My fear in any takeover is simply that the chances of anyone making any money out of buying and selling Charlton is pretty small in my view so you have to question:
1. the motive
2. the business acumen
3. the sanity
of anyone wanting to buy us. Unless, or course, they are completely loaded and just want something to do with the huge stash of money they have lying around (although then item 3 comes into play).
The only takeover I would support is where the buyer says all they want to do is get the club back on an even keel and keep it that way for the forseeable future, they can say they would love us to be back in the top flight but any overly ambitious statements will immediately make me worry about the three points I previously mentioned.
I put it in the first entry of my thread about SS. There is a fair bit of stuff there. Some suggestion that he somehow supports Charlton , but later a bit of confusion about that. A Lifer called Muttley seems to be pro him, but so far didn't respond to my invitation to tell us more about why we should be pro him.
We believed him because we thought he was a genuine guy," Mr Manley said. "Chairmen of football clubs believe him. When it comes to conmen he is pretty much up there – he is an artist. "The alarm bells started ringing because he had just gone out of the country and was really messing us about." The couple said they had lost their retirement savings, would have to sell their house to stay afloat financially, and could not afford to support their children through university. "He is just the lowest of the low," Mr Manley said. "He just does not care about anybody but himself."
I tell you what if this Joker has anything to do with anything involved in Charltons future i think we should serious voice up.
[cite]Posted By: kigelia[/cite]My fear in any takeover is simply that the chances of anyone making any money out of buying and selling Charlton is pretty small in my view so you have to question:
1. the motive
2. the business acumen
3. the sanity
of anyone wanting to buy us. Unless, or course, they are completely loaded and just want something to do with the huge stash of money they have lying around (although then item 3 comes into play).
The only takeover I would support is where the buyer says all they want to do is get the club back on an even keel and keep it that way for the forseeable future, they can say they would love us to be back in the top flight but any overly ambitious statements will immediately make me worry about the three points I previously mentioned.
I think all of that is fair but..
1. The Club can be viable in the Championship and could possibly be sold at a profit in the Premier League
2. There is still a degree of kudos in owning any football club and some people with money may enjoy that kudos as well as the challenge of turning around a Club that has fallen on hard times.
In house terms we are certainly not a mansion in Blackheath, more a "doer upper" in Bexley but hence better value and to some more enjoyment/profit.
What we certainly need is someone with a long term plan ie 5 years or more not just a one season or bust merchant or people like Sainsbury who can't raise the money to buy either of two ex-prem clubs in league one.
I was told that the business plan was sensible and realistic and involved a plan to get us to be an established Championship club. Agree we would need to be concerned about loans that end up putting the club at risk - but we shouldn't necessarily question SS's motives by filling in the gaps. I'm pretty confident, although I do have the luxury of being told this by soembody I trust, that his motives are honorable. Having said that, we need to be careful and fortunately, that is just what Murray will be. So let's leave it all to the them and follow developments with interest rather than filling up the gaps with conjecture. I'm not supporting his bid btw- I just knew it was in the offing a few weeks ago and was told he was kosher in terms of his intentions. I don't know if it will be good or not.
If that garland fella has anything to do with it. Even posting mail we should avoid sounds like a horrific individual to do business with based on the judges summary.
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
If that garland fella has anything to do with it. Even posting mail we should avoid sounds like a horrific individual to do business with based on the judges summary.
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
If that garland fella has anything to do with it. Even posting mail we should avoid sounds like a horrific individual to do business with based on the judges summary.
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
If that garland fella has anything to do with it. Even posting mail we should avoid sounds like a horrific individual to do business with based on the judges summary.
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
Yes, I got the message the first time.lol - My contact has no say one way or the other though. He gave me the info - answered some questions to the best of his knowledge - told me when loan fell through but that wouldn't be the end of it and that's about it. I'll try to find some more out as long as people dont believe I'm part of SSs plan which is a joke. My interests are 100% Charlton and like I have said before- I don't know if SS would be good or bad - I know the loan he was working on failed to go through - not beacause he hasn't got the money - he does have shed loads of that in trust - but because of financial rules about what you can lend against. Think it is best that we don't get hostile to SS before we see more facts- Murray doesn't have to sell to him and clearly won't if it puts the club at risk so lets be a bit more relaxed about things, less aggressive, stop jumping to conclusions and see how they pan out.
I'm happy with any info you supply which puts more meat on the bones as it were. At the end of the day RM is going to be a better judge than us of what is or isn't a good offer for the Club ireespective or what info we may or may not have.
OK, this is where I am with Sebastian Sainsbury after a day spending far more time on it than I really should.
I don't see anything good about a new owner who can only take over if he gets a loan. That is not a conclusion exclusive to SS. Maybe I am too cautious in business terms. But the recent history of English clubs suggests my caution is well-placed
Then we have the fact that the same thing happened when he tried to take over at Leeds. Needed to borrow, couldn't prove he had the money, went away.
