I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
1801 - Battle of Copenhagen. The action in which Lord Nelson ignores the signal to withdraw by holding the telescope to his blind eye. “I really did not see the signal!”
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
James, you said the original price was £33m with RD to sort loans so people are deducting £7M to get £26M net.
If we have to suffer another season under RD, thank God we’ve got Lee Bowyer, JJ and Gallen all under contract. I think Lee pulled off a miracle last season, and although I don’t doubt it will be ten times harder this season, I have faith he’ll do what needs to be done.
I only know what I read on here re: the Aussies, but IF, their financial situation is so precarious, and I mean IF, then as crazy as this may sound, I think I’d rather stick it out with RD for the time being. Let me explain my warped thinking, because I don’t say this lightly.
RD has, for all his faults, never stopped paying the bills or to my knowledge, paid anyone late. He’s acted like a total scumbag on numerous occasions and done many wrongs, but the club haven’t flirted with administration as far as I know. I understand he wouldn’t let that happen anyway, because he stands to lose everything should he let that happen.
I also think we’ve reached the point where the set up that exists is somehow the most stable it’s ever going to be, comparatively speaking, under his ownership. We have, by the grace of God, a divine intervention in Bowyer and what he has achieved and what I think he’s capable of, given the circumstances he operates in.
we also know, categorically RD does want to sell. Granted, his original idea of what the club is worth, versus what he wanted was fantasy, but I think as time goes by, reality is kicking in, and he’s aware of the club’s true value.
Giving Lee the contract he wanted was another sign. 12/18 months ago, he would’ve held firm on his insane statement and Karel Frayere would’ve probably been taking training on Friday. He knows that in order to sell the club, he can’t run it like he has been given the success on the pitch over the last year.
I know there’s probably a hundred things and more I don’t know about the Aussie bid, including how difficult RD is to deal with, ex Directors’ loans etc, but, given the Aussies’ interest is over a year old now, regardless of what I pick up on here, I just think that the funds aren’t there to sustain running the club. I may be wrong. If that’s the case given the current circumstances of RD’s reign and the situation we find ourselves in, I think I’d rather opt for this, than risk one/two seasons of Aussie ownership and then possible administration. This is all hypothetical at the moment and I don’t want people to think I’m suddenly an apologist for RD, or that I have forgotten all the wrongs he has done to us and the club. I just mean that the position we find ourselves in now, at this point in time under his ownership, is to an extent, steady(ish).
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
That would be me, and that’s what I interpreted “It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans.“
so the total cost paid by the Aussies was £33m. Roland would pay out £7m meaning his own return would be £26m. Am i still interpreting that wrong?
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
That would be me, and that’s what I interpreted “It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans.“
so the total cost paid by the Aussies was £33m. Roland would pay out £7m meaning his own return would be £26m. Am i still interpreting that wrong?
Yes and no.
Duchatelet thought he take £33m off the Aussies and pay a fraction of the £7m (25%???) Because Duchatelet believed that ALL the ex-directors would make a deal.
Only it turns out White hand, Chapel and Summers won't take less than 100% and White hasn't agreed either despite Duchatelet saying he had.
My guess is that Duchatelet, because he didn't bother to confirm it, thought the ex-directors liability was going to be £1.75m (25% of £7m) but when he found out it wasn't dumped it on the Aussies to sort/pay.
Hence the £33m becoming £40m
This all comes down again to the incompetence of De Turck and Duchatelet.
They believed the ex-directors would take a small % but didn't check with them or get it in writing.
Too many intermediaries, too many assumptions, too many incompetent Belgians.
If we have to suffer another season under RD, thank God we’ve got Lee Bowyer, JJ and Gallen all under contract. I think Lee pulled off a miracle last season, and although I don’t doubt it will be ten times harder this season, I have faith he’ll do what needs to be done.
I only know what I read on here re: the Aussies, but IF, their financial situation is so precarious, and I mean IF, then as crazy as this may sound, I think I’d rather stick it out with RD for the time being. Let me explain my warped thinking, because I don’t say this lightly.
RD has, for all his faults, never stopped paying the bills or to my knowledge, paid anyone late. He’s acted like a total scumbag on numerous occasions and done many wrongs, but the club haven’t flirted with administration as far as I know. I understand he wouldn’t let that happen anyway, because he stands to lose everything should he let that happen.
I also think we’ve reached the point where the set up that exists is somehow the most stable it’s ever going to be, comparatively speaking, under his ownership. We have, by the grace of God, a divine intervention in Bowyer and what he has achieved and what I think he’s capable of, given the circumstances he operates in.
we also know, categorically RD does want to sell. Granted, his original idea of what the club is worth, versus what he wanted was fantasy, but I think as time goes by, reality is kicking in, and he’s aware of the club’s true value.
