinforce their negotiating position.
I do accept the Australians may have changed their position.
If their indicative pricing referenced clear title such condition will be met by the purchase of the corporate entity owning club assets. There is a different issue. Due diligence will have identified the terms of any encumbrances to such title and the powers granted to ex directors in respect of club assets.
At a recent Fans Forum we are advised despite EFL sanction further paperwork may be required and ex director loans are not a problem. Executives rarely flat out lie but they often however revel in half truths. Though ex directors loans may not be seen as a problem their debentures may.
Due diligence is a reflective & ongoing process and certain investors may have chosen to revisit the impact of these debentures. Logically why would any investors, prepared to fund perhaps over £100mn, cede control of assets to a group whose outstanding liability is circa £7mn?
Yet the debentures are not their problem. The Australians have no authority to act
Duchatelet needed to address them on acquiring the club. Indeed such oversight may have positioned his rushed acquisition ahead of other interested parties. The debentures remain his problem to resolve.
Ultimately the overall debt/ price may indeed still be a bridge too far.
That the Australians still seem interested in trying to cross that bridge is hardly a matter of condemnation bordering on hysteria.
In all of this there is one overriding fact. Absolutely none of it is exclusive.
At any time any other party be they Saudi, British or anything else could have stepped in. To argue the Australians are somehow responsible for any aspect of our current situation is utter nonsense.
Those in charge of the business are responsible for how the business is run whether it is for sale or not. Pursuing an indiscriminate scorched earth policy in such circumstances undermines the very business you are trying to sell.
This continued campaign of distraction and deflection serves only to excuse a failed administration. It is a deflection which defines this administration. Be it other clubs, the EFL, the industry culture, the Royal Mail, multiple coaches, the fans, college students, social media, the media, the fans again, CARD, WAR, ROT, the players or the staff everybody else is to blame.
Today it is the turn of the Australians. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.
The idea if the Australians walked the price would drop is speculative nonsense. If it does drop who would likely be best positioned to move? The Australians.
The current situation is damaging but only because of the way the club is being run. It is for this ownership to manage - no one else. Not for the first time Duchatelet appears to be simply making it up as he goes along.
Yesterday saw no owner, no CEO, no CFO, no COO, no Director, no senior management, no permanent senior football management, a senior squad still not fit for purpose, in a stadium in reality nearly 4/5ths empty, with a divided fan base.
It is clear the Australians have a lot to answer for........yea right
James, I wouldn't say nothing happened in those two weeks. The window slammed shut without us losing players. Given he knows you are a fan, he perhaps expected departures would be tough for fans. Didn't the cost savings happen subsequently? The e.mail certainly did.
The thing to remember with RD is that this is really about control, not cash.
He has more money than God. As we know he and his family lead very thrifty lives, frugal even, so the money itself is just a way of keeping score. If money is lost in a particular area, then that means it's a certain game he is losing. The money itself can be replaced, but what must be addressed is the blow to his pride, to his power, to his prestige, to the uncharted depths, as a self-made man, of his self-esteem.
That must make doing business with him especially difficult. Many businessmen "did not get where they are today" without being ruthless, arrogant, obstinate and on occasion mendacious. Doing a deal with Roland must be a nightmare even for the toughest opponent. The likeliest reason even to continue negotiating is that these hotshots refuse to be bested by a farmer.
Also, it cannot be easy working for Roland - leaving other considerations aside for a moment (please) he was prepared for the inexperienced and floundering KM to go through four years of hell, all to serve his (and admittedly her) failing agenda. RD's current satrap LdT is amiable enough on the surface but as a cost accountant he doubtless has a housebrick for a heart. After this week's FF revelations were swiftly contradicted by separate sources at the EFL, the naughty boy has now been summoned to the headmaster's office. Didn't take long!!
No, our ultimately successful buyer/s must find a way to gain their precious prize whilst still allowing RD an apparent win, or at least the chance to save face. Good luck with that - just make it soon, very soon!!
If the Aussies outbid the Saudis (which I don't believe) and the Saudis found out they had been outbid, they could only have acquired that information from the seller. (Why would the Aussies tell the Saudis?)
So, in that light, perhaps there are two alternative reasons the Saudis chose to back away.
1. The oft-promulgated posit is that they walked away because they had been outbid by a financially unbeatable consortium. A group of Saudi businessmen, we are asked to believe, found that a bid for the club was trumped by another party, with whom they were financially unable to compete. And they reacted by disappearing, licking their wounds. And we are asked to accept this as a plausible explanation and to cast a shadow over the Aussies.