Then we have the fact that after a day of searching I can't find any evidence that he has built up and run any significant successful business, ever. We have learnt that he isnt even a hedge fund manager. He's just been a kind of salesman for one or two, it seems. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
And finally - and for now this is the least important concern - he seems to have around him in this bid some people who don't inspire any kind of confidence.
Is that 'jumping to conclusions"? Maybe. But I've spent the day looking before jumping. If I were Sebastian Sainsbury, I'd probably take these conclusions on board and then find a way to feed info back on here about his plan. Tell us why his leveraged buyout would be a success when all around us are high profile failures; tell us why Charlton should say Yes when Leeds said No. And tell us, why Charlton?
Any buyer of a football club, especially this one, should realise that we are stakeholders. We are not going to sit meekly around until someone deigns to tell us what changes are going to take place. As I said elsewhere, thats what we did in 1985. Never again. You want to buy CAFC, then good to get all stakeholders onside.
I am fully supportive of every thing pa has said there is no way that any of us could sit back and let that happen. Thankgod muzza, David w, and big mo hatter are fans because I don't think they. Would let someone weasel into our club on the back of debt.
This could be the one thing that unites club and fans towards a common goal.
I don't think in terms of on the pitch football things we will all agree but I certainly think that stopping people without honourable intentions be it
[cite]Posted By: Valiantphil[/cite]Just thinking through my experience of human behavior...........
You are passionate about a football club, so you invest several millions and it becomes fairly successful as a result.
You are then responsible for a string of poor judgements and failure follows failure until your investment is pretty worthless.
One day a guy turns up and offers you (all/nearly all/some) of your money back, and the offer is a serious one backed by real cash.
DO YOU:
A) Check into the intentions and motives of the bidder ensuring that the club is left in the best possible hands going forward
Follow the advice from a 1976 hit for the Steve Miller Band
Discuss...............
So far, VP, we have seen no evidence that any offer is backed by real cash. Fortunately it seems that we do have a current owner who considers sussing that out a crucial part of the process involved at (A).
No one is going to be able to borrow funds against Charlton Athletic to gamble with our future - we have a negative cashflow of £5M per year in league one. Our assets are football assets and it is unlikely that there will be planning consent to change the use of the ground or Sparrows Lane as a property play.
Anyone who presents a viable plan needs to be putting in their own cash (as our previous shareholders have) and be wealthy enough to be able to write it off if we don't get promoted.
"As to what we can do about it; Richard Murray and the other directors genuinely care about the club and want to be remembered as such. If they pick up that we are worried, and for good reasons, it might stiffen their resolve to seek out the best buyers. Whereas if we just stay quiet (as DRF seems to recommend) then they may conclude that we dont care so long as we can sign someone in the January window. If the worst came to the worst, a bad buyer might actually be scared off if they see that we are a particularly well-organised and troublesome crew. "
I think the implciation is a little unfair here. I don't think for one minute that Murrary would ever come to the conculsion tat the fans don't are who he sells to. At the same time I appreciate the financial risk he is personally taking (whilst the rest of us just talk) in keeping the club running. Therefore if he feels he has to sell for his own sanity I respect that. We also have to rememebr he is a fan and wouldn't have stuck around for this long if he was happy to sell to any johnny-come-lately.
However, what I actually meant (and think made clear) was - we shouldn't use up all our fire power before the war has even started.
Complaining loudly about rumours is IMO a little pointless, we ACT when there is something to ACT upon. I made the point that action can be taken immediatley these days with the use of new technology.
And lets face it no-one went to the ground last week to complain because there wasn't strong enough evidence to complain about. All anyone actually did was speculate and complain on message boards. When the time comes for aciton, I'll be leading from the front, however, whilst there is nothing concret to be worried about I will content myself with worrying about perfomance on the pitch, whether the JPT is a distraction, whether Parky is up to the job etc etc etc.
Comments
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Football-finance-conman-is-jailed.1331423.jp
1. the motive
2. the business acumen
3. the sanity
of anyone wanting to buy us. Unless, or course, they are completely loaded and just want something to do with the huge stash of money they have lying around (although then item 3 comes into play).
The only takeover I would support is where the buyer says all they want to do is get the club back on an even keel and keep it that way for the forseeable future, they can say they would love us to be back in the top flight but any overly ambitious statements will immediately make me worry about the three points I previously mentioned.
Here is the report about Garland.
I put it in the first entry of my thread about SS. There is a fair bit of stuff there. Some suggestion that he somehow supports Charlton , but later a bit of confusion about that. A Lifer called Muttley seems to be pro him, but so far didn't respond to my invitation to tell us more about why we should be pro him.
"The alarm bells started ringing because he had just gone out of the country and was really messing us about."
