Not having a go at anyone here but Im not sure it’s fair to keep saying the Aussie bid may have failed, just hours after GM has said it hasn’t. What’s the source of that info? He’s said they’re still in it a few hours ago.
I’m also not sure we should be using the Saudi bid as a yardstick, because we don’t know it’s 100% correct, as again we don’t know the source of the info. The £40 may be totally wrong for all we know.
In fact I would treat any info with extreme caution unless we know the source. There’s lots of unverified stuff flying around from all over the shop, and it’s doing everyone’s heads in. My critics will say I’m being used, but GM isn’t putting out figures or any info at all, other than they haven’t pulled out. It’s the third or fourth time he’s told me that, and they do still appear to be in the game.
If they’ve walked they’ve walked, and pretending they haven’t would be silly.
Any info that other bidders are waiting in the wings holding huge bundles of cash I’d treat with caution. RD is desperate to sell on his own terms, so it’s probable that everything he does is designed to get the Aussies to meet those terms, and it would be in his interests to put as much pressure on them as he can. He can afford to take a hit, but he won’t want to, in order not to lose face. I genuinely think he sees Charlton fans as the enemy to be defeated.
If there is a Brit consortium waiting in the wings (fronted by Murray possibly) hoping to get a bargain if the Aussies deal collapses, then again it would be in their best interests to undermine the Aussies’ bid. So both the leader of the Brit consortium and Duchâtelet have motives for making the Aussies look bad i.e. no money, Aussie nursery, buying the club, leaving Roland with the property titles, Rolf Harris etc etc. So any rumours involving those things I’d say treat with extreme caution. Except for Harris.
By all accounts players are being recruited in the background, possibly financed by the sale of Konsa, the boys are off to Portugal possibly financed by a sold player, so perhaps it isn’t all doom and gloom.
The message from GM yesterday was ‘Don’t believevthe rumours.’ I’m sticking with that. If they pull out we’ll know soon enough.
Of course the delays could be engineered to get the Pediction Thread up to 25 glorious pages ;-)
Just an off-topic question... Is a foreign trip nowadays a necessary part of preseason preparation? Regardless of the club's financial condition?
No, it's a waste of money.
I think you'd have to ask a couple of the players. Do thy want to play a
''Funding was 100% in place on 18th May, so no reason to believe it can't be in place again."
There might be loads of 'reasons'...Two knocked back 'major backers' could be one reason alone.
But as I said, there's no reason to believe funding can't (and actually might already) be in place again. Yes, if they were major backers it could well been why it's taking a few weeks to replace them. Speculation only, I've heard nothing about it. All I'm doing is saying temporary lack of funds doesn't mean they can't find funds, if indeed that is the issue.
The fact that it's dragged on for months suggest otherwise.
Over simplistic. If there was a genuine issue about funding they would have been shown the door ages ago. Duchatelet isn't a complete fool, and there are lawyers and accountants involved at each stage.
Mixing Duchatelet with lawyers doesn’t always lead to positive outcomes.
Implying that Meire is a lawyer is pretty much the equivalent of saying that I'm a cabinetmaker because I've got a woodwork O Level.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Do we even know that two "left"? We have been told the EFL had imposed two conditions, I think. But that could have been on the same person couldn't it? So, what you suggest as a fact is not really is it?
Not having a go at anyone here but Im not sure it’s fair to keep saying the Aussie bid may have failed, just hours after GM has said it hasn’t. What’s the source of that info? He’s said they’re still in it a few hours ago.
I’m also not sure we should be using the Saudi bid as a yardstick, because we don’t know it’s 100% correct, as again we don’t know the source of the info. The £40 may be totally wrong for all we know.
In fact I would treat any info with extreme caution unless we know the source. There’s lots of unverified stuff flying around from all over the shop, and it’s doing everyone’s heads in. My critics will say I’m being used, but GM isn’t putting out figures or any info at all, other than they haven’t pulled out. It’s the third or fourth time he’s told me that, and they do still appear to be in the game.
If they’ve walked they’ve walked, and pretending they haven’t would be silly.
