Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
But as he went on record on Talksport he is prepared to give the club away. It's the property value he wants. Or is this bollox too.Imnot Athletic said:
How about being in a higher division?JamesSeed said:Imnot Athletic said:
Price was agreed over a year ago but the Aussies didn't buy at that point. Its not clear why, but what we do know is that RD losses have increased in the year that has passed and the £7m directors loans will cost more for him to clear. I know Roland is an @rse but for me the Aussies are at fault for this impasse as well. Any agreement in writing or otherwise will have a time limit on it that must have passed.Raith_C_Chattonell said:
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.JamesSeed said:@MuttleyCAFC is correct. Had a message this morning saying that the delay is still caused by Roland asking for too much for the club.
£7m is a very high percentage increase in the price, and a kick in the teeth when it was agreed the price wouldn't go up on promotion.
Obviously Mr Dalman, or any other buyer, might be happy to pay around £40m, but the 'Aussies' think that price is too high. Simple as that I'm afraid.
Didn't Roland pay £18m?
Did the Aussies not have said agreement secured in writing? It seems incredibly naive, especially as they've already spent a fortune on legal costs. A 'gentleman's' agreement with RD, simply does not exist.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.1 -
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ?JamesSeed said:
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.Covered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ?
RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ?
Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ?
If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
2 -
Gotta love this:
RD: I’ve been huh trying to sell de colon for some time now huh. But it’s very difficult to sell in League One because you are so huh fat from the premier league
RD: it very difficult to sell in the championship because it is a loss making division and my huh increase in the price and wild claims that each season ticket holder in huh costs me £1,000 make it so much easier to sell to uh people even more u realistic than me.
0 -
Roland wants out of the football business but wants to maintain ownership of the ground and training ground so he can be landlord and price us out of the ground over time.2
-
He paid £18.6M. The spivs got the money and the debt to them was repaid.sam3110 said:So he technically didn't pay anything as he just added what he paid onto the debt?
And he is charging interest on that, in essence adding more money to the debt that he then wants someone else to pay for?
I don't get it
The £18.6M RD paid was by way of loan and accrues interest, being added to by the increasing losses.0 -
Roland believed he could clear the loans for much less than £7m. Someone may have given him that impression.Covered End said:
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ?JamesSeed said:
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.Covered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ?
RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ?
Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ?
If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.0 -
It’s bollox because the property isn’t worth what he says it is. He’s just using it to try to justify a higher than realistic price for the club.CheshireAddick said:
But as he went on record on Talksport he is prepared to give the club away. It's the property value he wants. Or is this bollox too.Imnot Athletic said:
How about being in a higher division?JamesSeed said:Imnot Athletic said:
Price was agreed over a year ago but the Aussies didn't buy at that point. Its not clear why, but what we do know is that RD losses have increased in the year that has passed and the £7m directors loans will cost more for him to clear. I know Roland is an @rse but for me the Aussies are at fault for this impasse as well. Any agreement in writing or otherwise will have a time limit on it that must have passed.Raith_C_Chattonell said:
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.JamesSeed said:@MuttleyCAFC is correct. Had a message this morning saying that the delay is still caused by Roland asking for too much for the club.
£7m is a very high percentage increase in the price, and a kick in the teeth when it was agreed the price wouldn't go up on promotion.
Obviously Mr Dalman, or any other buyer, might be happy to pay around £40m, but the 'Aussies' think that price is too high. Simple as that I'm afraid.
Didn't Roland pay £18m?
Did the Aussies not have said agreement secured in writing? It seems incredibly naive, especially as they've already spent a fortune on legal costs. A 'gentleman's' agreement with RD, simply does not exist.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.
3 -
Please don’t forget that we were a Championship club when he purchased us for £18m. Promotion was great but it only takes us back to where we started with the old scrote.Imnot Athletic said:
How about being in a higher division?JamesSeed said:Imnot Athletic said:
Price was agreed over a year ago but the Aussies didn't buy at that point. Its not clear why, but what we do know is that RD losses have increased in the year that has passed and the £7m directors loans will cost more for him to clear. I know Roland is an @rse but for me the Aussies are at fault for this impasse as well. Any agreement in writing or otherwise will have a time limit on it that must have passed.Raith_C_Chattonell said:
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.JamesSeed said:@MuttleyCAFC is correct. Had a message this morning saying that the delay is still caused by Roland asking for too much for the club.
£7m is a very high percentage increase in the price, and a kick in the teeth when it was agreed the price wouldn't go up on promotion.
Obviously Mr Dalman, or any other buyer, might be happy to pay around £40m, but the 'Aussies' think that price is too high. Simple as that I'm afraid.
Didn't Roland pay £18m?
Did the Aussies not have said agreement secured in writing? It seems incredibly naive, especially as they've already spent a fortune on legal costs. A 'gentleman's' agreement with RD, simply does not exist.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.12 -
by the helmet's logic he would be better off giving all of us £500 to £800 rather than us buy a season ticket off him.
there really is no fate that could befall him that would be too grisly, brutal or tragic
I have met a few truly loathsome unforgivable scumbags in my 40 odd years thus far, were I ever to suffer the shame and idignity to cross paths with him, he would leap straight to number 1 in that short list. That I ever breathed air in the same stadium as he, makes me shudder.
for the snowflakes reading this - it's all sincere, there's no irony, humour or hyperbole for comic effect herein.
ebola would be getting off lightly5 -
Well yes, but James Seed has been telling us that the Aussies agreed to pay £33M but now the price is £40M and yet he's now saying that's not what Gerard told him, even though he's been telling us that is what Gerard told him.Airman Brown said:
Roland believed he could clear the loans for much less than £7m. Someone may have given him that impression.Covered End said:
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ?JamesSeed said:
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.Covered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ?
RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ?
Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ?
If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
I give up.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Apologies, yes, I totally misread what you were saying.Covered End said:
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ?JamesSeed said:
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.Covered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ?
RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ?
Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ?
If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.1 -
Just heard that Roland is offering to compromise a bit. Unsure if it'll be enough to swing it though. It's possible though.25
-
Just sell the club and3
-
Blackpool72 ...... can you help Callum finish his sentence, please?Callumcafc said:Just sell the club and
2 -
1813, The London Philharmonic Orchestra is formed.1
-
The Aussies will need to prove to Charlton fans that they have the investment & experience to sustain & push the club upwards.JamesSeed said:Just heard that Roland is offering to compromise a bit. Unsure if it'll be enough to swing it though. It's possible though.
Duchatelet is very difficult to negotiate with clearly but I am a bit sceptical about the length of time & the scrabbling around. for investment.
Prefer Dalman as he appears to have the knowledge & contacts & already was part of getting Cardiff to the Premiership.5 -
Way I read it the price was £33m and Duchatelet sorted the bonds.Covered End said:
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ?JamesSeed said:
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.Covered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ?
RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ?
Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ?
If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m0 -
Hate to say I told you soBedsaddick said:Reams has a strike rate that makes Simon Church look prolific . I don’t believe a word .3 -
Possibly a bit of a mixture of both.LTKapal said:
Can you expand upon that, I.e is it wiggle room in regards to the directors loan of the ouright price, or?JamesSeed said:Just heard that Roland is offering to compromise a bit. Unsure if it'll be enough to swing it though. It's possible though.
Can I ask a q? What's the concensus on whether Roland is expecting add ons from the sale of the likes of Lookman and Gomez?0 - Sponsored links:
-
1814, The first match is played at the new Lord's cricket ground.5
-
Please let Dalman be waiting in the wings to beat the Aussie's price at the eleventh hour. I suspect Roland will be playing one off against another anyway.
4 -
Unless I’ve missed something what’s changed to make him wrong?Bedsaddick said:
Hate to say I told you soBedsaddick said:Reams has a strike rate that makes Simon Church look prolific . I don’t believe a word .3 -
The Aussies are going nowhere regardless.
Not while they've got someone on the inside doing their bidding for them.1 -
As things currently stand we're set up to get trashed most of the time like Burnley and Huddersfield away under Karel.BR7_addick said:I’m clinging to the hope that this magical 1st July date something happens. If not then I will regret buying a ST that’s for sure.0 -
That’s correct. I misread Covered End’s post earlier.Henry Irving said:
Way I read it the price was £33m and Duchatelet sorted the bonds.Covered End said:
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ?JamesSeed said:
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.Covered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ?
RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ?
Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ?
If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m0 -
When a price is agreed, you don't need any special knowledge to see that something was uncovered to show the agreed price was not taking into account something that came to light. The Aussies spent a lot of money on DD so you can see why they might not want to lose it, although it is surprising that have not given up by now.
What we have to do is wait for the news that Roland is willing to lower the price to what people will pay. If we get all activity over a new potential buyer it simply shows we have forgotten why the club has not been sold and is not likely to be sold anytime soon.1 -
This with bells onCovered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
What he paid for the club and where we are when he bought it are irrelevant. The Aussies (publicly at least) were the first in and agreed a price & completed DD then sat on their hands for nearly 2 years. This set the price and all other bids have been negotiated with this price in the mind. The fact that they have done this probably without having funding secured has been hugely damaging imo to the whole process and has contributed massively to why RD is still our owner.
RD is being blamed by the Aussies for going back on the deal by changing the structure or price but surely they went back on the deal by not completing last summer. Once it became evident they weren't going to sell RD pulled his horns in and cut the budget, Aribo's contract offer was halved and we are where we are.
RD and his camp are lying toads but I for one don't think the Aussies are much better.1 -
Roland is a c##t,basically6
-
Yes, that's what it says doesn't it ?Henry Irving said:
Way I read it the price was £33m and Duchatelet sorted the bonds.Covered End said:
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ?JamesSeed said:
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.Covered End said:
James Seed, I think it's more than possible RD agreed to deal with the ex-director loans and then the Aussies would buy for £33M with clean title.Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
However, even if this is now the hold up, it still doesn't explain the last year of inaction, when we were told on the OS that the price had been agreed by both parties and the Aussies filed papers with the EFL.
It's still only Poplcon that has tried to answer, which indicated no one else can.
Surely, you said Aussies agreed £33M ?
RD was to clear the ex-director loans, so effectively he gets £26M ?
Aussies own the club with clean title for £33M ?
If you've not been saying this, then I'm astounded.
Duchatelet then tried to pass the bonds on to the Indian/Yank/Oz group so making it £40m
There must be something in the air today :-)0
This discussion has been closed.
