Has any other club sale been as complicated and drawn out as this one? Even I was beginning to blame the Aussies, but now the evidence points in another direction. If Dalman walks away you have to think this could literally go on for years.
So even you have lost faith in the Aussies then?
No, but they refuse to pay more than they think the club is worth. Roland reduced the price and then upped it again. He's playing games. But I guess I might prefer someone who was so rich they wouldn't care what the price was, but that's not realistic.
Why don't they just walk away then?
How much more time can they afford to waste? There are other clubs for sale.
I suppose because they’ve invested so much money in lawyers’ fees unravelling the historic legal issues. Over a million. Walking away wouldn’t make sense when you might be days away from Roland getting real. (I know, unlikely!)
It’s only Murphy who’s involved in negotiations, and he has other business interests. I think they have their bid lodged, and it’s up to Roland to say yes or no, rather than maybe.
So it’s not a 24/7 thing for GM. Probably just 4% of his time ;-)
So I’m assuming JS that they have submitted the outstanding piece of paperwork that the club said the EFL needed back in June 2018?
‘The club said’, or Lieven/Roland said?
Don't they represent the club?
I'll always argue that we, the fans, are the club but in this context the pair of incompetents De Turck and Duchatelet and "the club" are the same thing ie the regime that owns the business.
Point is the regime said it was only some paperwork to the EFL holding up the deal.
Like they said David White had agreed to be flexible with his bond.
Like they said the bonds maybe time limited
Like they said the protests were only 2% of the fans
The regime lies quite a lot and the submit paperwork to EFL might just be one of them. Why does anyone believe what the regime says?
I really wish the Aussies would do what Dalman has done and brief the press off the record to put their side of the story. That would be biased and slanted in their favour just as all briefings are but at least we'd have more information.
I've never got the hatred/mistrust of the Aussies because I just don't know enough about them.
That doesn't mean I'm not cautious about them, their funding or their intentions because I am. I'm equally cautious about Dalman (who were his backers? what were/are his plans?) and any other buyers.
But let's not use the lies of the regime as evidence against the Aussies or anyone else. That is what Duchatelet wants.
Duchatelet wants the fans to blame the ex-directors for the delay, not him.
Duchatelet wants the fans to blame the Aussies for the delay, not him.
Yes the club lies, as much, if not more than it tells the truth, but they still said it and it was 'kinda' backed up by the EFL, who would have no reason to lie.
The EFL said they'd investigate the unpaid bonuses and the situation at Charlton. No reason to lie?
As you say the EFL only "kinda" backed up what the regime said
@pragueaddick said that "the EFL told three CAST delegates, of which I was one, in late October, that they had not submitted all the paperwork at that time."
Not "The lack of paperwork is the only thing holding up the deal."
I reiterate, I think the Aussies and GM have brought a lot of this on themselves by being so secretive and by issuing joint statements with the regime. It's natural to question them after so long but overriding all of that is that Duchatelet is the liar and Duchatelet is the problem.
That part is 100% correct.
However with regards to the bonuses, it would appear the did investigate, they even told RD paying the bonuses would be a great way to build 'goodwill', what else did you expect them to do? They can't make RD pay something he's not legally bound to pay. Not sure that's a lie, it's just not what we wanted, although it's what some of us expected.
They could have been honest and say that they DID see written evidence that the bonuses were not contingent with company profitability.
They saw it when it was handed to them. The evidence was so strong that even Chris Parkes, who was at the meeting, accepted it and said he'd speak to LDT about it.
They can't make Duchatelet pay but they sure could have done a lot more. They certainly lied when they said they hadn't seen evidence.
What more could they have done? As far as I'm aware the EFL are pretty toothless, which is a shame when you consider how many clubs are affected by batshit owners.
I also wonder why we've seen no further action from staff if they were indeed legally entitled to those bonuses, although it's really not really any of our business, so they may want to just get on with their lives, not how I'd go about it personally, but it's not on me.
They could be be honest and not lied.
