Someone posted in the same thread "The Aussies have pulled out lack of funding".
Not according to Gerard just now. By the sounds of all the rumours you’d think Dalman must be ahead though. Have no other info at the moment.
It’s a bit sad that someone would immediately lol a post that just passes on a simple piece of info. There are plenty of fish pun tweets for you to lol if that’s your thing 😉
For the Australian consortium sake I hope Dalman does indeed take us over in the next week or so, it will take the pressure off them and they can carry on raising funds in the hope we become available in a decade or so.
If Roland only gives 2% of his time to SOC and it seems "The Aussies" only give 2% of their time. Dalman is "Totally committed to Cardiff" so Mehmet is giving 2% of his time to SOC.
No wonder the sale of Charlton is taking so Fucxing long.
Someone posted in the same thread "The Aussies have pulled out lack of funding".
Not according to Gerard just now. By the sounds of all the rumours you’d think Dalman must be ahead though. Have no other info at the moment.
Of course the Aussies don't have the funding, otherwise they would have bought the Club two years ago.
Probably, but we won’t actually know until either they buy the club, or pull out. The rest is speculation and rumour.
No disrespect meant to you James as you are only passing on what you are told but from the snippets of info on here over the years it sounds like their model would be very risky ie a consortium of random money who will either make every decision by committee or just be in it to make a return....which is not easily achievable.
Concern would be that when the penny dropped some of the financers would lose interest and pull their cash/ block any further investment like the conclusion of the Kevin Cash era.
Muir in his on right has the wealth to buy and fund outright but as a sensible businessman will want to spread that risk amongst others....from my outside observation it appears a consortium of random investors (?) rather than a group of wealthy people with a keen shared football vision for our club that may have initially existed at the outset.
Could be completely wrong and am only going on what I've learned on here but the model I understand from that gives me the concerns about it's viability and longevity and the outcome if one of many recruited investors lose interest/ realise it isn't the return they were sold (happened to Cash who then dropped us like a hot potato ).
Someone posted in the same thread "The Aussies have pulled out lack of funding".
Not according to Gerard just now. By the sounds of all the rumours you’d think Dalman must be ahead though. Have no other info at the moment.
Of course the Aussies don't have the funding, otherwise they would have bought the Club two years ago.
Be honest, you don’t have any evidence to make this claim, do you?
I would suggest that they have their price and terms for purchase and will not shift from it.
I would further suggest that the reason we have not got new owners lies firmly with Roland, and not with the Aussies, or any of the professional businessmen, that have tried.
Someone posted in the same thread "The Aussies have pulled out lack of funding".
Not according to Gerard just now. By the sounds of all the rumours you’d think Dalman must be ahead though. Have no other info at the moment.
Of course the Aussies don't have the funding, otherwise they would have bought the Club two years ago.
Be honest, you don’t have any evidence to make this claim, do you?
I would suggest that they have their price and terms for purchase and will not shift from it.
I would further suggest that the reason we have not got new owners lies firmly with Roland, and not with the Aussies, or any of the professional businessmen, that have tried.
That's the point though...what sensible business people would buy a football club these days....none in terms of a pure business decision.
Most clubs are loss making season to season
Ways to make money owning clubs in modern football appear to be limited to:
1) buy one of the few profit generating (I imagine) super clubs like Barcelona, Madrid etc
2) Invest own money or leverage the purchase and future investment against your own private company charging interest gambling at seeing a return by getting to the top flight and cashing in by someone willing to gamble on taking it to the next level ie champion's league ...very low odds and an increasingly competitive league extend these odds
3) asset stripping/ land sale - unlikely and commercial property investment would yield a greater return without anywhere near the same amount of headaches as doing it at a living breathing football clubs.