Giving Lee the contract he wanted was another sign. 12/18 months ago, he would’ve held firm on his insane statement and Karel Frayere would’ve probably been taking training on Friday. He knows that in order to sell the club, he can’t run it like he has been given the success on the pitch over the last year.
I know there’s probably a hundred things and more I don’t know about the Aussie bid, including how difficult RD is to deal with, ex Directors’ loans etc, but, given the Aussies’ interest is over a year old now, regardless of what I pick up on here, I just think that the funds aren’t there to sustain running the club. I may be wrong. If that’s the case given the current circumstances of RD’s reign and the situation we find ourselves in, I think I’d rather opt for this, than risk one/two seasons of Aussie ownership and then possible administration. This is all hypothetical at the moment and I don’t want people to think I’m suddenly an apologist for RD, or that I have forgotten all the wrongs he has done to us and the club. I just mean that the position we find ourselves in now, at this point in time under his ownership, is to an extent, steady(ish).
Putting the old proverbial tin hat on
No need for the tin hat, bobbles - I believe the best chance we have now is to stick with RD. Under his stewardship we have secured a glorious resurgence and are in The Championship with a Charlton legend steering us in the right path in front of 15,000 Valley faithful.The years in the pub league that is League One are behind us.
Just remember where we were when he took over. Ah - in The Championship being lead by a Charlton legend in front of 20,000 Valley faithful.
So what is the amount Dalman is believed to have agreed?
I’m supremely confident in saying it will be in the range of tuppence halfpenny and £77m.
I could be wrong though.
Tuppance halfpenny. You've been away too long @bobmunro
Tuppance Hap'ny
Yes, my vocabulary has changed somewhat in the years away from south London - but it does miraculously return when I’m about half way through the Blackwall Tunnel.
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
That would be me, and that’s what I interpreted “It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans.“
so the total cost paid by the Aussies was £33m. Roland would pay out £7m meaning his own return would be £26m. Am i still interpreting that wrong?
Yes and no.
Duchatelet thought he take £33m off the Aussies and pay a fraction of the £7m (25%???) Because Duchatelet believed that ALL the ex-directors would make a deal.
Only it turns out White hand, Chapel and Summers won't take less than 100% and White hasn't agreed either despite Duchatelet saying he had.
My guess is that Duchatelet, because he didn't bother to confirm it, thought the ex-directors liability was going to be £1.75m (25% of £7m) but when he found out it wasn't dumped it on the Aussies to sort/pay.
Hence the £33m becoming £40m
This all comes down again to the incompetence of De Turck and Duchatelet.
They believed the ex-directors would take a small % but didn't check with them or get it in writing.
Too many intermediaries, too many assumptions, too many incompetent Belgians.
Yes, but why did they believe this? Can we think of anyone who knows all the ex-directors and may have given them a steer? Can we think of anyone who may have told them that the ex-directors’ loans expired after seven years?
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
That would be me, and that’s what I interpreted “It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans.“
so the total cost paid by the Aussies was £33m. Roland would pay out £7m meaning his own return would be £26m. Am i still interpreting that wrong?
Yes and no.
Duchatelet thought he take £33m off the Aussies and pay a fraction of the £7m (25%???) Because Duchatelet believed that ALL the ex-directors would make a deal.
Only it turns out White hand, Chapel and Summers won't take less than 100% and White hasn't agreed either despite Duchatelet saying he had.
My guess is that Duchatelet, because he didn't bother to confirm it, thought the ex-directors liability was going to be £1.75m (25% of £7m) but when he found out it wasn't dumped it on the Aussies to sort/pay.
Hence the £33m becoming £40m
This all comes down again to the incompetence of De Turck and Duchatelet.
They believed the ex-directors would take a small % but didn't check with them or get it in writing.
Too many intermediaries, too many assumptions, too many incompetent Belgians.
Ok, that makes more sense. But still not sure that stacks up for me. My understanding was there was a play by Roland to offer 25% of the o/s debt in June LAST YEAR, which was rejected by the debt holders and never progressed. Are you saying that 12 months on you understand there was a repeated play at the same level, and just an assumption that it would be accepted?
It’s entirely possible different prices were agreed/quoted to different parties, all were covered by an NDA and would explain club’s reluctance to say the asking price/ day whey they were reluctant.
I guess if you thought you could negotiate more from a particular buyer you might do that particularly if you thought you might get away with it. On the other hand you might then drag out the buying process for several years and lose more money - doh!
Despite complaining about all the nonsense on this thread, as soon as there's a proper discussion with numbers and facts I can't be bothered to read it. Does anyone else suffer from this?
Despite complaining about all the nonsense on this thread, as soon as there's a proper discussion with numbers and facts I can't be bothered to read it. Does anyone else suffer from this?
Despite complaining about all the nonsense on this thread, as soon as there's a proper discussion with numbers and facts I can't be bothered to read it. Does anyone else suffer from this?
