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

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1126712681270127212732265

Comments

  • Addickted said:

    Well none of the messages I saw were threatening.

    I'd prefer to hire a hit man than a solicitor.

    You wouldn't have seen them. You have not earned the epithet "CARD ****" , so you were of no interest. And they were sent as direct messages by various social media channels.
  • Any news on the takeover? Last I heard Rowlund wanted to sell, had screwed up by not going with the Saudis and was scratting around for a buyer prepared to pay what he thought he had agreed.

    Some press leak suggested Usmaninov was interested. Smelt like a Duchatelet leak trying desperately to convince the Aussie consortium there remained interest from elsewhere so they should close the deal.

    Desperation stakes.
  • micks1950 said:

    cabbles said:

    micks1950 said:

    micks1950 said:

    DOC64 said:

    @JamesSeed is shown as banned on his profile. Surely not self imposed....

    He’s NOT banned mate......and for the record, neither is ElfsborgAddick.
    Well that's what it says on his profile page - who would have put that there?:

    https://charltonlife.vanillacommunity.com/profile/JamesSeed
    This has been mentioned a million times, if someone asks for there account to be closed like James Seed and Elfs that is the only avatar the mods have
    Thanks.

    I'm surprised that there isn't something like 'No longer a member' - which I've seen on other forums.
    I appreciate Seed provided us with some info and was one of the posters on here that was the most active, but can we try and keep this thread about the takeover, rather than people who had news about the takeover. This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, just trying to draw a line under it. He asked for some time out which we all thought was best. I believe he had the best of intentions when he posted on here but because of the protracted nature of the whole shitfest that is the takeover, things got a little intense and a break was needed. Nothing more than this. Personally I welcome any contributions from whoever if they hear something to add. May be wrong, may be right. As the great HI says, wait until it is on the official site

    If that’s the case then why not make it a ‘new’ post rather than a response to my post that simply expressed surprise that there isn’t a profile category or ‘avatar’ for former members like ‘No longer a member’?

    It’s a bit irritating when my last 2 posts are the only ones I’ve posted on this thread that are not specifically about a takeover (when the thread has multiple posts from multiple posters about anything but a takeover, plus a number having a go at @jamesseed).

    Also, is it really necessary to refer to @jamesseed as ‘Seed’ (like a policeman or old style school teacher) rather than by his user name as is the usual practice?
    Points taken mate. And I only used yours as it was literally the most recent one when I logged on.

    I’ve always referred to him as Seed and don’t mean anything by that, same way I wrote HI instead of Henry Irving, or someone might write elfs instead of elfsborg
  • cabbles said:

    micks1950 said:

    cabbles said:

    micks1950 said:

    micks1950 said:

    DOC64 said:

    @JamesSeed is shown as banned on his profile. Surely not self imposed....

    He’s NOT banned mate......and for the record, neither is ElfsborgAddick.
    Well that's what it says on his profile page - who would have put that there?:

    https://charltonlife.vanillacommunity.com/profile/JamesSeed
    This has been mentioned a million times, if someone asks for there account to be closed like James Seed and Elfs that is the only avatar the mods have
    Thanks.

    I'm surprised that there isn't something like 'No longer a member' - which I've seen on other forums.
    I appreciate Seed provided us with some info and was one of the posters on here that was the most active, but can we try and keep this thread about the takeover, rather than people who had news about the takeover. This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, just trying to draw a line under it. He asked for some time out which we all thought was best. I believe he had the best of intentions when he posted on here but because of the protracted nature of the whole shitfest that is the takeover, things got a little intense and a break was needed. Nothing more than this. Personally I welcome any contributions from whoever if they hear something to add. May be wrong, may be right. As the great HI says, wait until it is on the official site

    If that’s the case then why not make it a ‘new’ post rather than a response to my post that simply expressed surprise that there isn’t a profile category or ‘avatar’ for former members like ‘No longer a member’?

