The Saudi bid wasn't made up by RD. I was quite close to this one.
Thanks for that, @Redhenry - it's good that, in the face of lots of rumour, suggestion, counter-rumour and obfuscation, someone has cleared this up completely and quickly. We can all be certain now that the "The Saudi bid" was NOT made up by Roland.
Harvey at the EFL said that as far as they are concerned there has only been one bidder ie only one that has got as far as submitting paperwork to them and that is the Aussies.
Think this really confirmsthat the Saudi bid was an 'invention' to get the Aussies to match it. Suspect they subsequently found that out and that's when they reduced their offer. Only @Redhenry knows the source of his information and maybe he was just being fed fake news.
Does it really absolutely confirm that???
How do you know that non of the other itk posters were being fed fake news and that RedHenry was???
There's only one of what we'd call ITK posters who has been pretty bang on and that's been NLA, but the problem is, no 9je wants to hear it.
The problem is, with no disrespect to anyone, no one knows the whole true. That may even include RD. How much BS has he been fed by RM and KM over the last 4 years?
Every single leak servers a purpose, for someone, whether it's leaked to Airman, Red Henry, NLA or Mr Seed. I believe they all repeat some, or all, of what they are told in good faith and have no reason to belive what they are told isn't untrue.
What is difficult to understand is the motivation for some of the leaks. A lot of it doesn't add up across the multiple sources.
Surely if "the saudis" were bidding against the Aussies then with their financial clout would not have given up if they really wanted the club.
People with plenty of dough don't just throw it here there and everywhere, paying over the odds for everything. They would've surely had a maximum amount and walked away when they got outbid, or however it works.
The problem is, with no disrespect to anyone, no one knows the whole true. That may even include RD. How much BS has he been fed by RM and KM over the last 4 years?
Every single leak servers a purpose, for someone, whether it's leaked to Airman, Red Henry, NLA or Mr Seed. I believe they all repeat some, or all, of what they are told in good faith and have no reason to belive what they are told isn't untrue.
What is difficult to understand is the motivation for some of the leaks. A lot of it doesn't add up across the multiple sources.
Very true. KM in particular has lied all the time to RD IMHO to protect herself although RD has been happy to repeat those lies either without bothering to check them or because the lie suits him.
That's why all the rumours are interesting, why this is the greatest thread ever and must continue until the end of time but they only time we can be sure that takeover has happened is "WHEN IT'S ON THE OS"
Why I am sceptical about the Saudis - or at least about the extent of any such interest - is threefold. Firstly, Duchatelet was, from the outset, sceptical that the Australians had the money (he is on record saying this back in 2017) and the long-running nature of their approach would be enough to raise significant doubts anyway. In that context, it is very hard to believe that he would bat away a genuine well-resourced approach from the Middle East in favour of the Aussies unless there was a very substantial difference in any offer.
Secondly, Redhenry and others linked the Bristol Rovers chairman Steve Hamer to the Saudis - Hamer is a big red flag as far as some who have dealt with him before concerning Charlton are concerned. I'm told that when he approached the club previously (about ten years ago) the person he was purportedly representing turned out to be in prison at the time.
Thirdly, while we've heard repeatedly from Murray, LDT and Duchatelet about the supposed British interest that they say agreed a price back in February, we have never heard from any of them about Saudis - or a group that could be them - at any point.
I'm not saying that what has been brought here has been reported in anything other than good faith, just that I don't think the evidence suggests that they were as close to buying the club as has been claimed.
Why I am sceptical about the Saudis - or at least about the extent of any such interest - is threefold. Firstly, Duchatelet was, from the outset, sceptical that the Australians had the money (he is on record saying this back in 2017) and the long-running nature of their approach would be enough to raise significant doubts anyway. In that context, it is very hard to believe that he would bat away a genuine well-resourced approach from the Middle East in favour of the Aussies unless there was a very substantial difference in any offer.
Secondly, Redhenry and others linked the Bristol Rovers chairman Steve Hamer to the Saudis - Hamer is a big red flag as far as some who have dealt with him before concerning Charlton as concerned. I'm told that when he approached the club previously (about ten years ago) the person he was purportedly representing turned out to be in prison at the time.
Thirdly, while we've heard repeatedly from Murray, LDT and Duchatelet about the supposed British interest that they say agreed a price back in February, we have never heard from any of them about Saudis - or a group that could be them - at any point.
I'm not saying that what has been brought here has been reported in anything other than good faith, just that I don't think the evidence suggests that they were as close to buying the club as has been claimed.
But if they, the Saudis, or whoever, weren't prepared to meet his asking price, he wouldn't need to bat them away, they'd walk surely. Leaving the Aussies to try and complete on whatever sum it was that they genuinely offered but couldn't afford.