2. The unexplored version of this is a bit different. The Saudis bid for the club. Roland solicited a counter bid from another party (the Aussies). Roland went back to the Saudis to seek another counter. At which time the Saudis, expecting a deal to be completed with due respect and professionalism, walked away. Roland disclosed privileged information (ie the other party's bid) and the Saudis decided against dealing with a business leader unable or unwilling to adhere to non-disclosure requirements.
I don't know if either of these is true. And I don't honestly think either is true. But, if pushed, I would say that 1 is less plausible than 2.
We've been fed a story that is intended to put the Aussies in a bad light. I still don't buy it.
FWIW in my experience of dealing with saudis (more than most, less than some) @Chizz's option 2 is very much the more likely. In my experience, if they want something they'll buy it, but they are strong believers that people buy from people, if they feel slighted, in anyway, they will walk. For example they would want to deal with the top guy, and if RD wasn't available, especially due to a sense of superiority, to discuss a deal face to face or they felt he was trying to play one off against another, they would walk. Once trust goes, you won't see them again.
That being said, not every Saudi is using two step escalators and gold toilets, some are wealthy and connected, but not with game changing football money. Perhaps they did have a number and walked when they reached it, but if that's the case what is to say they'd be better or worse than anyone else.
My further experience in dealing with saudis is that they don't really do consortiums, so I'd suggest it was more likely one man or one family at the most.
Anyway, I fail to see how anyone has enough info on the Aussies to judge them yet, positive or negative.
I hesitate to step into such an entrenched space but we are moving into some real flights of fantasy largely based on 3rd hand information, speculation and subjective conjecture.
I can but embellish my comments of 22Jul.
There is one party responsible for the current fiasco. The responsibility starts and stops with the clubs beneficial owner
We have seen from the nature of the man his rudderless infrastructure, divisive culture, alienation of thousands, and catastrophic failure to empower the football clubhouse all but destroy any vestige of a competitive senior professional football organisation.
After this appalling stewardship any new people will need to put considerably more than £40mn at risk to restore this club to any industry credibility,
Yet some wish to vilify a group who appear to be prepared to pay an exorbitant fee for the man to just go away and then take on that very challenge. It is beyond bizarre.
NLA I respect your contacts and much of your opinion but your comments re the Australians now no longer stand scrutiny.
You assert there is/was no problem with the Owners & Directors Test the primary purpose of which is to determine if the financial suitability of an ownership is sufficient to ensure the club is able to fulfill its obligations to the EFL, its competitions and other members.
Why then do you think the EFL would clear the Australian bid if they did not evidence the ability to a) acquire the club b) fund operations going forward?
Whether the EFL criteria is ever valid is always debatable but with the court revelations re Jiminez, Cash and a BVI family trust nobody was going to just nod this transaction through.
Any interested party is free to bid what they are prepared to pay. The object of the exercise is to win the bid. Had the Australians met the full EFL criteria at the outset I suspect the deal would have been done. Hence the over confident appearance of consortium members on match days.
That the EFL requirements may have had any number of stipulations requiring certain parties to complete time consuming divestment of other interests or provide legal clarifications will have caused delays. The time lapse will have meant key timelines were missed and subsequent club trading will have moved the goalposts.
Perversely the delayed EFL sanction in certifying the Australians has changed the dynamic of the deal. It strengthened the Australian negotiating position.
Thus a takeover involving multiple issues has evolved into a protracted transaction. Such transactions do not move in a straight line. They are an ever changing iterative process. The value of every trading entity is ever changing. The value of "the club" today is not what it was when negotiations began.
It is too quiet but the Australians apart from announcing they have walked away are legally prevented from a public position or platform in this matter. Any attempt to talk to any interested party be they fans or ex directors, unless approved by the club will breach the NDA, with prejudice.
Without a legal standing such dialogue would be totally inappropriate in terms of directly interfering with the vendors financial & trading position.
No matter who is involved please register the possible scale of finance involved. With contingency & margins project finance of £120-150mn is not excessive.
Acquisition £35-40mn (a grossly inflated price), 5yrs Working capital £60-75mn, Facilities infrastructure (Training ground/ Academy) £10-15mn, Playing infrastructure (Signings) £15-20mn
To deliver a 5yr plan you secure the full funding before stepping through the door. Chasing finance mid term to deliver any project is fraught with problems. Lack of working capital is precisely why Chappell, Murray, Slater & Jimenez failed and why the training ground work has stalled.