    It’s a bit irritating when my last 2 posts are the only ones I’ve posted on this thread that are not specifically about a takeover (when the thread has multiple posts from multiple posters about anything but a takeover, plus a number having a go at @jamesseed).

    Also, is it really necessary to refer to @jamesseed as ‘Seed’ (like a policeman or old style school teacher) rather than by his user name as is the usual practice?
    Points taken mate. And I only used yours as it was literally the most recent one when I logged on.

    I’ve always referred to him as Seed and don’t mean anything by that, same way I wrote HI instead of Henry Irving, or someone might write elfs instead of elfsborg
    Thanks.
  • cabbles said:

    micks1950 said:

    cabbles said:

    micks1950 said:

    micks1950 said:

    DOC64 said:

    @JamesSeed is shown as banned on his profile. Surely not self imposed....

    He’s NOT banned mate......and for the record, neither is ElfsborgAddick.
    Well that's what it says on his profile page - who would have put that there?:

    https://charltonlife.vanillacommunity.com/profile/JamesSeed
    This has been mentioned a million times, if someone asks for there account to be closed like James Seed and Elfs that is the only avatar the mods have
    Thanks.

    I'm surprised that there isn't something like 'No longer a member' - which I've seen on other forums.
    I appreciate Seed provided us with some info and was one of the posters on here that was the most active, but can we try and keep this thread about the takeover, rather than people who had news about the takeover. This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, just trying to draw a line under it. He asked for some time out which we all thought was best. I believe he had the best of intentions when he posted on here but because of the protracted nature of the whole shitfest that is the takeover, things got a little intense and a break was needed. Nothing more than this. Personally I welcome any contributions from whoever if they hear something to add. May be wrong, may be right. As the great HI says, wait until it is on the official site

    If that’s the case then why not make it a ‘new’ post rather than a response to my post that simply expressed surprise that there isn’t a profile category or ‘avatar’ for former members like ‘No longer a member’?

    It’s a bit irritating when my last 2 posts are the only ones I’ve posted on this thread that are not specifically about a takeover (when the thread has multiple posts from multiple posters about anything but a takeover, plus a number having a go at @jamesseed).

    Also, is it really necessary to refer to @jamesseed as ‘Seed’ (like a policeman or old style school teacher) rather than by his user name as is the usual practice?
    Points taken mate. And I only used yours as it was literally the most recent one when I logged on.

    I’ve always referred to him as Seed and don’t mean anything by that, same way I wrote HI instead of Henry Irving, or someone might write elfs instead of elfsborg
    Nice one cabsy.
  • addick05 said:

    A great man once said "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

    Who was that great man ?
    Abraham Lincoln
  • cabbles said:

    micks1950 said:

    cabbles said:

    micks1950 said:

    micks1950 said:

    DOC64 said:

    @JamesSeed is shown as banned on his profile. Surely not self imposed....

    He’s NOT banned mate......and for the record, neither is ElfsborgAddick.
    Well that's what it says on his profile page - who would have put that there?:

    https://charltonlife.vanillacommunity.com/profile/JamesSeed
    This has been mentioned a million times, if someone asks for there account to be closed like James Seed and Elfs that is the only avatar the mods have
    Thanks.

    I'm surprised that there isn't something like 'No longer a member' - which I've seen on other forums.
    I appreciate Seed provided us with some info and was one of the posters on here that was the most active, but can we try and keep this thread about the takeover, rather than people who had news about the takeover. This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, just trying to draw a line under it. He asked for some time out which we all thought was best. I believe he had the best of intentions when he posted on here but because of the protracted nature of the whole shitfest that is the takeover, things got a little intense and a break was needed. Nothing more than this. Personally I welcome any contributions from whoever if they hear something to add. May be wrong, may be right. As the great HI says, wait until it is on the official site

    If that’s the case then why not make it a ‘new’ post rather than a response to my post that simply expressed surprise that there isn’t a profile category or ‘avatar’ for former members like ‘No longer a member’?

