Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

11241251271291302265

Comments

  • J BLOCK said:

    DOUCHER said:

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    J BLOCK said:

    Also being mentioned that DD has highlighted “more than 30” areas of concern.

    Anyone ITK can confirm or deny?
    It was slightly more than 30 originally, but the lawyers have worked through them and two thirds have been addressed. I'm told there's nothing unusual in that number.
    So we’re looking at perhaps 10 or so problems , which may or may not put the kibosh on a deal this week
    It's not clear that any of them would be an obstacle. Some things just need you to go away and do something rather than simply explain.

    If you've ever bought a house, it's quite usual for the buyer's solicitor to ask for things from the seller - warranties for improvements, etc - that haven't been put on the table at the outset. A business is a lot more complicated, obviously, but I assume it's the same principle.
    So these problems should be something that the club will actively sort out in order for a deal to ether be completed or be completed quicker?

    By your analogy, I guess problems are effectively down to value versus actual state - for instance a buyer would pay say £1m for a larger well maintained car park but due diligence has found that there are potholes everywhere!?
    Exactly what's happening, which is why any claims it's a "non-story" are for the birds.
    So do we take it from that that the directors with an Interest have been contacted in order to fill some of the 'potholes'? and my source is indeed telling porkies? Be good to know as it may stave off a nervous breakdown for one or 2 on here as I dread to think what could happen if it does all turn out to be nonsense
    It's not nonsense though, we've established this plenty of times through plenty of posters and sources.
    If it doesn't happen it will be for various reasons but not because there isn't serious interest.
    Well I spent quite a bit of a long train journey on Friday on here trying to establish what the evidence was and it boiled down to not much from what I could make out
  • DOUCHER said:

    J BLOCK said:

    DOUCHER said:

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    J BLOCK said:

    Also being mentioned that DD has highlighted “more than 30” areas of concern.

    Anyone ITK can confirm or deny?
    It was slightly more than 30 originally, but the lawyers have worked through them and two thirds have been addressed. I'm told there's nothing unusual in that number.
    So we’re looking at perhaps 10 or so problems , which may or may not put the kibosh on a deal this week
    It's not clear that any of them would be an obstacle. Some things just need you to go away and do something rather than simply explain.

    If you've ever bought a house, it's quite usual for the buyer's solicitor to ask for things from the seller - warranties for improvements, etc - that haven't been put on the table at the outset. A business is a lot more complicated, obviously, but I assume it's the same principle.
    So these problems should be something that the club will actively sort out in order for a deal to ether be completed or be completed quicker?

    By your analogy, I guess problems are effectively down to value versus actual state - for instance a buyer would pay say £1m for a larger well maintained car park but due diligence has found that there are potholes everywhere!?
    Exactly what's happening, which is why any claims it's a "non-story" are for the birds.
    So do we take it from that that the directors with an Interest have been contacted in order to fill some of the 'potholes'? and my source is indeed telling porkies? Be good to know as it may stave off a nervous breakdown for one or 2 on here as I dread to think what could happen if it does all turn out to be nonsense
    It's not nonsense though, we've established this plenty of times through plenty of posters and sources.
    If it doesn't happen it will be for various reasons but not because there isn't serious interest.
    Well I spent quite a bit of a long train journey on Friday on here trying to establish what the evidence was and it boiled down to not much from what I could make out
    But the evidence cannot be divulged on here.

  • edited November 2017
    DOUCHER said:

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    J BLOCK said:

    Also being mentioned that DD has highlighted “more than 30” areas of concern.

    Anyone ITK can confirm or deny?
    It was slightly more than 30 originally, but the lawyers have worked through them and two thirds have been addressed. I'm told there's nothing unusual in that number.
    So we’re looking at perhaps 10 or so problems , which may or may not put the kibosh on a deal this week
    It's not clear that any of them would be an obstacle. Some things just need you to go away and do something rather than simply explain.

