Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Didn't realize Varney was that old.happyvalley said:1672, Peter the Great born1 -
addick05 said:Covered End said:When was Roland quoted as saying he didn't want promotion ?
He may have said that and I may have missed it.
He may even have thought it, without saying it.
But I'm just saying I don't recall him saying that.
I do recall Dave White amongst others saying that's what they thought (and may well be right).
0 -
Has it happened?0
-
Only if there is some very wealthy Kazakhstani who wants to launder some dirty money in a London located football team who see's we are one division away from the promised land of the premier and is prepared to pay over the odds. (EG prince Andrews house when he was paid 2 million more than the asking price on the house he was given by the Queen !)cafc999 said:For the last few seasons some high ranking members of staff have been saying the the club will be easier to sell when we are in the championship. I don't think so
I'm not suggesting that all kazakh oligarchs are iffy or they expected air miles Andy to act quid pro quo, but the fact they never moved into the house was strange !0 -
Fantastic house analogy. It has been too long.Henry Irving said:My view is that new owners want clear title because they are paying a lot of money and so want clear and uncomplicated ownership.
Why buy a house and allow the previous owners free access to the downstairs toilet?
There is no reason to think that wanting clear title means loans or if it does that means dodgy. Charlton took out a loan (mortgage) to build the new north stand for example.
We don't even know who the potential new owners are beyond Muir, who we know could buy the club on his own.
The problem here is all Roland. He needs to sort the bonds but hasn't so is now playing games to shift blame.
And it's not just the ex-directors being blamed.
Small budget? EFLs fault
Bowyer deal not signed. Bowyer won't trigger the extension.
It's everyone's fault other than Duchatelet's, as ever.
As for support the team Bowyer knows the players perform better with positive support than without so he encourages it. It also engages the fan base, which is great.
But it is a marginal gain. No matter how much we cheered Parker he wouldn't be as good as Taylor.
In the championship others will have bigger, more expensive and talented squads AND loud crowds.
We need to compete with the squad, the scouting, the tactics, the coaching, the injuries, the talent.
Support alone won't be enough. It will help and it should be the norm but it's only a marginal part of success as otherwise England would win the world cup and Leeds the Champions League1 -
There are no high ranking members of staff at Charlton.cafc999 said:For the last few seasons some high ranking members of staff have been saying the the club will be easier to sell when we are in the championship. I don't think so2 -
Crime watch did a re-inactment of that but disappointingly they didn't get any new calls.happyvalley said:1674, The skeletons of 2 children are discovered at the Tower of London. It was thought at the time they were The Princes in the Tower.0 -
Is that your ex Directors statement, or is there something else on the horizon?Airman Brown said:
Point is that things are moving, of which RD’s statement is one aspect, and there is some solid information coming into the public domain, with more likely to follow. So it’s not the case that we are simply going over old ground at all. Even if it feels like it!MartinCAFC said:
I don't think AFKA was saying not to discuss the takeover. Without speaking for him my interpretation of the point he was making was a very similar viewpoint to mine in that it does seem for about the umpteenth time we're all arguing with each other over whether a price has really been agreed or not and have The Aussies got the money? And I make AFKA correct it does almost feel like we are picking over quotes from the last 12 months where no doubt there is a mixture of spin, truth and lies in there and frankly it does get tedious and tiresome to keep re-reading it over and over.Airman Brown said:
Of course you can - and I did, all over the country last season. I was responding to AFKA who has been arguing (see above) that more people should go to matches and that discussing the takeover situation is pointless, to paraphrase. Obviously it’s entirely open to anyone what they do, I just find it a bit odd for the owner of a message board to argue that such discussion is pointless.Redskin said:
Jesus wept, you can be fully aware of the negligence of the owner and the damage being inflicted on the club and still support the team without thinking it's a solution to the problems.Airman Brown said:
No, it means that it won’t of itself enable the team to be successful. Some people seem to think that asking questions and exploring what is going on is somehow exclusive of or detracts from “supporting the team”. However as Redskin himself points out, Bowyer and the team are oblivious to this discussion.Covered End said:
I think you may need to clarify this, because it reads that there is no point Charlton fans supporting the team above L1.Airman Brown said:
Yes, in L1 where Charlton will always be competitive because about two thirds of the division are perennial strugglers. In the Championship that won’t cut it for very long, as a series of small clubs have found out.Redskin said:
Well, Bowyer and the team seemed to think that supporting the team was was of considerable use to them.I don't recall them commenting on the use of 17,000 pages of gossip and conjecture on a Charlton forum...Airman Brown said:
Probably because many of us realise that just chanting “support the team” isn’t much use in the medium term unless the owner does so as well.AFKABartram said:Seems we are back to micro analysing details without anyone really knowing whether those details are the real issue or not.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.