Any info that other bidders are waiting in the wings holding huge bundles of cash I’d treat with caution. RD is desperate to sell on his own terms, so it’s probable that everything he does is designed to get the Aussies to meet those terms, and it would be in his interests to put as much pressure on them as he can. He can afford to take a hit, but he won’t want to, in order not to lose face. I genuinely think he sees Charlton fans as the enemy to be defeated.
If there is a Brit consortium waiting in the wings (fronted by Murray possibly) hoping to get a bargain if the Aussies deal collapses, then again it would be in their best interests to undermine the Aussies’ bid. So both the leader of the Brit consortium and Duchâtelet have motives for making the Aussies look bad i.e. no money, Aussie nursery, buying the club, leaving Roland with the property titles, Rolf Harris etc etc. So any rumours involving those things I’d say treat with extreme caution. Except for Harris.
By all accounts players are being recruited in the background, possibly financed by the sale of Konsa, the boys are off to Portugal possibly financed by a sold player, so perhaps it isn’t all doom and gloom.
The message from GM yesterday was ‘Don’t believevthe rumours.’ I’m sticking with that. If they pull out we’ll know soon enough.
Of course the delays could be engineered to get the Pediction Thread up to 25 glorious pages ;-)
Just an off-topic question... Is a foreign trip nowadays a necessary part of preseason preparation? Regardless of the club's financial condition?
No, it's a waste of money.
I think you'd have to ask a couple of the players. Do thy want to play a
''Funding was 100% in place on 18th May, so no reason to believe it can't be in place again."
There might be loads of 'reasons'...Two knocked back 'major backers' could be one reason alone.
But as I said, there's no reason to believe funding can't (and actually might already) be in place again. Yes, if they were major backers it could well been why it's taking a few weeks to replace them. Speculation only, I've heard nothing about it. All I'm doing is saying temporary lack of funds doesn't mean they can't find funds, if indeed that is the issue.
The fact that it's dragged on for months suggest otherwise.
Over simplistic. If there was a genuine issue about funding they would have been shown the door ages ago. Duchatelet isn't a complete fool, and there are lawyers and accountants involved at each stage.
Mixing Duchatelet with lawyers doesn’t always lead to positive outcomes.
Implying that Meire is a lawyer is pretty much the equivalent of saying that I'm a cabinetmaker because I've got a woodwork O Level.
No worries @Chippycafc would have been my first choice anyway .
This back and forth is very tedious and has gone on for too long. Please think twice (thrice even) before engaging. There's no way to win an "internet war", so don't bother trying. In the end, we all lose.
We try to edit without breaking the general flow in the hopes that the community benefits from a bit of self-regulating. On balance, we get it right more often than not. But from now on, we'll be deleting anything on this thread approaching sniping and bullying. We've gotten to the point in this sorry situation (on here and within the context of the wider club troubles) where this is necessary.
Thought I would re quote this for those who clearly did not read it properly
I trust you are not referring to my post this morning? If so, you have perhaps not read it properly. If not, my apologies for suggesting so.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Do we even know that two "left"? We have been told the EFL had imposed two conditions, I think. But that could have been on the same person couldn't it? So, what you suggest as a fact is not really is it?
This takeover is so devoid of facts that I'm not 100% sure I'll believe it WIOTOS.
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
Do we even know that two "left"? We have been told the EFL had imposed two conditions, I think. But that could have been on the same person couldn't it? So, what you suggest as a fact is not really is it?
This takeover is so devoid of facts that I'm not 100% sure I'll believe it WIOTOS.
Saw Derren Brown last night. We had to write questions about the future in sealed envelopes for him to answer without opening. He immediately looked perplexed as he said “has that old c!*t not gone yet?!”
This back and forth is very tedious and has gone on for too long. Please think twice (thrice even) before engaging. There's no way to win an "internet war", so don't bother trying. In the end, we all lose.
We try to edit without breaking the general flow in the hopes that the community benefits from a bit of self-regulating. On balance, we get it right more often than not. But from now on, we'll be deleting anything on this thread approaching sniping and bullying. We've gotten to the point in this sorry situation (on here and within the context of the wider club troubles) where this is necessary.
Thought I would re quote this for those who clearly did not read it properly
I trust you are not referring to my post this morning? If so, you have perhaps not read it properly. If not, my apologies for suggesting so.
