** Takeover rumours - ed. Deal 'allegedly' DONE p.66**
Comments
-
This deal collapsed because not only did it concern little ol' CAFC but also the next two or three deals down the line.
There must have been so many owners, buyers, developers, politicians, lawyers, financiers, brokers, agents and assorted scumbags involved that it became a deal on a Rubik's Cube, but finally, as always, coming back to an ever-diminishing bottom line.
We're gonna be ok - I say that absolutely as sure as I'm sat here riding this camel - but it won't be the septics, it will be the Chinese. We'll know soon enough. All I want for Christmas is ....
UTA !!
1 -
Oh Christ! Don't tell me Adamo Coulibaly's lot were representing Harris :-(GlassHalfFull said:
This deal collapsed because not only did it concern little ol' CAFC but also the next two or three deals down the line.
There must have been so many owners, buyers, developers, politicians, lawyers, financiers, brokers, agents and assorted scumbags involved that it became a deal on a Rubik's Cube, but finally, as always, coming back to an ever-diminishing bottom line.1 -
Lets be very clear on ACV, it was backed by both Slater & Jimenez, the club supported the application for ACV and that is FACTUAL. Surely if they'd thought it would detrimental they would not have backed it. There are known cases where clubs haven’t backed applications for ACV so they wouldn’t have been the first to do so.0
-
Had anyone ever actually heard him speak?LoOkOuT said:Would be lovely if TJ made any of his opinions known!
1 -
Considering there was a petition online for this and outside the ground there was also a petition I am sure the majority agreed otherwise I don't feel they would of gone through with itLargeAddick said:I find the ACV a bit ironic in that the Trust want us all to have a say if the Club were to try and leave The Valley but fail to canvas the support as a whole before applying for it. For all they now the majority may have been against the whole idea but heyho eh.
I'm not sure if the ACV has proved a stumbling block or not but I can quite conceivably see how it might not gave helped.2 -
If they hadn't backed it there was a danger of the fans and Trust turning on them and making it very clear to potential new owners that a move wouldn't be popular in the future. By backing it in the softest possible way (a single statement I believe) they ensured they didn't have demonstrations in the stands while trying to sell the club. To be honest I don't think they had a choice but "back" it.PopIcon said:Lets be very clear on ACV, it was backed by both Slater & Jimenez, the club supported the application for ACV and that is FACTUAL. Surely if they'd thought it would detrimental they would not have backed it. There are known cases where clubs haven’t backed applications for ACV so they wouldn’t have been the first to do so.
P.s. I don't think the ACV scupper the deal
0 -
I blame the clieque. Their all ITK and have the intel.
0 -
Is anyone REALLY surprised by this? I'm not. Fully expected it...disappointing as it is0
-
You see that loaf of bread, that's us that isValley McMoist said:Is anyone REALLY surprised by this? I'm not. Fully expected it...disappointing as it is
8 -
I can't but help think that the ACV is linked in some way with them pulling out but that may be a good thing.
if there are plans to move from The Valley i wanna know about it before it's too late. The ACV prevent things being done in secret and we all knows with this current board , we have had nothing but sneakiness.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
Bugger0
-
What percentage of ST holders backed it? Or don't they matter?PopIcon said:Lets be very clear on ACV, it was backed by both Slater & Jimenez, the club supported the application for ACV and that is FACTUAL. Surely if they'd thought it would detrimental they would not have backed it. There are known cases where clubs haven’t backed applications for ACV so they wouldn’t have been the first to do so.
0 -
Believe me, they could have killed it with one phone call. Any time in the last three months.LeaburnForEngland said:
If they hadn't backed it there was a danger of the fans and Trust turning on them and making it very clear to potential new owners that a move wouldn't be popular in the future. By backing it in the softest possible way (a single statement I believe) they ensured they didn't have demonstrations in the stands while trying to sell the club. To be honest I don't think they had a choice but "back" it.PopIcon said:Lets be very clear on ACV, it was backed by both Slater & Jimenez, the club supported the application for ACV and that is FACTUAL. Surely if they'd thought it would detrimental they would not have backed it. There are known cases where clubs haven’t backed applications for ACV so they wouldn’t have been the first to do so.
P.s. I don't think the ACV scupper the deal
0 -
Again I will say there was a petition online as well as outside the ground on match days, I am sure Majority of people signed it otherwise they would not of gone through with the ACVWSS said:
What percentage of ST holders backed it? Or don't they matter?PopIcon said:Lets be very clear on ACV, it was backed by both Slater & Jimenez, the club supported the application for ACV and that is FACTUAL. Surely if they'd thought it would detrimental they would not have backed it. There are known cases where clubs haven’t backed applications for ACV so they wouldn’t have been the first to do so.
0 -
Has anybody actually checked the credibility of this latest announcement? Are we 100% sure the Yanks have pulled out and it isn't just (another) vicious rumour?0
-
Very unlikely to be just a rumour.flyingkiwiDK said:Has anybody actually checked the credibility of this latest announcement? Are we 100% sure the Yanks have pulled out and it isn't just (another) vicious rumour?
http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/Sport.cfm?id=42216&headline=Sports mogul Harris pulls out of Charlton takeover talks0 -
You think 51% of ST holders signed?paulie8290 said:
Again I will say there was a petition online as well as outside the ground on match days, I am sure Majority of people signed it otherwise they would not of gone through with the ACVWSS said:
What percentage of ST holders backed it? Or don't they matter?PopIcon said:Lets be very clear on ACV, it was backed by both Slater & Jimenez, the club supported the application for ACV and that is FACTUAL. Surely if they'd thought it would detrimental they would not have backed it. There are known cases where clubs haven’t backed applications for ACV so they wouldn’t have been the first to do so.