They could have said that the evidence they had seen supported the staff and not Duchatelet's position.
The question about "wonder why we've seen no further action from staff if they were indeed legally entitled to those bonuses" comes over as victim blaming. "Oh, they stopped complaining so they can't have a case".
That may not mean what you meant but that's how it reads. We know they work for a lying, vindictive owner, maybe they don't want to be forced out of their jobs.
Certainly not how I meant it to come across but I thought there are laws against forcing people out of jobs after valid complaints.
Thanks for clarifying, I thought that wasn't like you.
There are laws and employers ignore them.
Some staff tried to fight it and still aren't happy
I've believed all along that the Aussies don't have the cash. Muir could obviously afford to buy Charlton on his own but he has stated he only wants to invest a small amount. Without Muir putting up a substantial amount the rest of the consortium just don't have the fund. All the Aussies are achieving I'm my opinion is confusing the whole situation. I would rather they walk and let someone else have a go at buying us.
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..
Its not people ‘not wanting’ to discuss it, it’s the fact that the whole thing has been covered over and over again, but the same questions keep being asked because, I can only assume, people to read the replies.
So this faultless Group, have no question marks hanging over them whatsoever, and any questions that have been asked have been sufficiently dealt with?
The bloke says none of the Aussies involved has enough money to buy the club. If Muir is involved then that's obviously wrong and casts doubt on the rest of his post.
The bloke says none of the Aussies involved has enough money to buy the club. If Muir is involved then that's obviously wrong and casts doubt on the rest of his post.
Not really as Muir has stated he only wants to put in about 10 % of the money. Unless he changes his mind the rest don't have the money.
The bloke says none of the Aussies involved has enough money to buy the club. If Muir is involved then that's obviously wrong and casts doubt on the rest of his post.
Yeah but we keep also being told that it don't matter what one is worth, he might only want to invest £1m
The bloke says none of the Aussies involved has enough money to buy the club. If Muir is involved then that's obviously wrong and casts doubt on the rest of his post.
Agree. Also, while he is articulate, I don't quite understand what he means in his first sentence, does he mean that he worked for the respective football associations of both countries? At the same time? In what capacity? And while this might be reaching for a can of wriggly things, why does he choose to post only on the other site, why not this one too, where it is obvious that at least one poster is close to the bid? Something doesn't smell right about that post, even if it potentially raises alarm bells.
It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
The bloke says none of the Aussies involved has enough money to buy the club. If Muir is involved then that's obviously wrong and casts doubt on the rest of his post.
Not really as Muir has stated he only wants to put in about 10 % of the money. Unless he changes his mind the rest don't have the money.
Right, but what he says is:
The investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club.
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..
We can discuss pros and cons of potential owners for eternity but we as fans have no say in who buys the club and only limited say in how a club is run. Bring on the Bundesliga model where the clubs members still hold a majority of voting rights.
As an occasional reader on this forum, the outsider impression is there's a contingent who consistently bash the Aussie bid with sweeping statements based on no evidence what so ever, or taking the word of Roland and his lackies as gospel.
Is there?
Er. yeah.
Sorry mate, completely missed them. I know there was someone post a oneliner on this thread a couple of days ago about RD now going in the right direction 're. Bowyer and a couple of singing, or something, but other than that I get the feeling that the dislike and distrust in RD and everyone associated with him was pretty much 100%
Sorry mate, you've must've misread what I wrote. I said there's a contingent who believe the spin Roland and lackies say is true, especially when it suits their unfounded argument. I said nothing about anyone believing RD is going in right direction.
It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I think
It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I think
I am just surprised that there seems to be a lot of people treating this post as significant or important, despite it just being a precis of various bits of information and conjecture that have been known for months or years; except for the one bit that's demonstrably wrong.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..
Its not people ‘not wanting’ to discuss it, it’s the fact that the whole thing has been covered over and over again, but the same questions keep being asked because, I can only assume, people to read the replies.