    It’s a bit irritating when my last 2 posts are the only ones I’ve posted on this thread that are not specifically about a takeover (when the thread has multiple posts from multiple posters about anything but a takeover, plus a number having a go at @jamesseed).

    Also, is it really necessary to refer to @jamesseed as ‘Seed’ (like a policeman or old style school teacher) rather than by his user name as is the usual practice?
    Points taken mate. And I only used yours as it was literally the most recent one when I logged on.

    I’ve always referred to him as Seed and don’t mean anything by that, same way I wrote HI instead of Henry Irving, or someone might write elfs instead of elfsborg
    Nice one cabsy.
    That’s no way to refer to @bobbles
  • I feel that Douchebag and Shitweasel are wonderful handals for RD.

    I Hope our next owner is known as Midas.
  • Sponsored links:


  • The bit from Red Henry about a load of Everton loanees was a bit odd.
    Bit like the Australians and Harry Kewell.

    Non starter.

    Glad you have the inside track @carly burn :))))
  • We cannot have a load of loanees, we have 4 at the moment, if I understand correctly a team only allowed 5 loan players during the season.
  • msomerton said:

    We cannot have a load of loanees, we have 4 at the moment, if I understand correctly a team only allowed 5 loan players during the season.

    8 but only five in the matchday squad.

    Plus it might be more than just this season.
  • HITC is a load of balls.
  • Redhenry said:

    Usmanov denied he would be sponsoring Evertons training ground, a week later it was announced his company was sponsoring it. Just saying.....
    My source came from Merseyside btw.

    Hmmmm
  • edited September 2018
    Redhenry said:

    Usmanov denied he would be sponsoring Evertons training ground, a week later it was announced his company was sponsoring it. Just saying.....
    My source came from Merseyside btw.

    Well... if that is true, then doesn't that 100% guarantee he can't be with us? I don't think league rules allow an owner to sponsor one club and own another. Besides, it makes no sense. If he had any interest in CAFC, why waste money sponsoring a future competitor?

    It's not happening. He ain't coming here. Can we change the thread title please?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Redhenry said:

    Usmanov denied he would be sponsoring Evertons training ground, a week later it was announced his company was sponsoring it. Just saying.....
    My source came from Merseyside btw.

    Well... if that is true, then doesn't that 100% guarantee he can't be with us? I don't think league rules allow an owner to sponsor one club and own another. Besides, it makes no sense. If he had any interest in CAFC, why waste money sponsoring a future competitor?

    It's not happening. He ain't coming here. Can we change the thread title please?
    Not that know anything but did he not do this as a shareholder of arsenal?
    I don't think so. He is no longer a shareholder. But am not 100% sure.
  • Redhenry said:

    Usmanov denied he would be sponsoring Evertons training ground, a week later it was announced his company was sponsoring it. Just saying.....
    My source came from Merseyside btw.

    Well... if that is true, then doesn't that 100% guarantee he can't be with us? I don't think league rules allow an owner to sponsor one club and own another. Besides, it makes no sense. If he had any interest in CAFC, why waste money sponsoring a future competitor?

    It's not happening. He ain't coming here. Can we change the thread title please?
    Not that know anything but did he not do this as a shareholder of arsenal?
    I don't think so. He is no longer a shareholder. But am not 100% sure.
    He only sold his Arsenal shares in the last month or so, and the Everton training ground thing was last year I believe? That should not hold up any purchase of Charlton (should he wish to do so).
  • I was listening to the Charlton podcast just now (2:30am) and heard a disturbing tidbit. That apparently we sold Konsa for a low amount because we needed cash to avoid breaching FFP rules. And larger bids included deferred payments (larger ones) but less... cash. And we needed cash to avoid an FFP breach.

    First off, this would explain why we sold him so cheap. But how the hell can we be at the edge of FFP limits? We've sold so many players that just two years ago we were essentially profitable. One can lose £39m over 3 season. We have not lost that much.