Why I am sceptical about the Saudis - or at least about the extent of any such interest - is threefold. Firstly, Duchatelet was, from the outset, sceptical that the Australians had the money (he is on record saying this back in 2017) and the long-running nature of their approach would be enough to raise significant doubts anyway. In that context, it is very hard to believe that he would bat away a genuine well-resourced approach from the Middle East in favour of the Aussies unless there was a very substantial difference in any offer.
Secondly, Redhenry and others linked the Bristol Rovers chairman Steve Hamer to the Saudis - Hamer is a big red flag as far as some who have dealt with him before concerning Charlton as concerned. I'm told that when he approached the club previously (about ten years ago) the person he was purportedly representing turned out to be in prison at the time.
Thirdly, while we've heard repeatedly from Murray, LDT and Duchatelet about the supposed British interest that they say agreed a price back in February, we have never heard from any of them about Saudis - or a group that could be them - at any point.
I'm not saying that what has been brought here has been reported in anything other than good faith, just that I don't think the evidence suggests that they were as close to buying the club as has been claimed.
But if they, the Saudis, or whoever, weren't prepared to meet his asking price, he wouldn't need to bat them away, they'd walk surely. Leaving the Aussies to try and complete on whatever sum it was that they genuinely offered but couldn't afford.
Nobody has met his asking price, as I think he said in the Jim White interview. He reached "a compromise" with the Aussies. I think it has been suggested on here that there was a bidding war between the Saudis and the Aussies, which the latter won. My point is that RD himself was sceptical about the Aussie collective putting the money together, so he would have taken that into account.
Why I am sceptical about the Saudis - or at least about the extent of any such interest - is threefold. Firstly, Duchatelet was, from the outset, sceptical that the Australians had the money (he is on record saying this back in 2017) and the long-running nature of their approach would be enough to raise significant doubts anyway. In that context, it is very hard to believe that he would bat away a genuine well-resourced approach from the Middle East in favour of the Aussies unless there was a very substantial difference in any offer.
Secondly, Redhenry and others linked the Bristol Rovers chairman Steve Hamer to the Saudis - Hamer is a big red flag as far as some who have dealt with him before concerning Charlton as concerned. I'm told that when he approached the club previously (about ten years ago) the person he was purportedly representing turned out to be in prison at the time.
Thirdly, while we've heard repeatedly from Murray, LDT and Duchatelet about the supposed British interest that they say agreed a price back in February, we have never heard from any of them about Saudis - or a group that could be them - at any point.
I'm not saying that what has been brought here has been reported in anything other than good faith, just that I don't think the evidence suggests that they were as close to buying the club as has been claimed.
But if they, the Saudis, or whoever, weren't prepared to meet his asking price, he wouldn't need to bat them away, they'd walk surely. Leaving the Aussies to try and complete on whatever sum it was that they genuinely offered but couldn't afford.
Nobody has met his asking price, as I think he said in the Jim White interview. He reached "a compromise" with the Aussies. I think it has been suggested on here that there was a bidding war between the Saudis and the Aussies, which the latter won. My point is that RD himself was sceptical about the Aussie's ability to pay, so he would have taken that into account.
...and took a gamble on recouping a few more of his lost dough from the Aussies, but it not paying off.
I wonder if any of the rival bidders have heard his interview with JW and heard him say that it ain't about the money?
Harvey at the EFL said that as far as they are concerned there has only been one bidder ie only one that has got as far as submitting paperwork to them and that is the Aussies.
Think this really confirms that the Saudi bid was an 'invention' to get the Aussies to match it. Suspect they subsequently found that out and that's when they reduced their offer. Only @Redhenry knows the source of his information and maybe he was just being fed fake news.
I don't think so.
It just shows that it never got as far as submitting papers to the EFL. So far, according to the EFL, only the Aussies have done that.
That does make the statement from LDV that at least one other current potential buyer has also agreed a price seem very odd as if they have agreed the price what's stopping them progressing?
I think the issue remains that all the parties "agree the price" at the start ie "Yes, we understand that the asking price is £40m" but in their minds that is "£40m subject to due diligence".
When they do the due diligence that decide that either that price is too high for a loss making company and walk away (ala the South African bid fronted by the Scottish manager) or they offer a lower, in their eyes more realistic, price (The Aussies).
LDV and RD spin it as "price agreed" but no one, not just the Aussies, are willing to pay it.
I also believe that some of the interested parties have either been made up or the stage they have reached have been greatly exaggerated by RD and LDV in order to make the £40m seem realistic and put pressure on the Aussies.