    If you've ever bought a house, it's quite usual for the buyer's solicitor to ask for things from the seller - warranties for improvements, etc - that haven't been put on the table at the outset. A business is a lot more complicated, obviously, but I assume it's the same principle.
    So these problems should be something that the club will actively sort out in order for a deal to ether be completed or be completed quicker?

    By your analogy, I guess problems are effectively down to value versus actual state - for instance a buyer would pay say £1m for a larger well maintained car park but due diligence has found that there are potholes everywhere!?
    Exactly what's happening, which is why any claims it's a "non-story" are for the birds.
    So do we take it from that that the directors with an Interest have been contacted in order to fill some of the 'potholes'? and my source is indeed telling porkies? Be good to know as it may stave off a nervous breakdown for one or 2 on here as I dread to think what could happen if it does all turn out to be nonsense
    It's not that.
  • Sponsored links:


  • 77 new posts and not a sniff of a takeover!

    Saw the flying kiwis flag at the All Whites v Peru game...what's this flying kiwis thing about?
  • 77 new posts and not a sniff of a takeover!

    Saw the flying kiwis flag at the All Whites v Peru game...what's this flying kiwis thing about?
    This

    https://mobile.twitter.com/flyingkiwisfc
  • T_C_E said:

    Meanwhile, the training ground ditch nears the English coastimage

    SHE EVEN GOT THE BLOODY COLOUR WRONG!!!!!

    GRRRR!!!!!
  • T_C_E said:

    Meanwhile, the training ground ditch nears the English coastimage

    SHE EVEN GOT THE BLOODY COLOUR WRONG!!!!!

    GRRRR!!!!!
    It's next years home kit colours, doh did I say that out loud. Sorry Kate, it was supposed to be our secret. ;)
  • 105 new posts - nothing of note to make me think more positively or negatively about the goings on.
  • Well this latest round of “updates” seems to point towards this leading to a conclusion well before January. One way or the other.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Well this latest round of “updates” seems to point towards this leading to a conclusion well before January. One way or the other.

    I'm 50/50 as to whether Roland can successfully sell the club.
  • I still think it won’t happen until next Summer.
  • stonemuse said:

    I still think it won’t happen until next Summer.

    That's what Robinson will be hoping for.
  • Addickted said:

    Has Keohane got rising damp and dry rot then?

    Wouldn't have to rise too high would it!! :wink:
  • 77 new posts and not a sniff of a takeover!

    Saw the flying kiwis flag at the All Whites v Peru game...what's this flying kiwis thing about?
    This

    https://mobile.twitter.com/flyingkiwisfc
    Funny must be my dyslexia but i always called you flyingwiki in my head.
  • DOUCHER said:

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    J BLOCK said:

    Also being mentioned that DD has highlighted “more than 30” areas of concern.

    Anyone ITK can confirm or deny?
    It was slightly more than 30 originally, but the lawyers have worked through them and two thirds have been addressed. I'm told there's nothing unusual in that number.
    So we’re looking at perhaps 10 or so problems , which may or may not put the kibosh on a deal this week
    It's not clear that any of them would be an obstacle. Some things just need you to go away and do something rather than simply explain.

    If you've ever bought a house, it's quite usual for the buyer's solicitor to ask for things from the seller - warranties for improvements, etc - that haven't been put on the table at the outset. A business is a lot more complicated, obviously, but I assume it's the same principle.
    So these problems should be something that the club will actively sort out in order for a deal to ether be completed or be completed quicker?

    By your analogy, I guess problems are effectively down to value versus actual state - for instance a buyer would pay say £1m for a larger well maintained car park but due diligence has found that there are potholes everywhere!?
    Exactly what's happening, which is why any claims it's a "non-story" are for the birds.
    So do we take it from that that the directors with an Interest have been contacted in order to fill some of the 'potholes'? and my source is indeed telling porkies? Be good to know as it may stave off a nervous breakdown for one or 2 on here as I dread to think what could happen if it does all turn out to be nonsense
    So, what's the sound of someone taking back a whoooosh ?
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!