Probably because ‘known facts’ are very much absent
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
That would be me, and that’s what I interpreted “It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans.“
so the total cost paid by the Aussies was £33m. Roland would pay out £7m meaning his own return would be £26m. Am i still interpreting that wrong?
Yes and no.
Duchatelet thought he take £33m off the Aussies and pay a fraction of the £7m (25%???) Because Duchatelet believed that ALL the ex-directors would make a deal.
Only it turns out White hand, Chapel and Summers won't take less than 100% and White hasn't agreed either despite Duchatelet saying he had.
My guess is that Duchatelet, because he didn't bother to confirm it, thought the ex-directors liability was going to be £1.75m (25% of £7m) but when he found out it wasn't dumped it on the Aussies to sort/pay.
Hence the £33m becoming £40m
This all comes down again to the incompetence of De Turck and Duchatelet.
They believed the ex-directors would take a small % but didn't check with them or get it in writing.
Too many intermediaries, too many assumptions, too many incompetent Belgians.
Ok, that makes more sense. But still not sure that stacks up for me. My understanding was there was a play by Roland to offer 25% of the o/s debt in June LAST YEAR, which was rejected by the debt holders and never progressed. Are you saying that 12 months on you understand there was a repeated play at the same level, and just an assumption that it would be accepted?
My assumption. The 25% was a guess, as I said, based on the previous offer.
My again guess is that Duchatelet thought it would all be OK because Murray and/or incompetent De Turck told him it would be OK.
Maybe Murray and Hatter were willing to take a lower fee so Duchatelet just assumed the others would do the same. Again I don't know.
Despite complaining about all the nonsense on this thread, as soon as there's a proper discussion with numbers and facts I can't be bothered to read it. Does anyone else suffer from this?
Yep despite hating the fish puns, I tend to skate across the more factual posts .
I believe the factual (alleged) posts have their plaice.
I posted a few weeks ago that the price was £33m but went up by £7m when we won promotion, despite a promise not to raise it on promotion. I’m not sure if what price Dalman has agreed to.
I an led to believe the price is now 30-33 mil so not sure where the extra 7 come from
the 7 mil is the charges which I don’t see why Roland should settle to be honest I don’t think anyone should
if we ever get back to prem those fine gentleman who saved our club from going into admin deserve every penny back
It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans. As you know he failed massively to do that, and then told the Aussies to do it. Hence the £7m increase. I’m not sure why they want clean title. Never asked. Agree the directors should otherwise get their money back once in Prem.
so, from your knowledge, at some stage in this process there was an agreed price of £26m to buy the club and it’s assets from Roland, plus another £7m needed to secure complete clear title by settling the directors loans?
No offence intended but I struggle to accept that was correct JS if that is what you’ve been told. It is the complete opposite of suggestions RD is being greedy, difficult, and if that was true then why the hell did they not proceed and complete before the ambiguity of the play off final.
There is is no way it has taken RD over two years to sell the club if he is looking for a personal return of just £26m imo
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
Where do you get £26m from? I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
That would be me, and that’s what I interpreted “It was £33m, and RD was supposed to have given clean title, ie settled the directors’ loans.“
so the total cost paid by the Aussies was £33m. Roland would pay out £7m meaning his own return would be £26m. Am i still interpreting that wrong?
Yes and no.
Duchatelet thought he take £33m off the Aussies and pay a fraction of the £7m (25%???) Because Duchatelet believed that ALL the ex-directors would make a deal.
Only it turns out White hand, Chapel and Summers won't take less than 100% and White hasn't agreed either despite Duchatelet saying he had.
My guess is that Duchatelet, because he didn't bother to confirm it, thought the ex-directors liability was going to be £1.75m (25% of £7m) but when he found out it wasn't dumped it on the Aussies to sort/pay.
Hence the £33m becoming £40m
This all comes down again to the incompetence of De Turck and Duchatelet.
They believed the ex-directors would take a small % but didn't check with them or get it in writing.
Too many intermediaries, too many assumptions, too many incompetent Belgians.
Yes, but why did they believe this? Can we think of anyone who knows all the ex-directors and may have given them a steer? Can we think of anyone who may have told them that the ex-directors’ loans expired after seven years?
Even if somebody in a position of influence misled them and that's quite a a big IF ;-) any competent literate business man would look up the actual text of the publicly available documents on the free to access companies house website wouldn't they? Ascribing certain agendas to unpopular or discredited parties conveniently fits certain personal narratives but they're not really very credible are they? Any remaining argument is only about price regardless of how it is dressed up or spun The appetite for recrimination and scandal is far greater than any interest in dry dreary costings Especially among the egos that are as vast as they are brittle WIOTOS it will have happened 2 days before
Comments
I was personally in a room where 50 mil was touted and involved in a follow up call with the person who was asked to instigate the initial approach where proof of 45-50 mil was the going price to start the ball rolling
so i have no idea where jimmy has got 26 mil from my personal belief was always we would be sold for 30-35 mil plus the directors loans being settled by the new incumbents
i believe this is still the case
And that's just agreed prices.
