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
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?
Yes I can and I think we are both thinking of the same person.
Again, my point is too many brokers, too many intermediaries, too many vested interests, too many Belgian incompetents..
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.
Ah sorry, got ya. As far as the Aussies were concerned it was £33m, as that was what they’d be paying.
RD had always said he’d take care of the loans, probably believing the directors would ‘settle’. I suspect he may have reached agreement with RM, the principal lender, only to go batty when others wouldn’t follow suit.
So I can see where the £26m comes from, but as far as the Aussies were concerned, I believe their deal was £33m with clean title. So when Roland decided not to settle the loans that sum became £40m.
Not sure where any of this gets us though. Club still isn’t sold. But I guess it may be soon?
This could be relevent to why the Sale of Charlton has taken so long But I can't reveal my source because phone hacking was involved:
RD. Everyone wants a magical solution to the Sale of Charlton but yet they refuse to believe in magic, huh.
LDT. This Fans forum is becoming impossible for me.
RD. Only if you believe it is. Some times i believe in six impossible things before breakfast and then tell my only friend Jim White. I mean screw the box I think outside the Straight Jacket, huh.
LDT. You are entirely bonkers but most of the top people are.
RD. You used to be much More... Muchier, you've lost your muchness, huh.
LDT. Will the Sale of Charlton ever takes place ?
RD. Of course not, the Sale of Charlton thread will go on to infinity and beyond huh, huh huh.
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.
Well it was a very accurate guess. Which is why Duchatalet was told to do one.
More recent offers have been made that are still unacceptable, but I believe that at least two ex directors are happy to take a reduced amount for early settlement as long as they're satisfied over the long term future of the Club.
The one I've spoken to however has concerns as to why is it so essential for the debenture needs to be settled now.
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.
Well it was a very accurate guess. Which is why Duchatalet was told to do one.
More recent offers have been made that are still unacceptable, but I believe that at least two ex directors are happy to take a reduced amount for early settlement as long as they're satisfied over the long term future of the Club.
The one I've spoken to however has concerns as to why is it so essential for the debenture needs to be settled now.
Seems like the ED you spoke to must be an intelligent person, needing clean title should be a huge red flag to all of us.
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
Beware.... @cabbles is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome
Comments
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
Again, my point is too many brokers, too many intermediaries, too many vested interests, too many Belgian incompetents..
RD had always said he’d take care of the loans, probably believing the directors would ‘settle’. I suspect he may have reached agreement with RM, the principal lender, only to go batty when others wouldn’t follow suit.
So I can see where the £26m comes from, but as far as the Aussies were concerned, I believe their deal was £33m with clean title. So when Roland decided not to settle the loans that sum became £40m.
Not sure where any of this gets us though. Club still isn’t sold. But I guess it may be soon?
RD. Everyone wants a magical solution to the Sale of Charlton but yet they refuse to believe in magic, huh.
LDT. This Fans forum is becoming impossible for me.
RD. Only if you believe it is.
Some times i believe in six impossible things before breakfast and then tell my only friend Jim White. I mean screw the box I think outside the Straight Jacket, huh.
LDT. You are entirely bonkers but most of the top people are.
RD. You used to be much More... Muchier, you've lost your muchness, huh.
LDT. Will the Sale of Charlton ever takes place ?
RD. Of course not, the Sale of Charlton thread will go on to infinity and beyond huh, huh huh.
My head says hes just going to spout exactly the same pointless things hes said in all the others, that's if he even bothers to turn up.
More recent offers have been made that are still unacceptable, but I believe that at least two ex directors are happy to take a reduced amount for early settlement as long as they're satisfied over the long term future of the Club.
The one I've spoken to however has concerns as to why is it so essential for the debenture needs to be settled now.
I hope that they remember to change the date at the top.
How ever made it in business wonders never cease.
Could be a reason for the delay.