So while the Aussies may or may not have the money we seem to be very unfortunate that ALL the potential bidders don't have the money.
Or what seems more likely to me that they ALL have the money but just aren't willing to pay the price that RD has chosen, based as it is on land value rather than a league 1 loss making football club.
I don't think this interpretation is correct. The parties had done their due diligence at the point in February where Murray claimed the price was agreed. What I think happened is that not everyone in the Aussie consortium at that stage turned out to be signed up to the deal or someone else, such as the Saudis, appeared.
Even so, the Aussie paperwork went to the EFL in May, including the sale agreement. That could only happen if a final price was agreed. The problem must be that the consortium cannot or will not pay it, not that they did not agree it with RD in the first place.
Harvey at the EFL said that as far as they are concerned there has only been one bidder ie only one that has got as far as submitting paperwork to them and that is the Aussies.
Think this really confirmsthat the Saudi bid was an 'invention' to get the Aussies to match it. Suspect they subsequently found that out and that's when they reduced their offer. Only @Redhenry knows the source of his information and maybe he was just being fed fake news.
Does it really absolutely confirm that???
How do you know that non of the other itk posters were being fed fake news and that RedHenry was???
There's only one of what we'd call ITK posters who has been pretty bang on and that's been NLA, but the problem is, no 9je wants to hear it.
Sorry mate, but what have I said that hasn't been true?
Why I am sceptical about the Saudis - or at least about the extent of any such interest - is threefold. Firstly, Duchatelet was, from the outset, sceptical that the Australians had the money (he is on record saying this back in 2017) and the long-running nature of their approach would be enough to raise significant doubts anyway. In that context, it is very hard to believe that he would bat away a genuine well-resourced approach from the Middle East in favour of the Aussies unless there was a very substantial difference in any offer.
Secondly, Redhenry and others linked the Bristol Rovers chairman Steve Hamer to the Saudis - Hamer is a big red flag as far as some who have dealt with him before concerning Charlton are concerned. I'm told that when he approached the club previously (about ten years ago) the person he was purportedly representing turned out to be in prison at the time.
Thirdly, while we've heard repeatedly from Murray, LDT and Duchatelet about the supposed British interest that they say agreed a price back in February, we have never heard from any of them about Saudis - or a group that could be them - at any point.
I'm not saying that what has been brought here has been reported in anything other than good faith, just that I don't think the evidence suggests that they were as close to buying the club as has been claimed.
Murray was the Saudis first choice, they thought this would get the fans on side
Harvey at the EFL said that as far as they are concerned there has only been one bidder ie only one that has got as far as submitting paperwork to them and that is the Aussies.
Think this really confirmsthat the Saudi bid was an 'invention' to get the Aussies to match it. Suspect they subsequently found that out and that's when they reduced their offer. Only @Redhenry knows the source of his information and maybe he was just being fed fake news.
Does it really absolutely confirm that???
How do you know that non of the other itk posters were being fed fake news and that RedHenry was???
There's only one of what we'd call ITK posters who has been pretty bang on and that's been NLA, but the problem is, no 9je wants to hear it.
Sorry mate, but what have I said that hasn't been true?
Sorry, it's my badly written post - I was actually saying the opposite and asking cafc-west how s/he knows that the Saudi bid was an "invention" and how they know that you've been fed "fake news".
I personally believe there was a Saudi bid and they dropped out when they realised the price was far more than they were willing to pay.
Playing devils advocate, could it be that the so called mysterious British bid (in which no players are known) was a fronted British bid that was potentially backed with Saudi money?
Despite the Aussie bid failing to progress, so amazingly has this British one at the same time as what @Redhenry said the Saudi interest has not been followed up.
Harvey at the EFL said that as far as they are concerned there has only been one bidder ie only one that has got as far as submitting paperwork to them and that is the Aussies.
Think this really confirmsthat the Saudi bid was an 'invention' to get the Aussies to match it. Suspect they subsequently found that out and that's when they reduced their offer. Only @Redhenry knows the source of his information and maybe he was just being fed fake news.
Does it really absolutely confirm that???
How do you know that non of the other itk posters were being fed fake news and that RedHenry was???
There's only one of what we'd call ITK posters who has been pretty bang on and that's been NLA, but the problem is, no 9je wants to hear it.
Sorry mate, but what have I said that hasn't been true?
Sorry, it's my badly written post - I was actually saying the opposite and asking cafc-west how s/he knows that the Saudi bid was an "invention" and how they know that you've been fed "fake news".
I personally believe there was a Saudi bid and they dropped out when they realised the price was far more than they were willing to pay.
So you think two of the itk posters have been pretty much bang on then?