I think we can all agree the owner is of little use at all.
You can, if you want, stick your fingers in your ears and join RD is his delusion that having the lowest budget in the division (according to Bowyer) doesn’t mean we can’t get promoted. You can ignore the fact that teams with Charlton’s likely budget usually go down. But shouting louder at matches still won’t be a solution.
There's probably an easier solution out there which would be to create a flow chart of all the possible theories that have been discussed over the last two years, 1672 pages and 51k comments to save reading the same arguments over and over again.0 -
I’m going to write more tomorrow.irudd123 said:
Is that your ex Directors statement, or is there something else on the horizon?Airman Brown said:
Point is that things are moving, of which RD’s statement is one aspect, and there is some solid information coming into the public domain, with more likely to follow. So it’s not the case that we are simply going over old ground at all. Even if it feels like it!MartinCAFC said:
I don't think AFKA was saying not to discuss the takeover. Without speaking for him my interpretation of the point he was making was a very similar viewpoint to mine in that it does seem for about the umpteenth time we're all arguing with each other over whether a price has really been agreed or not and have The Aussies got the money? And I make AFKA correct it does almost feel like we are picking over quotes from the last 12 months where no doubt there is a mixture of spin, truth and lies in there and frankly it does get tedious and tiresome to keep re-reading it over and over.Airman Brown said:
Of course you can - and I did, all over the country last season. I was responding to AFKA who has been arguing (see above) that more people should go to matches and that discussing the takeover situation is pointless, to paraphrase. Obviously it’s entirely open to anyone what they do, I just find it a bit odd for the owner of a message board to argue that such discussion is pointless.Redskin said:
Jesus wept, you can be fully aware of the negligence of the owner and the damage being inflicted on the club and still support the team without thinking it's a solution to the problems.Airman Brown said:
No, it means that it won’t of itself enable the team to be successful. Some people seem to think that asking questions and exploring what is going on is somehow exclusive of or detracts from “supporting the team”. However as Redskin himself points out, Bowyer and the team are oblivious to this discussion.Covered End said:
I think you may need to clarify this, because it reads that there is no point Charlton fans supporting the team above L1.Airman Brown said:
Yes, in L1 where Charlton will always be competitive because about two thirds of the division are perennial strugglers. In the Championship that won’t cut it for very long, as a series of small clubs have found out.Redskin said:
Well, Bowyer and the team seemed to think that supporting the team was was of considerable use to them.I don't recall them commenting on the use of 17,000 pages of gossip and conjecture on a Charlton forum...Airman Brown said:
Probably because many of us realise that just chanting “support the team” isn’t much use in the medium term unless the owner does so as well.AFKABartram said:Seems we are back to micro analysing details without anyone really knowing whether those details are the real issue or not.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.
I think we can all agree the owner is of little use at all.
You can, if you want, stick your fingers in your ears and join RD is his delusion that having the lowest budget in the division (according to Bowyer) doesn’t mean we can’t get promoted. You can ignore the fact that teams with Charlton’s likely budget usually go down. But shouting louder at matches still won’t be a solution.