So if football clubs aren't bought on business decisions that leaves you with owners whose rationale for buying and funding is:
1) passion for that particular club...ie local boy done well...rare as hens teeth in England now the level of wealth required
2) ego trippers - the Tan types
3) genuine decent types like Leicester's late owner who will invest in the concept and the town and its people....even rarer than point 1
4) lunatics who see a new rule like FFP to be exploited and spend years stubbornly trying to instil a failed experiment and protracted sale (mentioning no names)
5) consortia of random investors sold on a return that will soon become apparent doesn't exist a la Kevin Cash
6) Man city types who have so much perpetual wealth they can take tens of millions of losses for seasons on end until an equilibrium is reached and the balance tilts so they can then buy the trophies in perpetuity- rare again
Any sensible business person would not buy a club as a sensible investment alone.
And whether their motivations and objectives are aligned with the supporters and what is good for the long and short term future of that club appears to be incidental on an increasing basis across the English game.
Someone posted in the same thread "The Aussies have pulled out lack of funding".
Not according to Gerard just now. By the sounds of all the rumours you’d think Dalman must be ahead though. Have no other info at the moment.
Of course the Aussies don't have the funding, otherwise they would have bought the Club two years ago.
Be honest, you don’t have any evidence to make this claim, do you?
I would suggest that they have their price and terms for purchase and will not shift from it.
I would further suggest that the reason we have not got new owners lies firmly with Roland, and not with the Aussies, or any of the professional businessmen, that have tried.
That's the point though...what sensible business people would buy a football club these days....none in terms of a pure business decision.
Most clubs are loss making season to season
Ways to make money owning clubs in modern football appear to be limited to:
1) buy one of the few profit generating (I imagine) super clubs like Barcelona, Madrid etc
2) Invest own money or leverage the purchase and future investment against your own private company charging interest gambling at seeing a return by getting to the top flight and cashing in by someone willing to gamble on taking it to the next level ie champion's league ...very low odds and an increasingly competitive league extend these odds
3) asset stripping/ land sale - unlikely and commercial property investment would yield a greater return without anywhere near the same amount of headaches as doing it at a living breathing football clubs.
So if football clubs aren't bought on business decisions that leaves you with owners whose rationale for buying and funding is:
1) passion for that particular club...ie local boy done well...rare as hens teeth in England now the level of wealth required
2) ego trippers - the Tan types
3) genuine decent types like Leicester's late owner who will invest in the concept and the town and its people....even rarer than point 1
4) lunatics who see a new rule like FFP to be exploited and spend years stubbornly trying to instil a failed experiment and protracted sale (mentioning no names)
5) consortia of random investors sold on a return that will soon become apparent doesn't exist a la Kevin Cash
6) Man city types who have so much perpetual wealth they can take tens of millions of losses for seasons on end until an equilibrium is reached and the balance tilts so they can then buy the trophies in perpetuity- rare again
Any sensible business person would not buy a club as a sensible investment alone.
And whether their motivations and objectives are aligned with the supporters and what is good for the long and short term future of that club appears to be incidental on an increasing basis across the English game.
All valid and variable reasons, yet for some it just boils down to price & running costs...If that's the case then maybe that's why we haven't had the right suitors yet..?
So hang on. Everytime there is a mention of some kind of takeover action not involving the Aussies @JamesSeed is on the phone to Gerard Murphy who quickly responds with a 'we're still in'. And this is happening every other day I would have told him to bugger off long a go and stop being a nuisance and I'm pretty sure Murphy would to.
If they have adequate funds they are willing to invest, why are they still asking for investors after 2 years? Who advertises for investors if they are not needed? I saw a recent request but can't recall where.
If they have adequate funds they are willing to invest, why are they still asking for investors after 2 years? Who advertises for investors if they are not needed? I saw a recent request but can't recall where.
Don't they still have an active website touting for investors?
Apparently they were also looking for investors not long after filing initial paperwork with the EFL, suggesting financing wasn't fully in place then, either.
If they have adequate funds they are willing to invest, why are they still asking for investors after 2 years? Who advertises for investors if they are not needed? I saw a recent request but can't recall where.
Don't they still have an active website touting for investors?
Apparently they were also looking for investors not long after filing initial paperwork with the EFL, suggesting financing wasn't fully in place then, either.
Comments
All these marine jokes have tortoise no lesson - I just don't see their porpoise. There's no ray of hope all the while Roland wants too many squid.
I know he sabotaged Peter Varney's investment approach 3/4 years ago.