The delay is hugely frustrating but like it or not in truth the now EFL certified Australians need do absolutely nothing. They are established in pole position.
For now they need only respond to developments. It is a risk but they appear confident nobody will match their offer. With the inflated price, the club modus operandi and the current turmoil who could argue with such confidence?
Operationally there is now no burning need for any buyer to close any deal before the end of October. No one can meaningfully impact this or any other clubs fortunes until the January window.
In the meantime M.Duchatellet will continue to incur losses. The turmoil of this week revealing his scorched earth policies will reinforce their negotiating position.
I do accept the Australians may have changed their position.
If their indicative pricing referenced clear title such condition will be met by the purchase of the corporate entity owning club assets. There is a different issue. Due diligence will have identified the terms of any encumbrances to such title and the powers granted to ex directors in respect of club assets.
At a recent Fans Forum we are advised despite EFL sanction further paperwork may be required and ex director loans are not a problem. Executives rarely flat out lie but they often however revel in half truths. Though ex directors loans may not be seen as a problem their debentures may.
Due diligence is a reflective & ongoing process and certain investors may have chosen to revisit the impact of these debentures. Logically why would any investors, prepared to fund perhaps over £100mn, cede control of assets to a group whose outstanding liability is circa £7mn?
Yet the debentures are not their problem. The Australians have no authority to act
Duchatelet needed to address them on acquiring the club. Indeed such oversight may have positioned his rushed acquisition ahead of other interested parties. The debentures remain his problem to resolve.
Ultimately the overall debt/ price may indeed still be a bridge too far.
That the Australians still seem interested in trying to cross that bridge is hardly a matter of condemnation bordering on hysteria.
In all of this there is one overriding fact. Absolutely none of it is exclusive.
At any time any other party be they Saudi, British or anything else could have stepped in. To argue the Australians are somehow responsible for any aspect of our current situation is utter nonsense.
Those in charge of the business are responsible for how the business is run whether it is for sale or not. Pursuing an indiscriminate scorched earth policy in such circumstances undermines the very business you are trying to sell.
This continued campaign of distraction and deflection serves only to excuse a failed administration. It is a deflection which defines this administration. Be it other clubs, the EFL, the industry culture, the Royal Mail, multiple coaches, the fans, college students, social media, the media, the fans again, CARD, WAR, ROT, the players or the staff everybody else is to blame.
Today it is the turn of the Australians. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.
The idea if the Australians walked the price would drop is speculative nonsense. If it does drop who would likely be best positioned to move? The Australians.
The current situation is damaging but only because of the way the club is being run. It is for this ownership to manage - no one else. Not for the first time Duchatelet appears to be simply making it up as he goes along.
Yesterday saw no owner, no CEO, no CFO, no COO, no Director, no senior management, no permanent senior football management, a senior squad still not fit for purpose, in a stadium in reality nearly 4/5ths empty, with a divided fan base.
It is clear the Australians have a lot to answer for........yea right
I am sorry but while I abhor the human rights of the Arabs, they do know how to run a football club. So being an exceedingly shallow football supporter, the Aussies can fuck off and bring on the Saudis with their real money.
I am sorry but while I abhor the human rights of the Arabs, they do know how to run a football club. So being an exceedingly shallow football supporter, the Aussies can fuck off and bring on the Saudis with their real money.
Watch the Man City documentary on Prime, you'll love it.
I am sorry but while I abhor the human rights of the Arabs, they do know how to run a football club. So being an exceedingly shallow football supporter, the Aussies can fuck off and bring on the Saudis with their real money.
Point of order. Many Arab states have poor human rights records but it's the states not the race but I know what you meant.
