2 different parties have agreed a fee to buy the club. Nothing is ever straight forward when it comes to the day in the life of the crazy world that is Charlton Athletic Football Club.
Please happen by the end of April, so the new owners can start planning for next season.
If two parties are still in the process, how can a price be 'agreed' with both?
Structuring of payments, potential payment milestones for the future, potential sell-on clauses for players, bank loan approvals, a need to solidify investors from the parties and internal negotiations within those parties, a desire by the parties to have certain structures and personnel in place (e.g. SMT) on day one and thus needing time.
There could also be any number of things on Roland's end. And there could be something of a bidding war of "add-ons," where we have a situation where an upfront price has been agreed and it's a matter of who will offer more on the back end. Or it could be the opposite, Roland willing to lower the price for whoever is willing to take the club on sooner because he's losing money every day/month.
Just some things off the top of my head. A number of them could be true, or none of them could be true.
I just got back from running to this news so barely had time to digest it. But it feels like a huge relief. It's by no means done yet, but it feels like it's going to happen.
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.
No one thinks Murray is close to the process and yes he is RD's mouthpiece.
Given the differing interpretations people have arrived at as a result of the latest Richard Murray statement, i.e. are there still 2 potential purchasing parties remaining in the process, or was "parties" simply referring to one bidder and RD (my interpretation)), perhaps @Ollywozere could arrange for some kind of clarification to be issued by the club?
Two purchasing parties remain in the process
Thank the lord there is still someone at the club, with some common sense. Thanks Olly.
I suppose it's not surprising that fans are confused, in view of the history and this statement. There is no doubt in my mind however that although negotiations went a long way involving two potential buyers there is now only one involved. Murray's second reference to "parties" is to RD and the buyer. Maybe he should have made this clearer. The timing of the sale now depends almost completely on the lawyers for seller and buyer. With the best will it could be just a couple of weeks at the most but (forgive the cynicism) but sometimes lawyers have been know to prolong and complicate "issues" to justify and increase fees. I have personally dealt with and completed many acquisitions from small businesses to the million + bracket. I have also been on the other side to all kinds of lawyers including the biggest commercial firms.
I suppose it's not surprising that fans are confused, in view of the history and this statement. There is no doubt in my mind however that although negotiations went a long way involving two potential buyers there is now only one involved. Murray's second reference to "parties" is to RD and the buyer. Maybe he should have made this clearer. The timing of the sale now depends almost completely on the lawyers for seller and buyer. With the best will it could be just a couple of weeks at the most but (forgive the cynicism) but sometimes lawyers have been know to prolong and complicate "issues" to justify and increase fees. I have personally dealt with and completed many acquisitions from small businesses to the million + bracket. I have also been on the other side to all kinds of lawyers including the biggest commercial firms.
That was my initial interpretation (i.e. there is now only one potential buyer) and "parties" referred to that potential buyer and RD. That is why I suggested @Ollywozere clarify, and he came back and, as you will have seen, said two purchasing parties still remain in the process. So do we interpret this as either:
a) two potential purchasers are willing to potentially waste money on expensive lawyers thrashing out a sale and purchase agreement if they are the the bidder who is finally unsuccessful, or b) we have 2 parties willing to purchase the club in some form of joint venture
I suppose it's not surprising that fans are confused, in view of the history and this statement. There is no doubt in my mind however that although negotiations went a long way involving two potential buyers there is now only one involved. Murray's second reference to "parties" is to RD and the buyer. Maybe he should have made this clearer. The timing of the sale now depends almost completely on the lawyers for seller and buyer. With the best will it could be just a couple of weeks at the most but (forgive the cynicism) but sometimes lawyers have been know to prolong and complicate "issues" to justify and increase fees. I have personally dealt with and completed many acquisitions from small businesses to the million + bracket. I have also been on the other side to all kinds of lawyers including the biggest commercial firms.
No, it isn't. That has been clarified privately (as well as by Olly here).
Only with Charlton can there be an official statement & then 7 pages later no-one understands what's happening.