There's probably an easier solution out there which would be to create a flow chart of all the possible theories that have been discussed over the last two years, 1672 pages and 51k comments to save reading the same arguments over and over again.27 -
Airman Brown said:
I’m going to write more tomorrow.irudd123 said:
Is that your ex Directors statement, or is there something else on the horizon?Airman Brown said:
Point is that things are moving, of which RD’s statement is one aspect, and there is some solid information coming into the public domain, with more likely to follow. So it’s not the case that we are simply going over old ground at all. Even if it feels like it!MartinCAFC said:
I don't think AFKA was saying not to discuss the takeover. Without speaking for him my interpretation of the point he was making was a very similar viewpoint to mine in that it does seem for about the umpteenth time we're all arguing with each other over whether a price has really been agreed or not and have The Aussies got the money? And I make AFKA correct it does almost feel like we are picking over quotes from the last 12 months where no doubt there is a mixture of spin, truth and lies in there and frankly it does get tedious and tiresome to keep re-reading it over and over.Airman Brown said:
Of course you can - and I did, all over the country last season. I was responding to AFKA who has been arguing (see above) that more people should go to matches and that discussing the takeover situation is pointless, to paraphrase. Obviously it’s entirely open to anyone what they do, I just find it a bit odd for the owner of a message board to argue that such discussion is pointless.Redskin said:
Jesus wept, you can be fully aware of the negligence of the owner and the damage being inflicted on the club and still support the team without thinking it's a solution to the problems.Airman Brown said:
No, it means that it won’t of itself enable the team to be successful. Some people seem to think that asking questions and exploring what is going on is somehow exclusive of or detracts from “supporting the team”. However as Redskin himself points out, Bowyer and the team are oblivious to this discussion.Covered End said:
I think you may need to clarify this, because it reads that there is no point Charlton fans supporting the team above L1.Airman Brown said:
Yes, in L1 where Charlton will always be competitive because about two thirds of the division are perennial strugglers. In the Championship that won’t cut it for very long, as a series of small clubs have found out.Redskin said:
Well, Bowyer and the team seemed to think that supporting the team was was of considerable use to them.I don't recall them commenting on the use of 17,000 pages of gossip and conjecture on a Charlton forum...Airman Brown said:
Probably because many of us realise that just chanting “support the team” isn’t much use in the medium term unless the owner does so as well.AFKABartram said:Seems we are back to micro analysing details without anyone really knowing whether those details are the real issue or not.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.
I think we can all agree the owner is of little use at all.
You can, if you want, stick your fingers in your ears and join RD is his delusion that having the lowest budget in the division (according to Bowyer) doesn’t mean we can’t get promoted. You can ignore the fact that teams with Charlton’s likely budget usually go down. But shouting louder at matches still won’t be a solution.
There's probably an easier solution out there which would be to create a flow chart of all the possible theories that have been discussed over the last two years, 1672 pages and 51k comments to save reading the same arguments over and over again.
Why not just tell us now?2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Presumably because he hasn’t written it yet.52
-
SoapBoxSam, I think you'll find Andrew built the house from scratch. Nicknamed Tesco Towers because it resembled their supermarkets. Now razed to the ground after being derelict for years. How he hasn't been investigated for complicity in money laundering is scandalous.0
-
It would be like a complete punch in the gut. The only thing that has held this club together over the last year has been Bowyer and what he and his management team have created. I’d still go, but, depending on who we get in, it would just revert back to how it felt under Duchatelet from the second full season onwardsFanny Fanackapan said:
Ah. That question I posed on Friday is asked yet again with still no clear cut indications as to how Lifers might react should Bow reject a derisory offer and decide to walk....followed by the out of contract players.Airman Brown said:
Of course you can - and I did, all over the country last season. I was responding to AFKA who has been arguing (see above) both that more people should go to matches and that discussing the takeover situation is pointless, to paraphrase. Obviously it’s entirely open to anyone what they do, I just find it a bit odd for the owner of a message board to argue that such discussion is pointless.Redskin said:
Jesus wept, you can be fully aware of the negligence of the owner and the damage being inflicted on the club and still support the team without thinking it's a solution to the problems.Airman Brown said:
No, it means that it won’t of itself enable the team to be successful. Some people seem to think that asking questions and exploring what is going on is somehow exclusive of or detracts from “supporting the team”. However as Redskin himself points out, Bowyer and the team are oblivious to this discussion.Covered End said:
I think you may need to clarify this, because it reads that there is no point Charlton fans supporting the team above L1.Airman Brown said:
Yes, in L1 where Charlton will always be competitive because about two thirds of the division are perennial strugglers. In the Championship that won’t cut it for very long, as a series of small clubs have found out.Redskin said:
Well, Bowyer and the team seemed to think that supporting the team was was of considerable use to them.I don't recall them commenting on the use of 17,000 pages of gossip and conjecture on a Charlton forum...Airman Brown said:
Probably because many of us realise that just chanting “support the team” isn’t much use in the medium term unless the owner does so as well.AFKABartram said:Seems we are back to micro analysing details without anyone really knowing whether those details are the real issue or not.