Great post as usual @Grapevine49 but I take issue with one thing you said and which has been said by many and that is that The Aussies may as well hold fire as they can do nothing to change things until the January transfer window. The one thing they can do is remove the cancer that is RD..... lift that dark cloud! That itself should start the healing process, create a feel good vibe, install executive personnel where required and start work on rebuilding the fanbase. The return of a number of fans i would hope, would transmit a better environment for the team and together with returning injured players, we could find ourselves in a much better position come January. This in turn would enable us to attract the better players in the transfer window. I could go on about the benefits of completing the takeover asap as against waiting, but will just state that imo the season will be a write off (or worse) if they leave it too much longer
I have some questions about "The Saudis". I do not wish to put pressure on @Redhenry to answer them, i am just not aware of anyone else claiming to be ITK about them. These are all questions, to which answers we know, if applied to the Aussies (or at least Andrew Muir)
1. Who are they, what is their existing business? 2. Why do they want to buy an English football club? 3. When did they first express interest in CAFC? 4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
I have some questions about "The Saudis". I do not wish to put pressure on @Redhenry to answer them, i am just not aware of anyone else claiming to be ITK about them. These are all questions, to which answers we know, if applied to the Aussies (or at least Andrew Muir)
1. Who are they, what is their existing business? 2. Why do they want to buy an English football club? 3. When did they first express interest in CAFC? 4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
Why's it got to be "Team Aussie" vrs "Team Saudi"?
A few of us have questioned the Aussies from around the time it was mentioned (rightly or wrongly) that they were touting round the City for more dough. If the same was mentioned with another bidder, I'm pretty sure people would be asking the same questions.
I think there's also been more asked about the Aussie's because someone on here has been in direct contact with them and at the moment, only a couple of posters have reported anything in relation to other bidders and no one has claimed to be in direct contact with any of them but, if they were. I reckon your questions would have been posed a long time back
I have some questions about "The Saudis". I do not wish to put pressure on @Redhenry to answer them, i am just not aware of anyone else claiming to be ITK about them. These are all questions, to which answers we know, if applied to the Aussies (or at least Andrew Muir)
1. Who are they, what is their existing business? 2. Why do they want to buy an English football club? 3. When did they first express interest in CAFC? 4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
Why's it got to be "Team Aussie" vrs "Team Saudi"?
A few of us have questioned the Aussies from around the time it was mentioned (rightly or wrongly) that they were touting round the City for more dough. If the same was mentioned with another bidder, I'm pretty sure people would be asking the same questions.
I think there's also been more asked about the Aussie's because someone on here has been in direct contact with them and at the moment, only a couple of posters have reported anything in relation to other bidders and no one has claimed to be in direct contact with any of them but, if they were. I reckon your questions would have been posed a long time back
I asked some straight questions, the answers to which would be very helpful to all who are actually trying to work out what is going on. It would appear you cannot assist me with them. But thank you for posting.
I have some questions about "The Saudis". I do not wish to put pressure on @Redhenry to answer them, i am just not aware of anyone else claiming to be ITK about them. These are all questions, to which answers we know, if applied to the Aussies (or at least Andrew Muir)
1. Who are they, what is their existing business? 2. Why do they want to buy an English football club? 3. When did they first express interest in CAFC? 4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
Why's it got to be "Team Aussie" vrs "Team Saudi"?
A few of us have questioned the Aussies from around the time it was mentioned (rightly or wrongly) that they were touting round the City for more dough. If the same was mentioned with another bidder, I'm pretty sure people would be asking the same questions.
I think there's also been more asked about the Aussie's because someone on here has been in direct contact with them and at the moment, only a couple of posters have reported anything in relation to other bidders and no one has claimed to be in direct contact with any of them but, if they were. I reckon your questions would have been posed a long time back
I asked some straight questions, the answers to which would be very helpful to all who are actually trying to work out what is going on. It would appear you cannot assist me with them. But thank you for posting.
I have some questions about "The Saudis". I do not wish to put pressure on @Redhenry to answer them, i am just not aware of anyone else claiming to be ITK about them. These are all questions, to which answers we know, if applied to the Aussies (or at least Andrew Muir)
1. Who are they, what is their existing business? 2. Why do they want to buy an English football club? 3. When did they first express interest in CAFC? 4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
Why's it got to be "Team Aussie" vrs "Team Saudi"?
A few of us have questioned the Aussies from around the time it was mentioned (rightly or wrongly) that they were touting round the City for more dough. If the same was mentioned with another bidder, I'm pretty sure people would be asking the same questions.
I think there's also been more asked about the Aussie's because someone on here has been in direct contact with them and at the moment, only a couple of posters have reported anything in relation to other bidders and no one has claimed to be in direct contact with any of them but, if they were. I reckon your questions would have been posed a long time back
Appears with a microphone in hand "This is now a triple threat. Team Aussie vs Team Saudi vs.... Team WIOTOS"
I have some questions about "The Saudis". I do not wish to put pressure on @Redhenry to answer them, i am just not aware of anyone else claiming to be ITK about them. These are all questions, to which answers we know, if applied to the Aussies (or at least Andrew Muir)
1. Who are they, what is their existing business? 2. Why do they want to buy an English football club? 3. When did they first express interest in CAFC? 4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
Why's it got to be "Team Aussie" vrs "Team Saudi"?