Initial quotes have said to have reached £72m (Airman Brown). So NLA's £50/£45m and JS's £33m can all be correct.
We know Duchatelet is irrational and inconsistent.
We know Duchatelet has offered the club for sale for £1 with a separate cost on the Valley and Sparrows Lane based on house prices in Kensington.
With Duchatelet, any price, any structure has been possible at one time or another.
Duchatelet is not consistent, rational or competent.
Duchatelet is the problem.
And, for those Patrick O'Brian fans out there, the brig HMS Speedy captures a 32-gun Spanish frigate El Gamo...
Oh, and war breaks out between the United States of America and Tripoli - one of the last gasps of the Barbary Corsair state(let)s.
I said £33m plus loans = £40m. Been saying the same since after playoff final. Quite a few times.
I only know what I read on here re: the Aussies, but IF, their financial situation is so precarious, and I mean IF, then as crazy as this may sound, I think I’d rather stick it out with RD for the time being. Let me explain my warped thinking, because I don’t say this lightly.
RD has, for all his faults, never stopped paying the bills or to my knowledge, paid anyone late. He’s acted like a total scumbag on numerous occasions and done many wrongs, but the club haven’t flirted with administration as far as I know. I understand he wouldn’t let that happen anyway, because he stands to lose everything should he let that happen.
I also think we’ve reached the point where the set up that exists is somehow the most stable it’s ever going to be, comparatively speaking, under his ownership. We have, by the grace of God, a divine intervention in Bowyer and what he has achieved and what I think he’s capable of, given the circumstances he operates in.
we also know, categorically RD does want to sell. Granted, his original idea of what the club is worth, versus what he wanted was fantasy, but I think as time goes by, reality is kicking in, and he’s aware of the club’s true value.
Giving Lee the contract he wanted was another sign. 12/18 months ago, he would’ve held firm on his insane statement and Karel Frayere would’ve probably been taking training on Friday. He knows that in order to sell the club, he can’t run it like he has been given the success on the pitch over the last year.
I know there’s probably a hundred things and more I don’t know about the Aussie bid, including how difficult RD is to deal with, ex Directors’ loans etc, but, given the Aussies’ interest is over a year old now, regardless of what I pick up on here, I just think that the funds aren’t there to sustain running the club. I may be wrong. If that’s the case given the current circumstances of RD’s reign and the situation we find ourselves in, I think I’d rather opt for this, than risk one/two seasons of Aussie ownership and then possible administration. This is all hypothetical at the moment and I don’t want people to think I’m suddenly an apologist for RD, or that I have forgotten all the wrongs he has done to us and the club. I just mean that the position we find ourselves in now, at this point in time under his ownership, is to an extent, steady(ish).
Putting the old proverbial tin hat on
so the total cost paid by the Aussies was £33m. Roland would pay out £7m meaning his own return would be £26m. Am i still interpreting that wrong?
Duchatelet thought he take £33m off the Aussies and pay a fraction of the £7m (25%???) Because Duchatelet believed that ALL the ex-directors would make a deal.
Only it turns out White hand, Chapel and Summers won't take less than 100% and White hasn't agreed either despite Duchatelet saying he had.
My guess is that Duchatelet, because he didn't bother to confirm it, thought the ex-directors liability was going to be £1.75m (25% of £7m) but when he found out it wasn't dumped it on the Aussies to sort/pay.
Hence the £33m becoming £40m
This all comes down again to the incompetence of De Turck and Duchatelet.
They believed the ex-directors would take a small % but didn't check with them or get it in writing.
Too many intermediaries, too many assumptions, too many incompetent Belgians.
Just remember where we were when he took over. Ah - in The Championship being lead by a Charlton legend in front of 20,000 Valley faithful.
F*ck off two shits!
I could be wrong though.
Tuppance Hap'ny
I guess if you thought you could negotiate more from a particular buyer you might do that particularly if you thought you might get away with it. On the other hand you might then drag out the buying process for several years and lose more money - doh!
My again guess is that Duchatelet thought it would all be OK because Murray and/or incompetent De Turck told him it would be OK.
Maybe Murray and Hatter were willing to take a lower fee so Duchatelet just assumed the others would do the same. Again I don't know.
Ascribing certain agendas to unpopular or discredited parties conveniently fits certain personal narratives but they're not really very credible are they?
Any remaining argument is only about price regardless of how it is dressed up or spun
The appetite for recrimination and scandal is far greater than any interest in dry dreary costings
Especially among the egos that are as vast as they are brittle
WIOTOS it will have happened 2 days before