I'm going with Airman & Olly that a deal has been agreed with 2 DIFFERENT bidders & their respective lawyers are now drawing up contracts etc. Presumably RD thought that he was now only dealing with a 1 party, but one has now re-joined the table (having previously dropped out)and RD wants to keep both parties there in case one (again) drops out.
Back to the house buying process - you can agree a price with any number of potential purchasers & if one drops out you go with another. In our case the previous "dropper outer" looks like they may have re-entered the game, Looks a bit weird as there must be costs involved and both must feel that have a good chance of securing the deal. Again, I can only surmise, but perhaps the "dropper outer" was RD's "preferred bidder" and RD is hoping that they will get the deal done first or that their re-emergence will p**s off the other bidder & they drop out. Who knows with this f**kwit.
Could it be that the parties are in a contract race? The lawyers who present RD's lawyers with a contract, which their client has signed, and which RD then signs, are the winners. Having said that, perhaps 'winners' is not the correct terminology for anyone who acquires CAFC.
Well. My experience of M&A is that even at the due diligence stage, a potential buyer expects exclusivity. The result of due diligence is that the initial offer price is adjusted by the buyer if necessary and the seller either accepts, and moves in to the next final stage, or tells that buyer to get lost. It is that way because due diligence and the final sale documentation costs a tidy amount which few want to waste.
Here, if the interpretation of the statement ( and I have to assume @Ollywozere is authoritative ) is correct, we have two parties who have both shelled out for due diligence and now are both preparing closing sale documents. I can only say that my M&A experience comes from the world of advertising agencies, and they are not normally held up as examples of conservative probity. Yet if Sir Martin Sorrell found himself in the situation of one of these buyers, he would be off, pronto, probably seeking to sue RD to boot.
Comments
Please happen by the end of April, so the new owners can start planning for next season.
There could also be any number of things on Roland's end. And there could be something of a bidding war of "add-ons," where we have a situation where an upfront price has been agreed and it's a matter of who will offer more on the back end. Or it could be the opposite, Roland willing to lower the price for whoever is willing to take the club on sooner because he's losing money every day/month.
Just some things off the top of my head. A number of them could be true, or none of them could be true.
I just got back from running to this news so barely had time to digest it. But it feels like a huge relief. It's by no means done yet, but it feels like it's going to happen.
Please
Brilliant!
Thanks @Ollywozere
I have personally dealt with and completed many acquisitions from small businesses to the million + bracket. I have also been on the other side to all kinds of lawyers including the biggest commercial firms.
And people say he doesn't have a sense of nostalgia.
a) two potential purchasers are willing to potentially waste money on expensive lawyers thrashing out a sale and purchase agreement if they are the the bidder who is finally unsuccessful, or
b) we have 2 parties willing to purchase the club in some form of joint venture
All still somewhat confusing.
I'm going with Airman & Olly that a deal has been agreed with 2 DIFFERENT bidders & their respective lawyers are now drawing up contracts etc. Presumably RD thought that he was now only dealing with a 1 party, but one has now re-joined the table (having previously dropped out)and RD wants to keep both parties there in case one (again) drops out.
Back to the house buying process - you can agree a price with any number of potential purchasers & if one drops out you go with another. In our case the previous "dropper outer" looks like they may have re-entered the game, Looks a bit weird as there must be costs involved and both must feel that have a good chance of securing the deal. Again, I can only surmise, but perhaps the "dropper outer" was RD's "preferred bidder" and RD is hoping that they will get the deal done first or that their re-emergence will p**s off the other bidder & they drop out. Who knows with this f**kwit.
Having said that, perhaps 'winners' is not the correct terminology for anyone who acquires CAFC.
Here, if the interpretation of the statement ( and I have to assume @Ollywozere is authoritative ) is correct, we have two parties who have both shelled out for due diligence and now are both preparing closing sale documents. I can only say that my M&A experience comes from the world of advertising agencies, and they are not normally held up as examples of conservative probity. Yet if Sir Martin Sorrell found himself in the situation of one of these buyers, he would be off, pronto, probably seeking to sue RD to boot.