Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
The loans haven’t been sorted.Henry Irving said:@JamesSeed
First rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
Second rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
The fact that the regime says they haven’t been sorted doesn’t mean they have been sorted.
The bit about why they haven’t been sorted is what is concerning.
And bear in mind I didn’t get my info from the regime. Had I done, so I would have been more skeptical Mr I.
0 -
Indirectly, yes you did.JamesSeed said:
The loans haven’t been sorted.Henry Irving said:@JamesSeed
First rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
Second rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
The fact that the regime says they haven’t been sorted doesn’t mean they have been sorted.
The bit about why they haven’t been sorted is what is concerning.
And bear in mind I didn’t get my info from the regime. Had I done, so I would have been more skeptical Mr I.0 -
JamesSeed said:
The loans haven’t been sorted.Henry Irving said:@JamesSeed
First rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
Second rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
The fact that the regime says they haven’t been sorted doesn’t mean they have been sorted.
The bit about why they haven’t been sorted is what is concerning.
And bear in mind I didn’t get my info from the regime. Had I done, so I would have been more skeptical Mr I.
The way I see it on how he sees it is:
Why should they(the ex directs) get all of their money back when he's not getting all of his back, or all he wants back?
It's petulism. Pure and simple.5 -
You know what, I think you might have nailed it. That makes total sense, in a twisted sort of a way.carly burn said:JamesSeed said:
The loans haven’t been sorted.Henry Irving said:@JamesSeed
First rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
Second rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
The fact that the regime says they haven’t been sorted doesn’t mean they have been sorted.
The bit about why they haven’t been sorted is what is concerning.
And bear in mind I didn’t get my info from the regime. Had I done, so I would have been more skeptical Mr I.
The way I see it on how he sees it is:
Why should they(the ex directs) get all of their money back when he's not getting all of his back, or all he wants back?
It's petulism. Pure and simple.1 -
Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off?5
-
Eh?
So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.
30 -
Lend us a million quid, CE. I promise I'll pay back about half in a few years' time.Covered End said:Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off?0 -
Profit? Hasn’t he spent £60-70m so far? Won’t get that when he sells.Harry Gregory said:Eh?
So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.1 -
Agree with you on this, wouldn't be surprised at all if he is thinking along those lines.Covered End said:Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Why would anyone take a haircut for his benefit?cafcfan1990 said:
Agree with you on this, wouldn't be surprised at all if he is thinking along those lines.Covered End said:Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off?1 -
I know I know nothing about this.
It's funny to see the "informed" opinions on here.
2 -
I think your inverted commas are spot on. Nobody knows anything about this.
All those saying something's going on and all those saying nothing are just having a guess or feeding on other people's guesses.0 -
They wouldn't, or definitely shouldn't, and I didn't say otherwise.Chizz said:
Why would anyone take a haircut for his benefit?cafcfan1990 said:
Agree with you on this, wouldn't be surprised at all if he is thinking along those lines.Covered End said:Well I'm quite certain he thinks that & said that to my son an hour ago. If he's losing 50% he probably thinks they should too, or perhaps he feels if he's gonna lose £35M they should write it all off?
We are not dealing with a normal guy and I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks others should lose out because he is.2 -
3 -
It seems not even the main protagonists know what’s going on. How can the club be sold then?Dazzler21 said:I think your inverted commas are spot on. Nobody knows anything about this.
All those saying something's going on and all those saying nothing are just having a guess or feeding on other people's guesses.0 -
No Idea or give a fuck as it was his call, but all losses are due to his mad experiments that he has instigated and were followed through by his darling.Scoham said:
Profit? Hasn’t he spent £60-70m so far? Won’t get that when he sells.Harry Gregory said:Eh?
So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.0 -
Don't worry, if the belgian remains here we will beHarry Gregory said:Eh?
So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.1 -
Some of the people owed directors loans might be concerned about property development at the Valley. Maybe there are some heroes out there.13
-
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.JamesSeed said:
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted.cafcfan1990 said:
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.JamesSeed said:
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.Airman Brown said:
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.JamesSeed said:
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.Airman Brown said:
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.Todds_right_hook said:
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed.
And yes, it’s frustrating.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
18 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yes imo. As stated many times the ex-director loans DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPAID NOW.......unless you want clean title. Imo the only reason why you would want clean title from day one is if you want to borrow money against the club. If not you could repay them at any time - not necessarily when /if we reached the Prem - but in a year or two when we are established in the Championship & have more money. So why the INSISTENCY of them having to be repaid now ??Todds_right_hook said:
Edit.