Just playing devils advocate
0 -
Rather naive, surely? Politically and presentationally there was no way the club could have publicly opposed ACV. As I suspect you know. Can anyone explain how the announcement of ACV in the middle of the negotiations was meant to be an inducement to a prospective buyer?PragueAddick said:All directors knew about ACV when it was applied for, they have the cellphones of various Trust members. Do you really think that if a man like TJ thought ACV was an issue he wouldn't have made his opinions known?
0 -
I believe they got enough signatures to warrant putting it through.WSS said:
You think 51% of ST holders signed?paulie8290 said:
Again I will say there was a petition online as well as outside the ground on match days, I am sure Majority of people signed it otherwise they would not of gone through with the ACVWSS said:
What percentage of ST holders backed it? Or don't they matter?PopIcon said:Lets be very clear on ACV, it was backed by both Slater & Jimenez, the club supported the application for ACV and that is FACTUAL. Surely if they'd thought it would detrimental they would not have backed it. There are known cases where clubs haven’t backed applications for ACV so they wouldn’t have been the first to do so.
Just playing devils advocate0 -
I don't suppose anyone is 100 per cent sure of anything at this stage, because people play games, but there have been good sources on this since at least the weekend.flyingkiwiDK said:Has anybody actually checked the credibility of this latest announcement? Are we 100% sure the Yanks have pulled out and it isn't just (another) vicious rumour?
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Disappointing and a bit puzzling. On the assumption that Harris was genuinely interested in buying the Club, then one can only assume that the problem was price. I've always felt that in this context price is as much about deal structure as value - a price tag of £18m could mean many different things - and perhaps this is where talks broke down. Who knows?
However, what's most intriguing is what this tells us about the owners. What on earth are they playing at? They own a Club which is losing money (so their cumulative losses rise through time) and which they appear to want to sell. Indeed, a sale or promotion is the only way they'll stem losses and get any money back, let alone make a profit on their investment. Right now though, there's clearly no attempt being made to win promotion. Indeed, relegation is currently much more likely and this would make the Club harder to sell and probably increase losses.
Given this, you'd think they'd be very flexible on price and deal structure if negotiating with a serious potential buyer, but the evidence, superficial though it is, seems to suggest otherwise.
Beggars can't be choosers, but they seem to be choosing so what's going on? It seems to me that there are four possibilities. First, Harris eventually concluded that owning a Football Club is a mug's game. A decision that would have little to do with Charlton per se. Second, the Club's owners are in a hole and have not yet figured out they need to stop digging. Unlikely perhaps, but greed and ego can distort judgement. Third, they are confident that other serious buyers are around. Possible, but dangerous. Fourth, they'd like to sell, at the right price, but don't actually need to. In this scenario they'll "hang in there" if necessary, spend to avoid relegation, and, perhaps, spend aggressively this summer or next if they believe they have the foundations of a promotion winning side. Plausible, but also dangerous. Anybody who thinks you can fine tune a squad to minimise the cost of avoiding relegation and dial up when necessary is naive in the extreme.
Who the heck knows. Perhaps the key question is do they? I certainly hope so because if not we'll be lucky if this ends well.
5 -
Is anyone from the trust able to tell us how many signatures we got in the end.0
-
Pretty sure it was 1905.paulie8290 said:Is anyone from the trust able to tell us how many signatures we got in the end.
1 -
Lol. Convenient number. ;-)Miserableoldgit said:
Pretty sure it was 1905.paulie8290 said:Is anyone from the trust able to tell us how many signatures we got in the end.
0 -
1905 was the figure I'm sure Raz said when they closed it so I'm sorry but you are wrong.paulie8290 said:Is anyone from the trust able to tell us how many signatures we got in the end.
0 -
That's less than 20% of the season ticket holders.0
-
1,900 for, 4 against.paulie8290 said:Is anyone from the trust able to tell us how many signatures we got in the end.
I'm not sure any trust in the land has done more to garner supporter opinion. The petition isn't part of the requirement but we wanted Charlton fan to have their say and short of knocking on the front door of every single fan I don't think we could have done much more.
I'm very disappointed with this line
"It is hoped that this six-month period will be enough to deter any potential buyer who might want to move the club to a new site, on the Greenwich Peninsula, and build social housing on the site of the current stadium".
0 -
It is reported in the Daily MailflyingkiwiDK said:Has anybody actually checked the credibility of this latest announcement? Are we 100% sure the Yanks have pulled out and it isn't just (another) vicious rumour?
However I would draw your attention to two things about the Mail report
1. It doesnt bang on about ACV like that incisive investigative organ, the SLP.
2. More importantly it says "poised to pull the plug". You could possibly therefore read the source as being American, and designed to put some pressure on. Pressure they might be inclined to resist, if this is not the only bid in the offing....
3 -
Really 1905? Are you serious?! I thought that was a joke.1
-
Never easy supporting this football club. Just worried now about the impact this will have on the players and staff - relegation, a very real prospect without investment, would be almost unbearable.0
