The available data from comments (both official and on here) would suggest there are 3 parties. 2 of whom have agreed price/terms and a third (RedHenry's lot) who haven't agreed a price, but Roland is hoping will gazump the other two as they have deeper pockets.
That fits what we know, and explains why RedHenry believes a price hasn't been agreed. It also explains why it's taking so long to get over the line despite price and terms being agreed, Roland is deliberately going slow to all the third party time to swoop in. Having 2 buyers with price and terms agreed makes Roland more confident that he can afford to wait for the third party, surely he'll feel the chances of losing both buyer whilst waiting for the third is a lot less than if he had agreed a sale with just one buyer.
Still doesn’t square with Murray saying that it’s with lawyers for completion though does it.
Possibly, I'm just guessing here really.
Does Murray's statement say who's lawyers it's with? Could it be that both offers are with RD's lawyers, who are currently going over the details/schedules of each offer to make a recommendation to RD about which is the best for him? That would also allow RD to pontificate for a while and allow the third potential buyer time to make an offer.
The available data from comments (both official and on here) would suggest there are 3 parties. 2 of whom have agreed price/terms and a third (RedHenry's lot) who haven't agreed a price, but Roland is hoping will gazump the other two as they have deeper pockets.
That fits what we know, and explains why RedHenry believes a price hasn't been agreed. It also explains why it's taking so long to get over the line despite price and terms being agreed, Roland is deliberately going slow to all the third party time to swoop in. Having 2 buyers with price and terms agreed makes Roland more confident that he can afford to wait for the third party, surely he'll feel the chances of losing both buyer whilst waiting for the third is a lot less than if he had agreed a sale with just one buyer.
Still doesn’t square with Murray saying that it’s with lawyers for completion though does it.
Possibly, I'm just guessing here really.
Does Murray's statement say who's lawyers it's with? Could it be that both offers are with RD's lawyers, who are currently going over the details/schedules of each offer to make a recommendation to RD about which is the best for him? That would also allow RD to pontificate for a while and allow the third potential buyer time to make an offer.
I think I’m right in saying he said “with their respective lawyers”
Years ago, when I was still at school, Roland at number 32 had his BMX for sale. It had seen better days but in its day was near the top of the range. Mag wheels, double stunt nuts. The lot. I really wanted to buy it but knew dealing with Roland would be hard work. He was a weird bugger. I also knew Bruce cobber from the other estate was interested as I had seen him giving it the once over in Roland's garden only the week before. Paying for it was going to be my next problem. Only having a paper round and not a lot of savings, I might have to get dad involved and he wouldn't want me paying over the odds. I spent the next few weeks backward and forward to Roland's place discussing various funding options. All up front? Weekly installments?monthly installments? Roland was still asking for too much overall imo. Bruce must have been having the same grief. Between us we were backwards and forwards to that place more than I'd care to remember!
Finally Roland succumbed to a price I agreed with as well as a decent payment method in my eyes. Roland said bring the first payment by the end of next week and the bike is yours. I now just had to get the old man involved. I'm pretty sure Bruce was offered the same terms and price. He just had to come back with the money.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
The available data from comments (both official and on here) would suggest there are 3 parties. 2 of whom have agreed price/terms and a third (RedHenry's lot) who haven't agreed a price, but Roland is hoping will gazump the other two as they have deeper pockets.
That fits what we know, and explains why RedHenry believes a price hasn't been agreed. It also explains why it's taking so long to get over the line despite price and terms being agreed, Roland is deliberately going slow to all the third party time to swoop in. Having 2 buyers with price and terms agreed makes Roland more confident that he can afford to wait for the third party, surely he'll feel the chances of losing both buyer whilst waiting for the third is a lot less than if he had agreed a sale with just one buyer.
Excellent summary of the situation which I am inclined to believe.
apologies - they might have a moustache - it varies of course - again, no axe to grind, but Red henry's lot are not one of the two but could be waiting out there in the long grass if one of those two don't complete.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
You've stated they are Brits or Aussies, right?
1 of each
I really hope you're wrong, but still treat your posts the same as anyone else's, cards are on the table, battle of ITKness is here, time will tell who is the winner.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
You've stated they are Brits or Aussies, right?
1 of each
I really hope you're wrong, but still treat your posts the same as anyone else's, cards are on the table, battle of ITKness is here, time will tell who is the winner.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
You've stated they are Brits or Aussies, right?