The couple said they had lost their retirement savings, would have to sell their house to stay afloat financially, and could not afford to support their children through university.
"He is just the lowest of the low," Mr Manley said. "He just does not care about anybody but himself."
I tell you what if this Joker has anything to do with anything involved in Charltons future i think we should serious voice up.
Cheers PA
I think all of that is fair but..
1. The Club can be viable in the Championship and could possibly be sold at a profit in the Premier League
2. There is still a degree of kudos in owning any football club and some people with money may enjoy that kudos as well as the challenge of turning around a Club that has fallen on hard times.
In house terms we are certainly not a mansion in Blackheath, more a "doer upper" in Bexley but hence better value and to some more enjoyment/profit.
What we certainly need is someone with a long term plan ie 5 years or more not just a one season or bust merchant or people like Sainsbury who can't raise the money to buy either of two ex-prem clubs in league one.
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
Takeover done xxxx
OK, this is where I am with Sebastian Sainsbury after a day spending far more time on it than I really should.
I don't see anything good about a new owner who can only take over if he gets a loan. That is not a conclusion exclusive to SS. Maybe I am too cautious in business terms. But the recent history of English clubs suggests my caution is well-placed
Then we have the fact that the same thing happened when he tried to take over at Leeds. Needed to borrow, couldn't prove he had the money, went away.
Then we have the fact that after a day of searching I can't find any evidence that he has built up and run any significant successful business, ever. We have learnt that he isnt even a hedge fund manager. He's just been a kind of salesman for one or two, it seems. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
And finally - and for now this is the least important concern - he seems to have around him in this bid some people who don't inspire any kind of confidence.
Is that 'jumping to conclusions"? Maybe. But I've spent the day looking before jumping. If I were Sebastian Sainsbury, I'd probably take these conclusions on board and then find a way to feed info back on here about his plan. Tell us why his leveraged buyout would be a success when all around us are high profile failures; tell us why Charlton should say Yes when Leeds said No. And tell us, why Charlton?
Any buyer of a football club, especially this one, should realise that we are stakeholders. We are not going to sit meekly around until someone deigns to tell us what changes are going to take place. As I said elsewhere, thats what we did in 1985. Never again. You want to buy CAFC, then good to get all stakeholders onside.
You are passionate about a football club, so you invest several millions and it becomes fairly successful as a result.
You are then responsible for a string of poor judgements and failure follows failure until your investment is pretty worthless.
One day a guy turns up and offers you (all/nearly all/some) of your money back, and the offer is a serious one backed by real cash.
DO YOU:
A) Check into the intentions and motives of the bidder ensuring that the club is left in the best possible hands going forward
B) Follow the advice from a 1976 hit for the Steve Miller Band
Discuss...............
This could be the one thing that unites club and fans towards a common goal.
I don't think in terms of on the pitch football things we will all agree but I certainly think that stopping people without honourable intentions be it
seb sainsbury or any other johnny come lately
So far, VP, we have seen no evidence that any offer is backed by real cash. Fortunately it seems that we do have a current owner who considers sussing that out a crucial part of the process involved at (A).
Anyone who presents a viable plan needs to be putting in their own cash (as our previous shareholders have) and be wealthy enough to be able to write it off if we don't get promoted.
"As to what we can do about it; Richard Murray and the other directors genuinely care about the club and want to be remembered as such. If they pick up that we are worried, and for good reasons, it might stiffen their resolve to seek out the best buyers. Whereas if we just stay quiet (as DRF seems to recommend) then they may conclude that we dont care so long as we can sign someone in the January window. If the worst came to the worst, a bad buyer might actually be scared off if they see that we are a particularly well-organised and troublesome crew. "
I think the implciation is a little unfair here. I don't think for one minute that Murrary would ever come to the conculsion tat the fans don't are who he sells to. At the same time I appreciate the financial risk he is personally taking (whilst the rest of us just talk) in keeping the club running. Therefore if he feels he has to sell for his own sanity I respect that. We also have to rememebr he is a fan and wouldn't have stuck around for this long if he was happy to sell to any johnny-come-lately.
However, what I actually meant (and think made clear) was - we shouldn't use up all our fire power before the war has even started.
Complaining loudly about rumours is IMO a little pointless, we ACT when there is something to ACT upon. I made the point that action can be taken immediatley these days with the use of new technology.
And lets face it no-one went to the ground last week to complain because there wasn't strong enough evidence to complain about. All anyone actually did was speculate and complain on message boards. When the time comes for aciton, I'll be leading from the front, however, whilst there is nothing concret to be worried about I will content myself with worrying about perfomance on the pitch, whether the JPT is a distraction, whether Parky is up to the job etc etc etc.
But what would the vehicle for taking action look like ? How would it be organised ?
If only we had a supporters trust or something along those lines...