It's not about whether the different consortia 'have the money' or not, it's about whether the mad old Shitweasel that (very unfortunately) owns our club has changed his mind, welched on an agreement or simply allowed his delusion to assure himself that a new buyer will be happy to reimburse him for all the losses he has made through his incompetent stewardship.
Bearing this in mind, it is safer to assume that we are going to be owned by mad old wankpuffin for ever, rather than get your hopes up!
Rehash of the Evening Standard article including the red herring about the Directors being a hold up on the sale.
The whole Charlton sale is odd. Duchatelet will likely lose more money in the future by not selling now. Why wouldn’t he sell & move on ? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
Cor what’s up with everyone today arguing must be the heat.still passed time of day see you all again tomorrow.
agreed - back to the pool - love annoying brown nose
Shame you have to try to wind people up Mr @DOUCHER - I don’t know why you feel a need to. There has been a remarkable equanimity on this thread in recent weeks and even months. It’s all been very civil. People sharing what little they know without trying to score points. We just want the club sold.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
The sad thing is the number of fans whom will lap that crock of bullshit up and quote it as gospel. I don’t believe the vast bulk of those answers, so much so that having supported the fans forum meetings to this point I think they should be cancelled mediately as this shows them for the utter waste of everyones time they sadly are.
Cor what’s up with everyone today arguing must be the heat.still passed time of day see you all again tomorrow.
agreed - back to the pool - love annoying brown nose
Shame you have to try to wind people up Mr @DOUCHER - I don’t know why you feel a need to. There has been a remarkable equanimity on this thread in recent weeks and even months. It’s all been very civil. People sharing what little they know without trying to score points. We just want the club sold.
Anyone got that 'I've heard something so will keep quiet smilie face' post JamesSeed recently made.
The sad thing is the number of fans whom will lap that crock of bullshit up and quote it as gospel. I don’t believe the vast bulk of those answers, so much so that having supported the fans forum meetings to this point I think they should be cancelled mediately as this shows them for the utter waste of everyones time they sadly are.
Bizzare and just wrong.
The fans forum asks the questions. They can't and shouldn't be blamed for the answers.
Reads to me as if LDT has just cut and pasted a lawyers opinion on the debentures which more often than not will cover all bases without there being a totally clear position on the repayment terms. And it's likely these will only be finally agreed upon when the contingent liability becomes due.
At least he has admitted the rat didn't have a clue as to their significance when he bought the club.
The sad thing is the number of fans whom will lap that crock of bullshit up and quote it as gospel. I don’t believe the vast bulk of those answers, so much so that having supported the fans forum meetings to this point I think they should be cancelled mediately as this shows them for the utter waste of everyones time they sadly are.
Bizzare and just wrong.
The fans forum asks the questions. They can't and shouldn't be blamed for the answers.
I didnt blame them for the answers though so get off your high horse. They are decent people who give up their free time to deal with the morons who run our club. Given those morons are clearly happy to stick a bunch of lies on paper to answers to their questions I really see no point in them wasting their time meeting LdT any more. Maybe carry on the more mundane ff meetings where they take up fan issues with ops staff but the takeover ones are pointless and I am sure the volunteers would have better things to spend their valuable time on. Just my view.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable. The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD.
The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best.
The sad thing is the number of fans whom will lap that crock of bullshit up and quote it as gospel. I don’t believe the vast bulk of those answers, so much so that having supported the fans forum meetings to this point I think they should be cancelled mediately as this shows them for the utter waste of everyones time they sadly are.
Bizzare and just wrong.
The fans forum asks the questions. They can't and shouldn't be blamed for the answers.
I didnt blame them for the answers though so get off your high horse. They are decent people who give up their free time to deal with the morons who run our club. Given those morons are clearly happy to stick a bunch of lies on paper to answers to their questions I really see no point in them wasting their time meeting LdT any more. Maybe carry on the more mundane ff meetings where they take up fan issues with ops staff but the takeover ones are pointless and I am sure the volunteers would have better things to spend their valuable time on. Up to them. Just my view.
Since they choose to attend clearly they do think it's good use of there time.
The point remains. The FF meetings got this response, nonsense that most of it is. It is doing what it's there for.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
That is utter nonsense though. The quoted clauses are quite clear. They're not describing an expiry but a payment schedule to protect the club. Payment is triggered on promotion to the Premier League, payable in a maximum of 5 equal payments, only payable whilst the club remains in the PL, resuming when we return. From memory the charges listed on Companies House apply for all three companies. He seems to be also implying that £1.4m exposure whilst swimming in the Premier League riches is scaring buyers off. The stuff of fantasy.
As for the dig at you mate, I don't get what it adds to the response whatsoever. I wouldn't waste your fingers typing a rebuttal to that incoherent nonsense. Get back to digging out that winning pic in the dick swinging contest with Doucher
Question two was a short question, which referenced the directors' loans
Six hundred and sixty six words were used by LdT to explain, in forensic detail, the vital importance of being utterly and completely unambiguous with dates.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable. The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD.
The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable. The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD.
The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best.
The protests predated CARD.
They did indeed. But CARD took control of the protests very soon after they started, when you bought the megaphone along.
It was the genius of the black and white scarves and branding that gave everyone an easy way to show their unhappiness and indicated visually just how much support the protests had.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable. The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD.
The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best.
The protests predated CARD.
I was reffering to the most visual, impactful ones, pigs, stress balls etc. Or are you going all RD on us and changing history to suit 🤔🤔
The last sentence was a joke before the pile on starts.
Question two was a short question, which referenced the directors' loans
Six hundred and sixty six words were used by LdT to explain, in forensic detail, the vital importance of being utterly and completely unambiguous with dates.
Here's what the title of the document is.
I can’t believe you’re the only one who has picked up on this. I refused to read it because of this. Explains everything to me. Fecking jokers. He’s going nowhere. :-(
Question two was a short question, which referenced the directors' loans
Six hundred and sixty six words were used by LdT to explain, in forensic detail, the vital importance of being utterly and completely unambiguous with dates.
Here's what the title of the document is.
Well, someone's lurking on CL. Because the file's been changed now.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable. The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD.
The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best.
The protests predated CARD.
True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though.
Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable. The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD.
The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best.
The protests predated CARD.
True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though.
Comments
Bearing this in mind, it is safer to assume that we are going to be owned by mad old wankpuffin for ever, rather than get your hopes up!
The whole Charlton sale is odd. Duchatelet will likely lose more money in the future by not selling now. Why wouldn’t he sell & move on ? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
He is using various media and forums.
So the "end of June re tax deadline" was just another turd.
A month to go before we kick off and the Rat will still own us.
Karma is a bitch Roland
However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.
Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.
I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them.
Pretty sure that wound a few people up.....
The fans forum asks the questions. They can't and shouldn't be blamed for the answers.
At least he has admitted the rat didn't have a clue as to their significance when he bought the club.
The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best.
The point remains. The FF meetings got this response, nonsense that most of it is. It is doing what it's there for.
As for the dig at you mate, I don't get what it adds to the response whatsoever. I wouldn't waste your fingers typing a rebuttal to that incoherent nonsense. Get back to digging out that winning pic in the dick swinging contest with Doucher
Six hundred and sixty six words were used by LdT to explain, in forensic detail, the vital importance of being utterly and completely unambiguous with dates.
Here's what the title of the document is.
Just saying.
The last sentence was a joke before the pile on starts.
I refused to read it because of this.
Explains everything to me.
Fecking jokers.
He’s going nowhere.
:-(