The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
These are the same questions people have been asking since I posted “done deal” on Twitter on February 8th, but it supports what I heard then and subsequently and posted here about two weeks ago - that a price had been agreed with two parties.
The original legal source info was correct. The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.
Why you would agree a deal with two parties I do not know, but my best guess is that for whatever reason RD does not want to sell to the Aussies.25 -
We're screwed thenbarstool said:Its the same as the current sale of Sky, Fox have made a bid and so now have Comcast so its up then to the shareholders to decide ie Roland. Its a straight fight
0 -
Agreed a Deal with Two Parties? Could they be joining up together ?0
-
RD's lawyers and the buyers lawyers? (as it ends with "...to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.")flyingkiwiDK said:
If it was only one prospective buyer surely this sentence would have read differently though?i_b_b_o_r_g said:“I said in January that negotiations with two parties on the takeover were continuing well and I hoped a deal would be concluded in February of this year."
He then misses out here that one party dropped out, so the second time he uses the "parties" below, he's referring to the buyer and RD
"Although the takeover has not yet been completed, the good news is the terms of the deal, including the price, have now been agreed between the parties and we are now just waiting for their respective lawyers to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.2 -
Could another explanation be that one party is buying the land the other party the Club? Just thought!0
-
.0
-
Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.Mckforester said:Could another explanation be that one party is buying the land the other party the Club? Just thought!
1 -
Crikey if AB doesn't understand..................we're doomed!!!!!!!Airman Brown said:These are the same questions people have been asking since I posted “done deal” on Twitter on February 8th, but it supports what I heard then and subsequently and posted here about two weeks ago - that a price had been agreed with two parties.
The original legal source info was correct. The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.
Why you would agree a deal with two parties I do not know, but my best guess is that for whatever reason RD does not want to sell to the Aussies.7 -
I believe a price has been agreed by 2 parties - they have both met RD's price and whichever meets the solicitors requirements gets the club?
OR They took the club on Dragon's Den and 2 dragons are investing together?!
1 -
With any luck this will drag on until euromillions builds up again, then I very much hope to be in a position to make everybody happy. FACT.5
- Sponsored links:
-
Because he states that 'a price for a takeover of the club has been agreed with two separate parties and that the deal is now with the lawyers'.Uboat said:
What sort of questions?ME14addick said:This statement has created more questions than answers.
How can an agreement be with two SEPARATE parties then say that THE deal is now with the lawyers.?0 -
I suspect we are fooling ourselves if we think Murray is very close to the process - the more he speaks on the subject, the more I think he is just acting as RD's mouthpiece.ME14addick said:This statement has created more questions than answers.
1 -
Dazzler21 said:
I believe a price has been agreed by 2 parties - they have both met RD's price and whichever meets the solicitors requirements gets the club?
OR They took the club on Dragon's Den and 2 dragons are investing together?!
12 -
@AFKABartram @Stig @LoOkOuT @cabbles @Dazzler21 Won't one of you update the damn bite size thread...3
-
Only Charlton would release an official statement that nobody understands25
-
{...} february we sell but two parties agree price {...}ValleyGary said:Only Charlton would release an official statement that nobody understands
5 -
Sky sports are now saying Roland has agreed a price with two separate parties.
It's happening I tell you5 -
Ok. Fair enough.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
RD's lawyers and the buyers lawyers? (as it ends with "...to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.")flyingkiwiDK said:
If it was only one prospective buyer surely this sentence would have read differently though?i_b_b_o_r_g said:“I said in January that negotiations with two parties on the takeover were continuing well and I hoped a deal would be concluded in February of this year."
He then misses out here that one party dropped out, so the second time he uses the "parties" below, he's referring to the buyer and RD
"Although the takeover has not yet been completed, the good news is the terms of the deal, including the price, have now been agreed between the parties and we are now just waiting for their respective lawyers to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.
So is it safe to assume that there is only one party left in the race and it's most likely not the Aussies?2 -
'One party or two, who gives a f*ck,
We're Charlton Athletic and Douchbag's selling up'
10 -
Seem to remember Angeldust on that weird place said that the Aussies were Roland's fail safe. The two values that have been agreed could be different for each party.0
- Sponsored links:
-
I was confused the moment i didn't see the corner flag as the backdrop on an official Charlton statement....1
-
At least he clarified it was February this year.
Which is a relief.3 -
@paulie8290 come back mate... It's Happening!
0 -
Obviously a fixture or fitting that RD wants to keepPelling1993 said:I was confused the moment i didn't see the corner flag as the backdrop on an official Charlton statement....
0 -
Stopped snowing in Bexley if that helps.3
-
Sky sports now showing footage of our protests
Balls on the pitch.
The march with the coffin.
Get in there.
I truly believe the old scrote is on his way.9 -
say
Seems maybe the other party our offering better terms or look a better bet to get to the prem to achieve more payments for rd. the Aussies are being kept there just in casecarly burn said:Seem to remember Angeldust on that weird place said that the Aussies were Roland's fail safe. The two values that have been agreed could be different for each party.
0 -
What disappointed me was that this statement was given prominence but nothing on the OS about the Bromley Addicks meeting being cancelled.
Sort your priorities out @Ollywozere0 -
As it’s not on the os does that mean it’s not cancelled?Henry Irving said:What disappointed me was that this statement was given prominence but nothing on the OS about the Bromley Addicks meeting being cancelled.
Sort your priorities out @Ollywozere18 -
Airman Brown said:
The original legal source info was correct. The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.
Given the hint above (serious party come back to the table) is that second party involved with the Scottish Muir maybe?
Muir or Muir?
I'd hope for some mega rich blokes but that doesn't happen to us...0