Not totally falling in line with the version of events you present, is not the same thing as not reading replies though, is it?
As an example, you keep telling us the sale price is totally covered and they are only looking for investors for ongoing costs, whereas others dispute that and have been told from other sources that the Aussies were still seeking investors for the sale price whilst papers were being lodged with the EFL.
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..
We can discuss pros and cons of potential owners for eternity but we as fans have no say in who buys the club and only limited say in how a club is run. Bring on the Bundesliga model where the clubs members still hold a majority of voting rights.
As an occasional reader on this forum, the outsider impression is there's a contingent who consistently bash the Aussie bid with sweeping statements based on no evidence what so ever, or taking the word of Roland and his lackies as gospel.
Is there?
Er. yeah.
Sorry mate, completely missed them. I know there was someone post a oneliner on this thread a couple of days ago about RD now going in the right direction 're. Bowyer and a couple of singing, or something, but other than that I get the feeling that the dislike and distrust in RD and everyone associated with him was pretty much 100%
Sorry mate, you've must've misread what I wrote. I said there's a contingent who believe the spin Roland and lackies say is true, especially when it suits their unfounded argument. I said nothing about anyone believing RD is going in right direction.
Sorry mate, I know what you meant, but my point was that the only thing I've seen on here regarding anything remotely to do with painting RD in a good light, whether it's believing what him or his lackies say, or commenting on them taking the club in the right direction etc etc, was the post I mentioned from a couple of days ago, and I definitely don't think there's a contingent of people who believe them. After every statement, radio interview, or fan's forum, they seem to be getting pelters from all angles and picked apart within hours.
The membership thing makes sense to me, I'm a crowdfunding investor in my bank for example, and I do feel like I've got a real stake in how the bank operates and behaves. If they do ever get this over the line, and bring that kind of model in, then sounds good to me.
1874, one of the greatest ever Britons born, Winston Churchill.
My first serious post for years ! Between 39-45 I concur but lots of working class folk didn't want him in peace time. And many London port Authority workers didn't want to transport his body up the Thames in Feb 65. I did a school project on him when young and I don't live that far from Chartwell, Westerham and being a NT member enjoy going there a few times a year. A very interesting strong character who was a man of his times and rich upbringing. He was flawed in many ways but was the main individual who made sure we didn't go the same way as France, Holland, Poland etc. Oh yes.
My Old Man was a copper and did duty at Chruchill's lying-in-state. He couldn't believe how many people queued up for hours only to spit in front of his coffin. All Eastenders.
It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I think
I am just surprised that there seems to be a lot of people treating this post as significant or important, despite it just being a precis of various bits of information and conjecture that have been known for months or years; except for the one bit that's demonstrably wrong.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
If you have a theory about something and something is said, or happens, that kind of backs that theory up, then you're gonna feel vindicated in some way, surely. The "Like" button doesn't necessarily mean "Like", it can also mean "I agree", or "That's what I was gonna say", or "Yeah, I didn't see it that way".
Also, like I said before, people who were posing genuine questions about the Aussies in the early days, were getting largely scoffed at from some quarters quit a bit, with no let up.
Comments
There are laws and employers ignore them.
Some staff tried to fight it and still aren't happy
Muir could obviously afford to buy Charlton on his own but he has stated he only wants to invest a small amount.
Without Muir putting up a substantial amount the rest of the consortium just don't have the fund.
All the Aussies are achieving I'm my opinion is confusing the whole situation.
I would rather they walk and let someone else have a go at buying us.
Unless he changes his mind the rest don't have the money.
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
The investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club.
That is clearly not the case.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
As an example, you keep telling us the sale price is totally covered and they are only looking for investors for ongoing costs, whereas others dispute that and have been told from other sources that the Aussies were still seeking investors for the sale price whilst papers were being lodged with the EFL.
#RothkoForCEO
Also, like I said before, people who were posing genuine questions about the Aussies in the early days, were getting largely scoffed at from some quarters quit a bit, with no let up.