“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.
If it was only one prospective buyer surely this sentence would have read differently though?
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 The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.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.
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
“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.
If it was only one prospective buyer surely this sentence would have read differently though?
RD's lawyers and the buyers lawyers? (as it ends with "...to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.")
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.
Crikey if AB doesn't understand..................we're doomed!!!!!!!
This statement has created more questions than answers.
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.
“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.
If it was only one prospective buyer surely this sentence would have read differently though?
RD's lawyers and the buyers lawyers? (as it ends with "...to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.")
Ok. Fair enough.
So is it safe to assume that there is only one party left in the race and it's most likely not the Aussies?
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.
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.
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 case
Comments
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.
OR They took the club on Dragon's Den and 2 dragons are investing together?!
How can an agreement be with two SEPARATE parties then say that THE deal is now with the lawyers.?
It's happening I tell you
So is it safe to assume that there is only one party left in the race and it's most likely not the Aussies?
We're Charlton Athletic and Douchbag's selling up'
Which is a relief.
Balls on the pitch.
The march with the coffin.
Get in there.
I truly believe the old scrote is on his way.
Sort your priorities out @Ollywozere