A few of us have questioned the Aussies from around the time it was mentioned (rightly or wrongly) that they were touting round the City for more dough. If the same was mentioned with another bidder, I'm pretty sure people would be asking the same questions.
I think there's also been more asked about the Aussie's because someone on here has been in direct contact with them and at the moment, only a couple of posters have reported anything in relation to other bidders and no one has claimed to be in direct contact with any of them but, if they were. I reckon your questions would have been posed a long time back
Appears with a microphone in hand "This is now a triple threat. Team Aussie vs Team Saudi vs.... Team WIOTOS"
vrs "Team All You Eggs in 1 Basket and Be Happy With the 1st Buyer To Come Along"
I have some questions about "The Saudis". I do not wish to put pressure on @Redhenry to answer them, i am just not aware of anyone else claiming to be ITK about them. These are all questions, to which answers we know, if applied to the Aussies (or at least Andrew Muir)
1. Who are they, what is their existing business? 2. Why do they want to buy an English football club? 3. When did they first express interest in CAFC? 4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
Why's it got to be "Team Aussie" vrs "Team Saudi"?
A few of us have questioned the Aussies from around the time it was mentioned (rightly or wrongly) that they were touting round the City for more dough. If the same was mentioned with another bidder, I'm pretty sure people would be asking the same questions.
I think there's also been more asked about the Aussie's because someone on here has been in direct contact with them and at the moment, only a couple of posters have reported anything in relation to other bidders and no one has claimed to be in direct contact with any of them but, if they were. I reckon your questions would have been posed a long time back
Appears with a microphone in hand "This is now a triple threat. Team Aussie vs Team Saudi vs.... Team WIOTOS"
Team WIOTOS? I didn't know we'd put a bid in unless it's the Bromley mob .
Comments
So in May Gerard told me the basics about what they wanted to do, but couldn’t tell me any of the nuts and bolts stuff that everyone wants to know about. He said it was ok to share. (Only one cosy chat).
Then he regretted that decision, but accepted he’d said it was ok.
Since then nothing other than ‘it’s still on’, or ‘not true’, or the ‘tough couple of weeks’. But only because I asked.
I got stick for that last one because nothing happened after two weeks, although I’m not sure he said anything would.
(Oh and a call asking me not to make my personal protest at that particular time, a call instigated by Paul Elliott.)
Maybe they monitor social media and decided to say nothing more.
Maybe the lawyers have told them to say nothing at all, because of the NDA, or for some other reason.
Maybe he’s embarrassed about the delay (but I doubt that personally).
I know nothing about the recent delays. I just know the early ones were to do with legal stuff. Yes it would be much better if there hadn’t been any. It’s all got so unpleasant since the end of May.
And yes I wish they’d release some info, and I can only speculate as to why they won’t at the moment. Most likely is the lawyers advice I’d say.
So I hope that answers the stringing along question. I’m totally irrelevant.
Brommmmmmmmmmmmmmm
There’s certainly something afoot.....good or bad.....who knows but as things stand I’m betting they are still in the hunt in some way or another.
I can but embellish my comments of 22Jul.
There is one party responsible for the current fiasco. The responsibility starts and stops with the clubs beneficial owner
We have seen from the nature of the man his rudderless infrastructure, divisive culture, alienation of thousands, and catastrophic failure to empower the football clubhouse all but destroy any vestige of a competitive senior professional football organisation.
After this appalling stewardship any new people will need to put considerably more than £40mn at risk to restore this club to any industry credibility,
Yet some wish to vilify a group who appear to be prepared to pay an exorbitant fee for the man to just go away and then take on that very challenge. It is beyond bizarre.
NLA I respect your contacts and much of your opinion but your comments re the Australians now no longer stand scrutiny.
You assert there is/was no problem with the Owners & Directors Test the primary purpose of which is to determine if the financial suitability of an ownership is sufficient to ensure the club is able to fulfill its obligations to the EFL, its competitions and other members.
Why then do you think the EFL would clear the Australian bid if they did not evidence the ability to a) acquire the club b) fund operations going forward?
