@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?
surely a contract was drawn up setting out the terms and conditions of sale, price agreed etc etc. If not, idiots but if it was then can't they sue for breach of contract.
@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?
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.
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.
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.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
How about being in a higher division?
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.
@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?
I think it was £14m and I think there was a relegation discount
@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?
surely a contract was drawn up setting out the terms and conditions of sale, price agreed etc etc. If not, idiots but if it was then can't they sue for breach of contract.
If that was the case there'd be a breach of contract. At some point verbal offers are made, and you ride into town ready to sign contracts, only to find out the terms have changed.
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
@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?
I think it was £14m and I think there was a relegation discount
If you look at the Baton accounts he left £18.6m of recently (2011-13) accumulated debt on the books at the time of purchase, on which he has subsequently charged interest. In effect he took over the spivs’ borrowing so that his purchase outlay could sit on the books and accrue interest. My guess is that he paid £1 for the assets.
It’s likely - and in fact Joyes said at the FF, I believe - that £18.6m is what he paid out, including the £4m that was contingent on the club staying up in 2014 and, apparently, an agent fee. £18m, with £4m contingent, is what I was told at the time.
The other possibility I guess is that he bought the debt at less than its full value, but I’m not sure if that would stack up.
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Why didn't they sign an agreement on the price? Naive.
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Why didn't they sign an agreement on the price? Naive.
Yeah mate. What about if the guy changed the price before they could sign it? But no, it couldn't possibly be Roland's fault could it! lol
If it was possible, it would probably have been done. Ultimately, the club is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Now Roland owns it and doesn't have to sell, but he shouldn't be going on about how desperate he is to sell when we can clearly see he is not based on his actions. Who puts the price up if they want to sell? I think we have to target him as we know he will respond to that, we have to hope the response is good from our perspective rather than bad, but we have to go for it and try to get rid of this lunatic.
@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?
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.
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.
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.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
How about being in a higher division?
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.
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.
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? 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.
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.
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.
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
He paid £18.6M. The spivs got the money and the debt to them was repaid. The £18.6M RD paid was by way of loan and accrues interest, being added to by the increasing losses.
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? 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.
Roland believed he could clear the loans for much less than £7m. Someone may have given him that impression.
@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?
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.
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.
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.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
How about being in a higher division?
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.
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.
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.
@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?
I cannot understand how anyone would contemplate doing business with a proven liar after an agreement like that had been reneged on.
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.
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.
Roland's losses don't mean the club is worth more fgs.
How about being in a higher division?
They do explain why he may want more out of the deal as their delay has cost him more money.
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.
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 lightly
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? 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.
Roland believed he could clear the loans for much less than £7m. Someone may have given him that impression.
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.
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.
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.
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.
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.
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.
That's not what Gerard told me, mate.
Sorry, but I'm almost certain that's what you have been telling us for a while ? 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.
Apologies, yes, I totally misread what you were saying.
Comments
Not if it wasn't signed.
How much do you want for the club?
33m.
Ok great, let's sign the paperwork and get the deal done for 33m.
Sorry I now want 40m.
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.
It’s likely - and in fact Joyes said at the FF, I believe - that £18.6m is what he paid out, including the £4m that was contingent on the club staying up in 2014 and, apparently, an agent fee. £18m, with £4m contingent, is what I was told at the time.
The other possibility I guess is that he bought the debt at less than its full value, but I’m not sure if that would stack up.
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
Cheap Flights Song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPyl2tOaKxM
PS tom from Eltham thats a joke
But no, it couldn't possibly be Roland's fault could it! lol
LDV, @JamesSeed and anyone we don't like the look of from Belgium, Australia or Cardiff already looking like strong contenders.
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.
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.
The £18.6M RD paid was by way of loan and accrues interest, being added to by the increasing losses.
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 lightly
I give up.