Posted the above before reading the last page, so I will ask this very nicely to @JamesSeed. Please can you tell us why the ex-director loans HAVE to be repaid before the takeover goes through & specifically why by RD ?? What do the new owners what to achieve by it ? As @Airman Brown has just stated, the club has been sold twice before without the need for them to be repaid.....so why now ??0 -
They should be told to f*** off, no way should the ex directors have to take any form of financial hit, they already do that due to inflation/no interest.Airman Brown said:
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.JamesSeed said:
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted.cafcfan1990 said:
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.JamesSeed said:
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.Airman Brown said:
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.JamesSeed said:
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.Airman Brown said:
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.Todds_right_hook said:
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed.
And yes, it’s frustrating.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.6 -
Why ? I have no idea of what is going on but have a bad feeling about all of this. A concerted effort regarding what is a relatively small amount of money ? The Aussies still hanging around after 2 years negotiating with this madman, why ? They're not Charlton supporters, there's plenty of other clubs that they could have bought if they wanted to own a football club. The mad Belgian seemingly preferring the Aussie bid to the extent that he turned down 45mill from elsewhere while the Aussies don't appear to have the money to buy the club anyway. I get the feeling that any deal between these two is not going to be for the benefit of Charlton Athletic Football Club.Airman Brown said:
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.JamesSeed said:
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted.cafcfan1990 said:
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.JamesSeed said:
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.Airman Brown said:
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.JamesSeed said:
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.Airman Brown said:
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.Todds_right_hook said:
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed.
And yes, it’s frustrating.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.12 -
NTAMWYTHenry Irving said:@JamesSeed
First rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say
Second rule of the takeover
Never believe what the regime say0 -
I don't know why anybody thinks £4.4m is a relatively small amount of money?!
It's the equivalent of 8 players earning £10k a week! Vital for the side's chances in the Championship perhaps. ...1 -
£4.4mil is obviously a large amount of money.supaclive said:I don't know why anybody thinks £4.4m is a relatively small amount of money?!
It's the equivalent of 8 players earning £10k a week! Vital for the side's chances in the Championship perhaps. ...
But when you looking at the amount of money it will take to buy Charlton it only comes to about 10%.
So it is a small amount of money in the wider sense.1 -
so the key purpose of this statement is to put pressure on the ex directors to take a hit so the takeover can happen. surely rd is losing money by not sorting this out with his daily loses and the new owners are losing the opportunity to start making a difference and risk starting their tenure without a brilliant young manager and a group of fantastic players with a great spirit. between them they need to sort this fast.0
-
Again.charltonbob said:
Don't worry, if the belgian remains here we will beHarry Gregory said:Eh?
So the people (all Charlton Supporters) who loaned the business money and then were generous enough to let it float interest free for as long as takes are now expected to take a hit to give that cunt a profit! fuck him I would rather us relegated again then that odious twat make money out of our former directors.0 -
Confused. David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does that square?Airman Brown said:
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.JamesSeed said:
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted.cafcfan1990 said:
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.JamesSeed said:
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.Airman Brown said:
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.JamesSeed said:
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.Airman Brown said:
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.Todds_right_hook said:
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed.
And yes, it’s frustrating.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.6 -
Yes, by the spivs and Roland Duchâtelet, which you’ll agree is a pretty low benchmark. Buying the club without sorting the loans would be like buying a house with some outstanding loans secured on the buildings. You’d have to be a bit crazy to do that. The Aussies have always asked for clean title.Airman Brown said:
And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.JamesSeed said:
Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted.cafcfan1990 said:
Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal.JamesSeed said:
So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with.Airman Brown said:
No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.JamesSeed said:
You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.Airman Brown said:
Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.Todds_right_hook said:
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?
Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?
if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?
I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed.
And yes, it’s frustrating.
There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.
So as I’ve said, the sorting out of the loans are holding up the sale of the club.
Roland doesn’t want to pay them off in full, and would like it if we blamed someone else for that, whether it’s GM or the ex-Directors. Some of the ex Directors want repaying in full, others are happy to take a haircut in order to get their money back in advance of any future return to the Premier League.
Not blaming anyone here btw. I’d certainly want 100% back, despite the fact that I could pass away before we return to the Premier League.
Does anyone know if they all have be settled at the same rate (i.e. 100% or 50% or whatever). Or can some agree to take a hit, while others are repaid in full?
This situation has been ongoing for sometime by the sounds of it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