Weve been in a similar round to this about 6 or 7 times over the last two years. I’ve absolutely no idea why some people wrap themselves up so much in it.
I think we can all agree the owner is of little use at all.
You can, if you want, stick your fingers in your ears and join RD is his delusion that having the lowest budget in the division (according to Bowyer) doesn’t mean we can’t get promoted. You can ignore the fact that teams with Charlton’s likely budget usually go down. But shouting louder at matches still won’t be a solution.
A resolution to the ownership situation is far more likely to assist Bowyer than extra support and while we certainly can’t deliver it we can expose lies and contradictions in Duchatelet’s position so that they don’t gain any traction.
i also wonder where “support the team” gets us if Bowyer isn’t retained, because of the ownership situation. Or will it just move on to Johnnie Jackson, Jose Riga or anyone else who turns up?
It's certainly not something I want to dwell upon but with the end of June getting ever closer, sadly, it needs to be considered IMO.
Yes, this will still be "our" club , but maybe in name only.
And with a new manager stepping into the unknown, with meagre resources at his disposal, it's likely we would be on a hiding to nothing on the hallowed turf, week after week....
Wearing black & white, frequent chanting against the Rat and possibly displaying protest banners would probably be the limit of an individual's show of anger. Would we be so depressed about the situation that most might either sit numbed to the core, silently in their seats , or indeed find something more positive to do on Saturday afternoons ?
The stuffing would be knocked out of yours truly for sure.
So, once again, I ask, how would YOU react if the unthinkable happens ?
life without Bowyer would be terrible10 -
No, I'm not forgetting that. It is one of the factors underlying my suspicion Roland has spent the past 5 years trying to find ways to circumvent the planning laws relating to development at The Valley and Sparrows Lane.harveys_gardener said:N01R4M you are forgetting that RD is also putting a value on the land which ignores British planning laws. He thinks that building a hotel at St Truiden, by being a bigwig to the council, the same applies over here. The reality is the Valley will only ever be a football stadium unless CAFC voluntarily relocate.
In St-T, Rowland's initial planning request for the old farmhouse opposite Stayen was to turn it into accomodation for young players. This was rejected, but eventually he got permission to turn it into a boutique hotel & events venue. (Which is well overdue for opening. Anyone booked rooms yet?!)
I wonder whether Roland tried to do something similar at SL, where I understand his revised plan for the academy incorporated hotel-style accommodation for young players (presumably those he would be shipping in from the Network?) This was presumably passed by planning as it was for sport-related purposes.
But suppose he had a longer term plan of saying it was no longer needed for its original purpose, so he wanted to be able to let some of the rooms on a commercial basis? I'm sure he could spin it initially as being for youth sport groups attending sporting events in the capital, and then gradually widen the catchment of customers... If realisation dawned that this ruse was not going to work for him in England, it could explain why no start was made on the actual buildings.
We know there is evidence of some investigations being made into the possibility of redeveloping the Jimmy Seed, but including flats for sale rather than increasing the seating capacity, and also into the possibility of building flats on part of the carpark. So I am certain that at least initially he had the intention of incorporating commercial ventures into the ground - just that his inadequate Due Diligence did not reveal the full extent of the difficulties in achieving a financially beneficial outcome.
11 -
The three directors RD has blamed for holding up the takeover are owed a total of £2.65m.
If he for example only wants to pay them 50% then RD is delaying the takeover for the sake of £1.32m.
Even if the clubs losses are cut to say £6m a season, the takeover dragging on another 3 months means he may have to put another £1.5m into the club.