No not you and it appears the posts I was referring to have now been removed wasting even more time for the moderators
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
Has this been confirmed by anybody?
Well? Anybody? This particular story is a load of bollocks. Isn't it?
I believe it is.
It would appear that it's gone from the EFL are satisfied with the applicants of the fit and proper person test, with 'two qualifications', to the EFL have rejected two people from the consortium because they are linked with other Clubs.
Love to know who actually made that link and if they have, where did they get it from.
There's more smoke and mirrors in this takeover than a Paul McKenna show.
So unless anyone can show they have an inside track to the EFL, or can quote someone who clearly has that link, we can declare the "two Aussie investors barred by EFL test" story to be entirely without foundation. Good.
Is it not possible that the two conditions were that person a & b drop out or lose their interest in other clubs?
Personally, I have no idea and am just guessing, but unless we know what those actual conditions were, we are only left to guess, those rumours had to have started somewhere and those saying it have a pretty good track record so far.
Right it is becoming harder to read this thread, I have started to skim read it as all the sniping does my head in. I am starting to worry that I miss a new pun, so please stop it.
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
Has this been confirmed by anybody?
Well? Anybody? This particular story is a load of bollocks. Isn't it?
I believe it is.
It would appear that it's gone from the EFL are satisfied with the applicants of the fit and proper person test, with 'two qualifications', to the EFL have rejected two people from the consortium because they are linked with other Clubs.
Love to know who actually made that link and if they have, where did they get it from.
There's more smoke and mirrors in this takeover than a Paul McKenna show.
So unless anyone can show they have an inside track to the EFL, or can quote someone who clearly has that link, we can declare the "two Aussie investors barred by EFL test" story to be entirely without foundation. Good.
Is it not possible that the two conditions were that person a & b drop out or lose their interest in other clubs?
Personally, I have no idea and am just guessing, but unless we know what those actual conditions were, we are only left to guess, those rumours had to have started somewhere and those saying it have a pretty good track record so far.
Bite size thread suggest Keith Harris might have been one.
There’s something going on in the background that I can’t talk about here, but which will hopefully get resolved over the next couple of weeks. (And I’m not talking about the takeover here unfortunately).
I apologise if I’ve appeared over sensitive, and if I’ve perhaps inadvertently attacked (or defended myself over robustly) against the wrong targets. It’s easy to mistake fair comment for something else in my current position. Apologies to @Redskin in particular on that front.
In addition, I’ll try not to take attacks on the Aussies so personally, which I hadn’t even realised I was doing.
In the meantime, let’s hope we can unite behind our desire to remove this strange owner from your/our club, and get behind the new owner, or owners, whoever they may be, or wherever they come from.
PS This is a great forum, and the mods do a great job in the background.
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
Has this been confirmed by anybody?
Well? Anybody? This particular story is a load of bollocks. Isn't it?
I believe it is.
It would appear that it's gone from the EFL are satisfied with the applicants of the fit and proper person test, with 'two qualifications', to the EFL have rejected two people from the consortium because they are linked with other Clubs.
Love to know who actually made that link and if they have, where did they get it from.
There's more smoke and mirrors in this takeover than a Paul McKenna show.
So unless anyone can show they have an inside track to the EFL, or can quote someone who clearly has that link, we can declare the "two Aussie investors barred by EFL test" story to be entirely without foundation. Good.
Is it not possible that the two conditions were that person a & b drop out or lose their interest in other clubs?
Personally, I have no idea and am just guessing, but unless we know what those actual conditions were, we are only left to guess, those rumours had to have started somewhere and those saying it have a pretty good track record so far.
Bite size thread suggest Keith Harris might have been one.
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
Has this been confirmed by anybody?
Well? Anybody? This particular story is a load of bollocks. Isn't it?
I believe it is.
It would appear that it's gone from the EFL are satisfied with the applicants of the fit and proper person test, with 'two qualifications', to the EFL have rejected two people from the consortium because they are linked with other Clubs.
Love to know who actually made that link and if they have, where did they get it from.
There's more smoke and mirrors in this takeover than a Paul McKenna show.