Whether the EFL criteria is ever valid is always debatable but with the court revelations re Jiminez, Cash and a BVI family trust nobody was going to just nod this transaction through.
Any interested party is free to bid what they are prepared to pay. The object of the exercise is to win the bid. Had the Australians met the full EFL criteria at the outset I suspect the deal would have been done. Hence the over confident appearance of consortium members on match days.
That the EFL requirements may have had any number of stipulations requiring certain parties to complete time consuming divestment of other interests or provide legal clarifications will have caused delays. The time lapse will have meant key timelines were missed and subsequent club trading will have moved the goalposts.
Perversely the delayed EFL sanction in certifying the Australians has changed the dynamic of the deal. It strengthened the Australian negotiating position.
Thus a takeover involving multiple issues has evolved into a protracted transaction. Such transactions do not move in a straight line. They are an ever changing iterative process. The value of every trading entity is ever changing. The value of "the club" today is not what it was when negotiations began.
It is too quiet but the Australians apart from announcing they have walked away are legally prevented from a public position or platform in this matter. Any attempt to talk to any interested party be they fans or ex directors, unless approved by the club will breach the NDA, with prejudice.
Without a legal standing such dialogue would be totally inappropriate in terms of directly interfering with the vendors financial & trading position.
No matter who is involved please register the possible scale of finance involved. With contingency & margins project finance of £120-150mn is not excessive.
Acquisition £35-40mn (a grossly inflated price), 5yrs Working capital £60-75mn, Facilities infrastructure (Training ground/ Academy) £10-15mn, Playing infrastructure (Signings) £15-20mn
To deliver a 5yr plan you secure the full funding before stepping through the door. Chasing finance mid term to deliver any project is fraught with problems. Lack of working capital is precisely why Chappell, Murray, Slater & Jimenez failed and why the training ground work has stalled.
The delay is hugely frustrating but like it or not in truth the now EFL certified Australians need do absolutely nothing. They are established in pole position.
For now they need only respond to developments. It is a risk but they appear confident nobody will match their offer. With the inflated price, the club modus operandi and the current turmoil who could argue with such confidence?
Operationally there is now no burning need for any buyer to close any deal before the end of October. No one can meaningfully impact this or any other clubs fortunes until the January window.
In the meantime M.Duchatellet will continue to incur losses. The turmoil of this week revealing his scorched earth policies will reinforce their negotiating position.
I do accept the Australians may have changed their position.
If their indicative pricing referenced clear title such condition will be met by the purchase of the corporate entity owning club assets. There is a different issue. Due diligence will have identified the terms of any encumbrances to such title and the powers granted to ex directors in respect of club assets.
At a recent Fans Forum we are advised despite EFL sanction further paperwork may be required and ex director loans are not a problem. Executives rarely flat out lie but they often however revel in half truths. Though ex directors loans may not be seen as a problem their debentures may.
Due diligence is a reflective & ongoing process and certain investors may have chosen to revisit the impact of these debentures. Logically why would any investors, prepared to fund perhaps over £100mn, cede control of assets to a group whose outstanding liability is circa £7mn?
Yet the debentures are not their problem. The Australians have no authority to act
Duchatelet needed to address them on acquiring the club. Indeed such oversight may have positioned his rushed acquisition ahead of other interested parties. The debentures remain his problem to resolve.
Ultimately the overall debt/ price may indeed still be a bridge too far.
That the Australians still seem interested in trying to cross that bridge is hardly a matter of condemnation bordering on hysteria.
In all of this there is one overriding fact. Absolutely none of it is exclusive.
At any time any other party be they Saudi, British or anything else could have stepped in. To argue the Australians are somehow responsible for any aspect of our current situation is utter nonsense.
Those in charge of the business are responsible for how the business is run whether it is for sale or not. Pursuing an indiscriminate scorched earth policy in such circumstances undermines the very business you are trying to sell.
This continued campaign of distraction and deflection serves only to excuse a failed administration. It is a deflection which defines this administration. Be it other clubs, the EFL, the industry culture, the Royal Mail, multiple coaches, the fans, college students, social media, the media, the fans again, CARD, WAR, ROT, the players or the staff everybody else is to blame.
Today it is the turn of the Australians. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.
The idea if the Australians walked the price would drop is speculative nonsense. If it does drop who would likely be best positioned to move? The Australians.