    But if it is true, and I were a prospective owner, I would not be too interested in buying a club that has no wiggle room to buy people in the transfer market. This might well be the takeover hangup, if true. I really hope it is not.

    Did anyone else hear about this?

  • I was listening to the Charlton podcast just now (2:30am) and heard a disturbing tidbit. That apparently we sold Konsa for a low amount because we needed cash to avoid breaching FFP rules. And larger bids included deferred payments (larger ones) but less... cash. And we needed cash to avoid an FFP breach.

    First off, this would explain why we sold him so cheap. But how the hell can we be at the edge of FFP limits? We've sold so many players that just two years ago we were essentially profitable. One can lose £39m over 3 season. We have not lost that much.

    But if it is true, and I were a prospective owner, I would not be too interested in buying a club that has no wiggle room to buy people in the transfer market. This might well be the takeover hangup, if true. I really hope it is not.

    Did anyone else hear about this?

    Yeah @Henry Irving mentions it in the minutes from Lee Bowyer's meeting @ Bromley Addicks
  • Can’t be a re-hash as it mentions the spokesman’s denial
  • I was listening to the Charlton podcast just now (2:30am) and heard a disturbing tidbit. That apparently we sold Konsa for a low amount because we needed cash to avoid breaching FFP rules. And larger bids included deferred payments (larger ones) but less... cash. And we needed cash to avoid an FFP breach.

    First off, this would explain why we sold him so cheap. But how the hell can we be at the edge of FFP limits? We've sold so many players that just two years ago we were essentially profitable. One can lose £39m over 3 season. We have not lost that much.

    But if it is true, and I were a prospective owner, I would not be too interested in buying a club that has no wiggle room to buy people in the transfer market. This might well be the takeover hangup, if true. I really hope it is not.

    Did anyone else hear about this?

    I think that £39m over 3 years figure is for Championship clubs. Thanks to Roland, we are not. Not sure what League 1 clubs can lose per season, but any losses have to be filled by equity loans I believe?
  • edited September 2018
    In League One it isn’t FFP, but SCMP...Salary Cost Management Protocol.

    It limits the amount any club can spend on wages as a proportion of turnover. For L1 it is 60% and for L2 it is 55%.

    So anything that adds to revenue helps boost what you can spend on salary. Maybe Katy didn’t realise that...who knows.
  • TelMc32 said:

    In League One it isn’t FFP, but SCMP...Salary Cost Management Protocol.

    It limits the amount any club can spend on wages as a proportion of turnover. For L1 it is 60% and for L2 it is 55%.

    So anything that adds to revenue helps boost what you can spend on salary. Maybe Katy didn’t realise that...who knows.

    There is also a "grace period" (either 1 or 2 season) for teams relegated to League one that allows them to spend more than 60% while they adjust to life in league one, usually because they have players on large legacy contracts from the Championship.

    This grace period is often used to mount a title challenge and immediately return to the Championship e.g Blackburn, Wigan etc.
  • I was listening to the Charlton podcast just now (2:30am) and heard a disturbing tidbit. That apparently we sold Konsa for a low amount because we needed cash to avoid breaching FFP rules. And larger bids included deferred payments (larger ones) but less... cash. And we needed cash to avoid an FFP breach.

    First off, this would explain why we sold him so cheap. But how the hell can we be at the edge of FFP limits? We've sold so many players that just two years ago we were essentially profitable. One can lose £39m over 3 season. We have not lost that much.

    But if it is true, and I were a prospective owner, I would not be too interested in buying a club that has no wiggle room to buy people in the transfer market. This might well be the takeover hangup, if true. I really hope it is not.

    Did anyone else hear about this?

    Was on the Bromley Addicks thread.
  • Assume that like FFP an owner can inject as much as they want in equity just not loans so no restrictions in reality are there, the owner just can’t lever the club as highly... although not sure how that would work in respect to salaries as a % of turnover...?
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!