He’s likely to get £30m+ by selling the club and potentially further payments if we’re experience any success on the pitch.
Have the other directors agreed to be paid a % of their loan and therefore RD is refusing to pay any of them off in full?
2 -
If I remember, Rat did not even do the due diligence and didn't know about the loans until after he bought? What a numbskull. Now he wants those who kept the club afloat to eat his mistake?
8 -
“Blimey Skippy, Roland’s tripped and fallen down a well? Tell ya what let’s leave the drongo to drown!”soapboxsam said:
Listen mate,seth plum said:If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.
Over the last two years they have spent too much time with their hands in their pockets ball tampering and will surely take us down, under the present "who's got 2 million to join our Aussie consortium" idea of taking over a football club.
Aussie rules ok, but they seem stuck between a big rock and a hard place. We keep boomeranging between the Ex directors loans and the high Price.
Despite Duchatelet being a Drongo, he's outback and a recluse from the valley.
Strewth this Sale of Charlton is taking longer than a roo on the hop from Sydney to Perth.
G'day2 -
That would be a kick in the b@llocks from the Aussies aswell then.Scoham said:The three directors RD has blamed for holding up the takeover are owed a total of £2.65m.
If he for example only wants to pay them 50% then RD is delaying the takeover for the sake of £1.32m.
Even if the clubs losses are cut to say £6m a season, the takeover dragging on another 3 months means he may have to put another £1.5m into the club.
He’s likely to get £30m+ by selling the club and potentially further payments if we’re experience any success on the pitch.
Have the other directors agreed to be paid a % of their loan and therefore RD is refusing to pay any of them off in full?
No it's not thier debt , but after all this time and the season 2 months away the Aussies are going to mess about over £1.3 million.
Can't see it.
If Roland decides to settle the £1.3 million just before the start of the season the Aussies will have a few weeks to get in the players the manager wants.
1 -
Is there any Clubs from Championship down to National League where Directors haven't lent money to keep the club's going ?
The clause where it's only paid back if we get in the Premier is the strange part, because surely Murray with his few million and White with his 250k and the other ex Directors must of realized being successful businessmen that may never happen in their lifetime or that the club could well change hands at least once. Where is the middle man with business acumen to broker this deal.
I just don't see why this "clean title" is such a problem when other clubs are sold with all sort of complex issues on the table.
Not reaching a price or thrashing out how much up front is easier to understand than this impasse on loans.1 -
Can we get a title update?
Sale of Charlton - (nothing concrete in ever)
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Good grief1
-
Stone the crows.0
-
Change title to: Save our Charlton.0
-
.clb74 said:
I believe it’s £7m the Aussies are dealing with now.
That would be a kick in the b@llocks from the Aussies aswell then.Scoham said:The three directors RD has blamed for holding up the takeover are owed a total of £2.65m.
If he for example only wants to pay them 50% then RD is delaying the takeover for the sake of £1.32m.
Even if the clubs losses are cut to say £6m a season, the takeover dragging on another 3 months means he may have to put another £1.5m into the club.
He’s likely to get £30m+ by selling the club and potentially further payments if we’re experience any success on the pitch.
Have the other directors agreed to be paid a % of their loan and therefore RD is refusing to pay any of them off in full?
No it's not thier debt , but after all this time and the season 2 months away the Aussies are going to mess about over £1.3 million.
Can't see it.
If Roland decides to settle the £1.3 million just before the start of the season the Aussies will have a few weeks to get in the players the manager wants.
I’ve a possible solution to the current impasse, but it would involve compromise by Roland, which might be a stumbling block.
0 -
1675, Charles II lays the foundation stone as work begins on Greenwich Royal Observatory.4
-
Wait - how did you know that your post would be the first post on the next page? Spooky.happyvalley said:1675, Charles II lays the foundation stone as work begins on Greenwich Royal Observatory.2 -
There are 40 posts per page.0
-
well that's ruined the illusionStu_of_Kunming said:There are 40 posts per page.3 -
0
-
Stu_of_Kunming said:There are 40 posts per page.
30 per page0
This discussion has been closed.