The current situation is damaging but only because of the way the club is being run. It is for this ownership to manage - no one else. Not for the first time Duchatelet appears to be simply making it up as he goes along.
Yesterday saw no owner, no CEO, no CFO, no COO, no Director, no senior management, no permanent senior football management, a senior squad still not fit for purpose, in a stadium in reality nearly 4/5ths empty, with a divided fan base.
It is clear the Australians have a lot to answer for........yea right
The thing to remember with RD is that this is really about control, not cash.
He has more money than God. As we know he and his family lead very thrifty lives, frugal even, so the money itself is just a way of keeping score. If money is lost in a particular area, then that means it's a certain game he is losing. The money itself can be replaced, but what must be addressed is the blow to his pride, to his power, to his prestige, to the uncharted depths, as a self-made man, of his self-esteem.
That must make doing business with him especially difficult. Many businessmen "did not get where they are today" without being ruthless, arrogant, obstinate and on occasion mendacious. Doing a deal with Roland must be a nightmare even for the toughest opponent. The likeliest reason even to continue negotiating is that these hotshots refuse to be bested by a farmer.
Also, it cannot be easy working for Roland - leaving other considerations aside for a moment (please) he was prepared for the inexperienced and floundering KM to go through four years of hell, all to serve his (and admittedly her) failing agenda. RD's current satrap LdT is amiable enough on the surface but as a cost accountant he doubtless has a housebrick for a heart. After this week's FF revelations were swiftly contradicted by separate sources at the EFL, the naughty boy has now been summoned to the headmaster's office. Didn't take long!!
No, our ultimately successful buyer/s must find a way to gain their precious prize whilst still allowing RD an apparent win, or at least the chance to save face. Good luck with that - just make it soon, very soon!!
So, in that light, perhaps there are two alternative reasons the Saudis chose to back away.
1. The oft-promulgated posit is that they walked away because they had been outbid by a financially unbeatable consortium. A group of Saudi businessmen, we are asked to believe, found that a bid for the club was trumped by another party, with whom they were financially unable to compete. And they reacted by disappearing, licking their wounds. And we are asked to accept this as a plausible explanation and to cast a shadow over the Aussies.
2. The unexplored version of this is a bit different. The Saudis bid for the club. Roland solicited a counter bid from another party (the Aussies). Roland went back to the Saudis to seek another counter. At which time the Saudis, expecting a deal to be completed with due respect and professionalism, walked away. Roland disclosed privileged information (ie the other party's bid) and the Saudis decided against dealing with a business leader unable or unwilling to adhere to non-disclosure requirements.
I don't know if either of these is true. And I don't honestly think either is true. But, if pushed, I would say that 1 is less plausible than 2.
We've been fed a story that is intended to put the Aussies in a bad light. I still don't buy it.
That being said, not every Saudi is using two step escalators and gold toilets, some are wealthy and connected, but not with game changing football money. Perhaps they did have a number and walked when they reached it, but if that's the case what is to say they'd be better or worse than anyone else.
My further experience in dealing with saudis is that they don't really do consortiums, so I'd suggest it was more likely one man or one family at the most.
Anyway, I fail to see how anyone has enough info on the Aussies to judge them yet, positive or negative.
The one thing they can do is remove the cancer that is RD..... lift that dark cloud! That itself should start the healing process, create a feel good vibe, install executive personnel where required and start work on rebuilding the fanbase. The return of a number of fans i would hope, would transmit a better environment for the team and together with returning injured players, we could find ourselves in a much better position come January. This in turn would enable us to attract the better players in the transfer window.
I could go on about the benefits of completing the takeover asap as against waiting, but will just state that imo the season will be a write off (or worse) if they leave it too much longer
1. Who are they, what is their existing business?
2. Why do they want to buy an English football club?
3. When did they first express interest in CAFC?
4. Have they submitted to an ODT? When? And did they pass?
Just think they ought to receive at least some of the "scrutiny" if that isn't too polite a word for some of the shit being thrown here, as the Aussies are under.
A few of us have questioned the Aussies from around the time it was mentioned (rightly or wrongly) that they were touting round the City for more dough. If the same was mentioned with another bidder, I'm pretty sure people would be asking the same questions.
I think there's also been more asked about the Aussie's because someone on here has been in direct contact with them and at the moment, only a couple of posters have reported anything in relation to other bidders and no one has claimed to be in direct contact with any of them but, if they were. I reckon your questions would have been posed a long time back