So unless anyone can show they have an inside track to the EFL, or can quote someone who clearly has that link, we can declare the "two Aussie investors barred by EFL test" story to be entirely without foundation. Good.
Is it not possible that the two conditions were that person a & b drop out or lose their interest in other clubs?
Personally, I have no idea and am just guessing, but unless we know what those actual conditions were, we are only left to guess, those rumours had to have started somewhere and those saying it have a pretty good track record so far.
Well can you help by identifying who these people were. Only@Addickted to my knowledge has been able to show that he has a solid source. I trust him, not least because he is not an ITK type, and Having talked with him privately I have full confidence in his info. He is categoric on this matter. So unless anyone else can come forward to authoritatively provide sourced material to the contrary, I recommend we go with Addickted information and ignore the rumour. Which of course is perjorative to the Aussie bid.
I should add that the names bandied around re this alleged disbarred of two individuals are absolutely comical. Why on earth would Usmanvov want a small stake in a random 3rd division club? Come on people,this is bubble thinking.
There’s something going on in the background that I can’t talk about here, but which will hopefully get resolved over the next couple of weeks. (And I’m not talking about the takeover here unfortunately).
I apologise if I’ve appeared over sensitive, and if I’ve perhaps inadvertently attacked (or defended myself over robustly) against the wrong targets. It’s easy to mistake fair comment for something else in my current position. Apologies to @Redskin in particular on that front.
In addition, I’ll try not to take attacks on the Aussies so personally, which I hadn’t even realised I was doing.
In the meantime, let’s hope we can unite behind our desire to remove this strange owner from your/our club, and get behind the new owner, or owners, whoever they may be, or wherever they come from.
PS This is a great forum, and the mods do a great job in the background.
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
Has this been confirmed by anybody?
Well? Anybody? This particular story is a load of bollocks. Isn't it?
I believe it is.
It would appear that it's gone from the EFL are satisfied with the applicants of the fit and proper person test, with 'two qualifications', to the EFL have rejected two people from the consortium because they are linked with other Clubs.
Love to know who actually made that link and if they have, where did they get it from.
There's more smoke and mirrors in this takeover than a Paul McKenna show.
So unless anyone can show they have an inside track to the EFL, or can quote someone who clearly has that link, we can declare the "two Aussie investors barred by EFL test" story to be entirely without foundation. Good.
Is it not possible that the two conditions were that person a & b drop out or lose their interest in other clubs?
Personally, I have no idea and am just guessing, but unless we know what those actual conditions were, we are only left to guess, those rumours had to have started somewhere and those saying it have a pretty good track record so far.
Well can you help by identifying who these people were. Only@Addickted to my knowledge has been able to show that he has a solid source. I trust him, not least because he is not an ITK type, and Having talked with him privately I have full confidence in his info. He is categoric on this matter. So unless anyone else can come forward to authoritatively provide sourced material to the contrary, I recommend we go with Addickted information and ignore the rumour. Which of course is perjorative to the Aussie bid.
But I don't know Addickted, nor have I talked with him privately. That doesn't mean Addickted is lying, I don't think for a second he is, but by hi own admission, his contact at the EFL is not involved in the F & P Person test.
Someone I do know and have talked to privately believes, from his contacts, that the bid failed for the exact reason of ownership of other clubs.
The problem is so many people are getting info from so many different places, some of it genuine, some it total lies, so of it spin, that it becomes very, very difficult for anyone to know WTF is actually going on. So no, I don't think we can say the story is without foundation/a load of bollocks, it may turn out to be untrue, of course, but for now, all we know is the bid was knocked back / delayed for a reason and only one reason has been put out.
There’s something going on in the background that I can’t talk about here, but which will hopefully get resolved over the next couple of weeks. (And I’m not talking about the takeover here unfortunately).
I apologise if I’ve appeared over sensitive, and if I’ve perhaps inadvertently attacked (or defended myself over robustly) against the wrong targets. It’s easy to mistake fair comment for something else in my current position. Apologies to @Redskin in particular on that front.
In addition, I’ll try not to take attacks on the Aussies so personally, which I hadn’t even realised I was doing.
In the meantime, let’s hope we can unite behind our desire to remove this strange owner from your/our club, and get behind the new owner, or owners, whoever they may be, or wherever they come from.