1 of each
I really hope you're wrong, but still treat your posts the same as anyone else's, cards are on the table, battle of ITKness is here, time will tell who is the winner.
Please could someone kindly summarize what Red Henry has confirmed.
Thanks .
He's confirmed that his lot don't have black hair, are foreign (if you live in Britain), don't have a moustache and haven't agreed anything but do have a lot of money. His reputation is firmly on the line with that lot.
I was really hoping I would not feel the need to post again on the continuing saga of the Duchatelet regime.
In any normal business sense unless you were dealing with a hostile takeover it is unlikely you would have two key players still in the game, with possibly a third waiting in the background to pick up the pieces if others could not get the final pieces of their financial jigsaw to fit.
So to a degree it is unusual for two parties to remain in the mix at this stage but providing any specific exclusivity had expired and the respective parties are kept fully informed of their status then the continued involvement of two parties or even three parties is still feasible.
Of the two primary players one may have been informed they are, or indeed have positioned themselves, as the default choice at possibly a default price. i.e. this is the (agreed) price I am prepared to pay and I will leave the bid on the table until a certain date (a date which in theory could run for a while yet).
One interpretation that can be taken from such a default is in fact the sale of club has in effect been agreed (at a date in the future) - hence the perception of a done deal. The view of such a bidder may be that no one else will be prepared, or be in a position, to better the terms of their offer.
In different times when the property market was less than dynamic any number of investment companies would offer people a price for their house, in effect a guaranteed fallback price, invariably a lower price than would normally be available in the market over time.
In truth in our circumstances, unless ongoing continuing operational costs were factored in, any such offer decreases in value with each passing month.
I do not think the statement declares the parties have agreed the same price and terms nor does it assert there are still only two parties expressing interest just that two parties have individually agreed "a price" that they need to pay.
Indeed they can both agree the principle terms of how such price is to be paid but the choice may come down to whether one has indicated greater financial resource/ stability, and perhaps the offer of leaving the ever silent investor "a little skin in the game".
It falls into the category of "someone is potentially offering me a better deal but I do not know whether over time they have the resources to fully meet their obligations to me".
In such a scenario the respective bidders will still have to evidence such overall resource to meet the stipulated terms of their agreement, by any given date(s).
As SD and Goonhater have stated there are any number of elements from proof of funds to supporting bank guarantees in respect of any deferred payments which can come into play. To be honest depending on the nature of the deal there could be any number of contingent liabilities to be formally structured.
That "an agreement" is with the lawyers (if true) is extremely promising, but there still can and will be sticking points. If two parties are in play it is a carrot and stick approach positioning parties as in the final stages while incentivising the final closure of the deal.
In such circumstances it empowers the vendor to offer precious little wiggle room when it comes to putting things into legalise. This should cause no undue alarm because at this point where there is a will, and an incentive, to get the thing done, there is normally a way. In relative terms the costs of the corporate lawyers involved should have no significance. If they do then it is probably better that party did not step into the UK football industry.
I HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEAL however can I reign back on the concerns of "people" going to the "city" for funds.
If the price is circa £25-30mn there will be very few "individuals" or "collectives" who have such cash just lying around. Indeed as a financial analyst you would be somewhat quizzical of their financial management if someone possesses such liquidity. Unless you are in the banking/ finance business cash rarely offers you the best returns.
Duchatelet secured ownership of Charlton by taking a €20mn dividend out of Standard Liege after the sale of 5 of their first team players.
In truth we do not know precisely how Duchatelet is funding Staprix.
For most people their wealth is tied up in fixed, revenue generating, assets, so the norm is people with fixed assets will often go to "the city" to secure liquidity against those fixed assets. It is what banks and "the city" are for.
Clearly the nature of the clubs financial future remains in the balance. Hopefully we will learn of the relevant numbers in relation to any continuing ex director and Duchatelet financial legacy and the proposed new financial structure of the club in the coming weeks.
The positioning of the ex director financial interest remains unclear but if their position in relation to their security remains unchanged upon the change of ownership then they may only be due a formal notice upon the completion of the deal.
In terms of the new ownership we can but expect the entirety of the finance to be structured in the best interests of the clubs' performance in the industry in which it operates.
At which point we can consign such matters to the recesses of our mind and focus on enjoying being part of a club who once again shares the traditional values of the game.