Harvey at the EFL said that as far as they are concerned there has only been one bidder ie only one that has got as far as submitting paperwork to them and that is the Aussies.
Think this really confirmsthat the Saudi bid was an 'invention' to get the Aussies to match it. Suspect they subsequently found that out and that's when they reduced their offer. Only @Redhenry knows the source of his information and maybe he was just being fed fake news.
Does it really absolutely confirm that???
How do you know that non of the other itk posters were being fed fake news and that RedHenry was???
There's only one of what we'd call ITK posters who has been pretty bang on and that's been NLA, but the problem is, no 9je wants to hear it.
Sorry mate, but what have I said that hasn't been true?
Sorry, it's my badly written post - I was actually saying the opposite and asking cafc-west how s/he knows that the Saudi bid was an "invention" and how they know that you've been fed "fake news".
I personally believe there was a Saudi bid and they dropped out when they realised the price was far more than they were willing to pay.
So you think two of the itk posters have been pretty much bang on then?
No, not bang on. People have obvioudly shared different levels of info that they've been told.
- I believe there was a Saudi interest in one form or another, as RedHenry shared,
- I also think that the Aussies have pissed about a bit all the way through as NLA has shared. Although I still think that the Aussie deal could possibly still happen in one form or another.
- I also believe everything JimmySeed shared and never questioned what he was sharing (till the end, to prove a point), but questions were asked about the Aussies and Their bid and it didn't seem too popular amongst some people.
Playing devils advocate, could it be that the so called mysterious British bid (in which no players are known) was a fronted British bid that was potentially backed with Saudi money?
Despite the Aussie bid failing to progress, so amazingly has this British one at the same time as what @Redhenry said the Saudi interest has not been followed up.
Or the "British bid", that would keep Murray at the top table, did indeed agree a price that was dependant on a certain chain of events happening.
The fact these events didn't happen ment the take over didn't go a head, even though a price had been agreed. If those events included the sale of a football club, for example, Newcastle, that would explain why it never got the EFL.
Obviously this is pure speculation but "fits the leaks".
Comments
How do you know that non of the other itk posters were being fed fake news and that RedHenry was???
There's only one of what we'd call ITK posters who has been pretty bang on and that's been NLA, but the problem is, no 9je wants to hear it.
Every single leak servers a purpose, for someone, whether it's leaked to Airman, Red Henry, NLA or Mr Seed. I believe they all repeat some, or all, of what they are told in good faith and have no reason to belive what they are told isn't untrue.
What is difficult to understand is the motivation for some of the leaks. A lot of it doesn't add up across the multiple sources.
That's why all the rumours are interesting, why this is the greatest thread ever and must continue until the end of time but they only time we can be sure that takeover has happened is "WHEN IT'S ON THE OS"
Perhaps it got fed up with the neighhhhhsayers.
Secondly, Redhenry and others linked the Bristol Rovers chairman Steve Hamer to the Saudis - Hamer is a big red flag as far as some who have dealt with him before concerning Charlton are concerned. I'm told that when he approached the club previously (about ten years ago) the person he was purportedly representing turned out to be in prison at the time.
Thirdly, while we've heard repeatedly from Murray, LDT and Duchatelet about the supposed British interest that they say agreed a price back in February, we have never heard from any of them about Saudis - or a group that could be them - at any point.
I'm not saying that what has been brought here has been reported in anything other than good faith, just that I don't think the evidence suggests that they were as close to buying the club as has been claimed.
I wonder if any of the rival bidders have heard his interview with JW and heard him say that it ain't about the money?
Even so, the Aussie paperwork went to the EFL in May, including the sale agreement. That could only happen if a final price was agreed. The problem must be that the consortium cannot or will not pay it, not that they did not agree it with RD in the first place.
I personally believe there was a Saudi bid and they dropped out when they realised the price was far more than they were willing to pay.
Despite the Aussie bid failing to progress, so amazingly has this British one at the same time as what @Redhenry said the Saudi interest has not been followed up.
- I believe there was a Saudi interest in one form or another, as RedHenry shared,
- I also think that the Aussies have pissed about a bit all the way through as NLA has shared. Although I still think that the Aussie deal could possibly still happen in one form or another.
- I also believe everything JimmySeed shared and never questioned what he was sharing (till the end, to prove a point), but questions were asked about the Aussies and Their bid and it didn't seem too popular amongst some people.
The fact these events didn't happen ment the take over didn't go a head, even though a price had been agreed. If those events included the sale of a football club, for example, Newcastle, that would explain why it never got the EFL.
Obviously this is pure speculation but "fits the leaks".
Not heard much about the Bromley bid lately, who's got the front there?