PS This is a great forum, and the mods do a great job in the background.
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
Has this been confirmed by anybody?
Well? Anybody? This particular story is a load of bollocks. Isn't it?
I believe it is.
It would appear that it's gone from the EFL are satisfied with the applicants of the fit and proper person test, with 'two qualifications', to the EFL have rejected two people from the consortium because they are linked with other Clubs.
Love to know who actually made that link and if they have, where did they get it from.
There's more smoke and mirrors in this takeover than a Paul McKenna show.
So unless anyone can show they have an inside track to the EFL, or can quote someone who clearly has that link, we can declare the "two Aussie investors barred by EFL test" story to be entirely without foundation. Good.
Is it not possible that the two conditions were that person a & b drop out or lose their interest in other clubs?
Personally, I have no idea and am just guessing, but unless we know what those actual conditions were, we are only left to guess, those rumours had to have started somewhere and those saying it have a pretty good track record so far.
Well can you help by identifying who these people were. Only@Addickted to my knowledge has been able to show that he has a solid source. I trust him, not least because he is not an ITK type, and Having talked with him privately I have full confidence in his info. He is categoric on this matter. So unless anyone else can come forward to authoritatively provide sourced material to the contrary, I recommend we go with Addickted information and ignore the rumour. Which of course is perjorative to the Aussie bid.
But I don't know Addickted, nor have I talked with him privately. That doesn't mean Addickted is lying, I don't think for a second he is, but by hi own admission, his contact at the EFL is not involved in the F & P Person test.
Someone I do know and have talked to privately believes, from his contacts, that the bid failed for the exact reason of ownership of other clubs.
The problem is so many people are getting info from so many different places, some of it genuine, some it total lies, so of it spin, that it becomes very, very difficult for anyone to know WTF is actually going on. So no, I don't think we can say the story is without foundation/a load of bollocks, it may turn out to be untrue, of course, but for now, all we know is the bid was knocked back / delayed for a reason and only one reason has been put out.
More than one reason.
Lack of funds is one.
Aussies not willing to pay RD valuation another.
Aussies low balling /guzundering RD at the face to face meeting is another.
RD delaying yet again as he thinks the other party, if they even exist, will pay more is yet another.
I've heard all of them from different people.
Not that that makes them any more or less valid but they are all possible reasons for the delay.
Me? I'll believe it when it's on the official site
Comments
He immediately looked perplexed as he said “has that old c!*t not gone yet?!”
Personally, I have no idea and am just guessing, but unless we know what those actual conditions were, we are only left to guess, those rumours had to have started somewhere and those saying it have a pretty good track record so far.
There’s something going on in the background that I can’t talk about here, but which will hopefully get resolved over the next couple of weeks.
(And I’m not talking about the takeover here unfortunately).
I apologise if I’ve appeared over sensitive, and if I’ve perhaps inadvertently attacked (or defended myself over robustly) against the wrong targets. It’s easy to mistake fair comment for something else in my current position.
Apologies to @Redskin in particular on that front.
In addition, I’ll try not to take attacks on the Aussies so personally, which I hadn’t even realised I was doing.
In the meantime, let’s hope we can unite behind our desire to remove this strange owner from your/our club, and get behind the new owner, or owners, whoever they may be, or wherever they come from.
PS This is a great forum, and the mods do a great job in the background.
Someone I do know and have talked to privately believes, from his contacts, that the bid failed for the exact reason of ownership of other clubs.
The problem is so many people are getting info from so many different places, some of it genuine, some it total lies, so of it spin, that it becomes very, very difficult for anyone to know WTF is actually going on. So no, I don't think we can say the story is without foundation/a load of bollocks, it may turn out to be untrue, of course, but for now, all we know is the bid was knocked back / delayed for a reason and only one reason has been put out.
Lack of funds is one.
Aussies not willing to pay RD valuation another.
Aussies low balling /guzundering RD at the face to face meeting is another.
RD delaying yet again as he thinks the other party, if they even exist, will pay more is yet another.
I've heard all of them from different people.
Not that that makes them any more or less valid but they are all possible reasons for the delay.
Me? I'll believe it when it's on the official site