It all kind of adds up to be honest.
His behaviour has been very very odd throughout the last 5+ years.
The deflection of blame and responsibility - RM is good at it.
By the sounds of all the rumours you’d think Dalman must be ahead though.
Have no other info at the moment.
No wonder the sale of Charlton is taking so Fucxing long.
No disrespect meant to you James as you are only passing on what you are told but from the snippets of info on here over the years it sounds like their model would be very risky ie a consortium of random money who will either make every decision by committee or just be in it to make a return....which is not easily achievable.
Concern would be that when the penny dropped some of the financers would lose interest and pull their cash/ block any further investment like the conclusion of the Kevin Cash era.
Muir in his on right has the wealth to buy and fund outright but as a sensible businessman will want to spread that risk amongst others....from my outside observation it appears a consortium of random investors (?) rather than a group of wealthy people with a keen shared football vision for our club that may have initially existed at the outset.
Could be completely wrong and am only going on what I've learned on here but the model I understand from that gives me the concerns about it's viability and longevity and the outcome if one of many recruited investors lose interest/ realise it isn't the return they were sold (happened to Cash who then dropped us like a hot potato ).
I would suggest that they have their price and terms for purchase and will not shift from it.
I would further suggest that the reason we have not got new owners lies firmly with Roland, and not with the Aussies, or any of the professional businessmen, that have tried.
Most clubs are loss making season to season
Ways to make money owning clubs in modern football appear to be limited to:
1) buy one of the few profit generating (I imagine) super clubs like Barcelona, Madrid etc
2) Invest own money or leverage the purchase and future investment against your own private company charging interest gambling at seeing a return by getting to the top flight and cashing in by someone willing to gamble on taking it to the next level ie champion's league ...very low odds and an increasingly competitive league extend these odds
3) asset stripping/ land sale - unlikely and commercial property investment would yield a greater return without anywhere near the same amount of headaches as doing it at a living breathing football clubs.
So if football clubs aren't bought on business decisions that leaves you with owners whose rationale for buying and funding is:
1) passion for that particular club...ie local boy done well...rare as hens teeth in England now the level of wealth required
2) ego trippers - the Tan types
3) genuine decent types like Leicester's late owner who will invest in the concept and the town and its people....even rarer than point 1
4) lunatics who see a new rule like FFP to be exploited and spend years stubbornly trying to instil a failed experiment and protracted sale (mentioning no names)
5) consortia of random investors sold on a return that will soon become apparent doesn't exist a la Kevin Cash
6) Man city types who have so much perpetual wealth they can take tens of millions of losses for seasons on end until an equilibrium is reached and the balance tilts so they can then buy the trophies in perpetuity- rare again
Any sensible business person would not buy a club as a sensible investment alone.
And whether their motivations and objectives are aligned with the supporters and what is good for the long and short term future of that club appears to be incidental on an increasing basis across the English game.
but I also reckon they are fking skint
Muir alone has the money to buy and run the club.
We don't even know who the other Indian and US partners are so can have no clue as to how rich or "skint" they are.
I don't know how much money they have collectively so how I'm asking a genuine question. How do we know they don't have the money?
Another point.
Duchatelet is the big problem, is and always has been.
But the other significant issue for me is too many intermediaries, brokers and representatives on all sides muddying the waters.
Incompetent Meire and Incompetent De Turck for RD.
Murray claiming to know what the other ex-directors wi take when he doesn't speak for them.
The Aussies and the international group having paid brokers leading on deals.
It means buyer never talks to seller direct. Everyone has their angle, their interests, their cut to think about.
I would have told him to bugger off long a go and stop being a nuisance and I'm pretty sure Murphy would to.
It's nonsense.
Who advertises for investors if they are not needed?
I saw a recent request but can't recall where.
If they had the money and was finically backed, they would own us by now but they don’t, and won’t.
Apparently they were also looking for investors not long after filing initial paperwork with the EFL, suggesting financing wasn't fully in place then, either.
JS doesn't speak to Muir direct and has never claimed to.
He speaks to Murphy, who isn't the money but an intermediary.