Response to De Turck / Duchatelet’s claims on the ex-directors’ loans and the price not changing. It’s a bit dry and technical but I still felt their version needed challenging.
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.
Someone even suggested last week that questioning the Aussie bid was bullying JamesSeed!!!
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.
The post stacks up though. There's been much talk around their lack of funds. The hanging about bit does also. They've nowhere else to go because nobody else will entertain them. Of course they can say that Charlton were the only club in their minds that fits the bill and they're hanging in there to somehow come to our rescue. But I'd take all that with a large pinch of bollox.
Response to De Turck / Duchatelet’s claims on the ex-directors’ loans and the price not changing. It’s a bit dry and technical but I still felt their version needed challenging.
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.
The post stacks up though. There's been much talk around their lack of funds. The hanging about bit does also. They've nowhere else to go because nobody else will entertain them. Of course they can say that Charlton were the only club in their minds that fits the bill and they're hanging in there to somehow come to our rescue. But I'd take all that with a large pinch of bollox.
They must have a f***ing impressive collect of scarves, that's all I can say
Response to De Turck / Duchatelet’s claims on the ex-directors’ loans and the price not changing. It’s a bit dry and technical but I still felt their version needed challenging.
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.
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
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?
Yup. Repetitively dealt with anyway. Doesn’t mean there’s been any resolution though.
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.
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.
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.
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.
I don't think I misread it at all. You said the Aussie bashing is astonishing - I said that, in my opinion, people are just asking question and perfectly in their right to do do.
Then you said that there's a contingent on here who still believe the spin that RD and his lackies come out with and I said that I don't believe there is.
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.
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.
Good I hope he does. Because the Aussies certainly won't. Feel free to correct me if they do.
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.
That is clearly not the case.
I think he’s mixing it up with the post sale model.
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.
Someone even suggested last week that questioning the Aussie bid was bullying JamesSeed!!!
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.
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.
I don't think I misread it at all. You said the Aussie bashing is astonishing - I said that, in my opinion, people are just asking question and perfectly in their right to do do.
Then you said that there's a contingent on here who still believe the spin that RD and his lackies come out with and I said that I don't believe there is.
We will have to agree to disagree. I saw a few people quote the papers with the EFL line just a few pages ago. Perhaps you didn't see 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..
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.
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.
I don't think I misread it at all. You said the Aussie bashing is astonishing - I said that, in my opinion, people are just asking question and perfectly in their right to do do.
Then you said that there's a contingent on here who still believe the spin that RD and his lackies come out with and I said that I don't believe there is.
We will have to agree to disagree. I saw a few people quote the papers with the EFL line just a few pages ago. Perhaps you didn't see them.
Sale of Charlton is not panto, Oh yes it is Because Roland lies when he opens his mouth doesn't mean Aussies, Dalman, Murray, haven't told a few porkies as well. Roland's Behind you. Even the apathetic Michael Gliksten tenure ended eventually. Boo Some day our Prince will come. If the shoe fits Carry on counting the pages until then. was Sid James in that one ?
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.
That is clearly not the case.
I think he’s mixing it up with the post sale model.
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.
Yes, but I’ve said that myself in the past, quite a few times. I suspect (guessing) that they lost a major investor, possibly when lawyers unearthed some info, or because that investor learned how much money the club loses, or for any number of other reasons, and pulled out, meaning NLA was quite right when he said they haven’t got the dough, because they hadn’t. This scenario may have happened more than once. I’ve never claimed that they’ve always had the dough, ready to go.
In fact technically NLA is always right because I don’t think they have a bank account with dough in it, because these investors don’t operate like that. I suspect when the £33m was agreed they all got ready to transfer the dough, but then the price went up, meaning they’re back to square one. This may also affect paperwork for the EFL @AFKABartram but just guessing.
Have also said a couple of time’s that I had a slight preference for Dalman over the Aussies, in that it might be more simple with one owner, and because of his reputation in football.
Have passed on Henry’s desire for Aussies to be more open.
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.
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.
Good I hope he does. Because the Aussies certainly won't. Feel free to correct me if they do.
I don’t need to correct you Mr Dublin, I agree with you to the extent that I think they’re only about 25% likely to buy the club.
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.
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.
Good I hope he does. Because the Aussies certainly won't. Feel free to correct me if they do.
I don’t need to correct you Mr Dublin, I agree with you to the extent that I think they’re only about 25% likely to buy the club.
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.
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.
Good I hope he does. Because the Aussies certainly won't. Feel free to correct me if they do.
I don’t need to correct you Mr Dublin, I agree with you to the extent that I think they’re only about 25% likely to buy the club.
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.
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.
Good I hope he does. Because the Aussies certainly won't. Feel free to correct me if they do.
I don’t need to correct you Mr Dublin, I agree with you to the extent that I think they’re only about 25% likely to buy the club.
Mr.Dublin ?
Blackpool is the meaning of Dublin.
Thank you. Learn something new every day on here. Along with how to wipe my arse that's the 2nd thing today.
Comments
http://www.votvonline.com
There's been much talk around their lack of funds.
The hanging about bit does also. They've nowhere else to go because nobody else will entertain them.
Of course they can say that Charlton were the only club in their minds that fits the bill and they're hanging in there to somehow come to our rescue.
But I'd take all that with a large pinch of bollox.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.
Cant beat a good erection
Then you said that there's a contingent on here who still believe the spin that RD and his lackies come out with and I said that I don't believe there is.
Because the Aussies certainly won't.
Feel free to correct me if they do.
Oh yes it is
Because Roland lies when he opens his mouth doesn't mean Aussies, Dalman, Murray, haven't told a few porkies as well.
Roland's Behind you.
Even the apathetic Michael Gliksten tenure ended eventually.
Boo
Some day our Prince will come.
If the shoe fits
Carry on counting the pages until then.
was Sid James in that one ?
In fact technically NLA is always right because I don’t think they have a bank account with dough in it, because these investors don’t operate like that. I suspect when the £33m was agreed they all got ready to transfer the dough, but then the price went up, meaning they’re back to square one. This may also affect paperwork for the EFL @AFKABartram but just guessing.
Have also said a couple of time’s that I had a slight preference for Dalman over the Aussies, in that it might be more simple with one owner, and because of his reputation in football.
Have passed on Henry’s desire for Aussies to be more open.
Learn something new every day on here.
Along with how to wipe my arse that's the 2nd thing today.