Comments
Does Murray's statement say who's lawyers it's with? Could it be that both offers are with RD's lawyers, who are currently going over the details/schedules of each offer to make a recommendation to RD about which is the best for him? That would also allow RD to pontificate for a while and allow the third potential buyer time to make an offer.
Years ago, when I was still at school, Roland at number 32 had his BMX for sale. It had seen better days but in its day was near the top of the range. Mag wheels, double stunt nuts. The lot. I really wanted to buy it but knew dealing with Roland would be hard work. He was a weird bugger.
I also knew Bruce cobber from the other estate was interested as I had seen him giving it the once over in Roland's garden only the week before.
Paying for it was going to be my next problem. Only having a paper round and not a lot of savings, I might have to get dad involved and he wouldn't want me paying over the odds. I spent the next few weeks backward and forward to Roland's place discussing various funding options. All up front? Weekly installments?monthly installments? Roland was still asking for too much overall imo.
Bruce must have been having the same grief. Between us we were backwards and forwards to that place more than I'd care to remember!
Finally Roland succumbed to a price I agreed with as well as a decent payment method in my eyes. Roland said bring the first payment by the end of next week and the bike is yours. I now just had to get the old man involved. I'm pretty sure Bruce was offered the same terms and price. He just had to come back with the money.
This is where we're at in my crazy mind.
If Red Henry was going to tell us more he would have already.
Be like Russell Slade, be patient.
Thanks .
I was really hoping I would not feel the need to post again on the continuing saga of the Duchatelet regime.
In any normal business sense unless you were dealing with a hostile takeover it is unlikely you would have two key players still in the game, with possibly a third waiting in the background to pick up the pieces if others could not get the final pieces of their financial jigsaw to fit.
So to a degree it is unusual for two parties to remain in the mix at this stage but providing any specific exclusivity had expired and the respective parties are kept fully informed of their status then the continued involvement of two parties or even three parties is still feasible.
Of the two primary players one may have been informed they are, or indeed have positioned themselves, as the default choice at possibly a default price. i.e. this is the (agreed) price I am prepared to pay and I will leave the bid on the table until a certain date (a date which in theory could run for a while yet).
One interpretation that can be taken from such a default is in fact the sale of club has in effect been agreed (at a date in the future) - hence the perception of a done deal. The view of such a bidder may be that no one else will be prepared, or be in a position, to better the terms of their offer.
In different times when the property market was less than dynamic any number of investment companies would offer people a price for their house, in effect a guaranteed fallback price, invariably a lower price than would normally be available in the market over time.
In truth in our circumstances, unless ongoing continuing operational costs were factored in, any such offer decreases in value with each passing month.
I do not think the statement declares the parties have agreed the same price and terms nor does it assert there are still only two parties expressing interest just that two parties have individually agreed "a price" that they need to pay.
Indeed they can both agree the principle terms of how such price is to be paid but the choice may come down to whether one has indicated greater financial resource/ stability, and perhaps the offer of leaving the ever silent investor "a little skin in the game".
It falls into the category of "someone is potentially offering me a better deal but I do not know whether over time they have the resources to fully meet their obligations to me".
In such a scenario the respective bidders will still have to evidence such overall resource to meet the stipulated terms of their agreement, by any given date(s).
As SD and Goonhater have stated there are any number of elements from proof of funds to supporting bank guarantees in respect of any deferred payments which can come into play. To be honest depending on the nature of the deal there could be any number of contingent liabilities to be formally structured.
That "an agreement" is with the lawyers (if true) is extremely promising, but there still can and will be sticking points. If two parties are in play it is a carrot and stick approach positioning parties as in the final stages while incentivising the final closure of the deal.
In such circumstances it empowers the vendor to offer precious little wiggle room when it comes to putting things into legalise. This should cause no undue alarm because at this point where there is a will, and an incentive, to get the thing done, there is normally a way. In relative terms the costs of the corporate lawyers involved should have no significance. If they do then it is probably better that party did not step into the UK football industry.
I HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEAL however can I reign back on the concerns of "people" going to the "city" for funds.
If the price is circa £25-30mn there will be very few "individuals" or "collectives" who have such cash just lying around. Indeed as a financial analyst you would be somewhat quizzical of their financial management if someone possesses such liquidity. Unless you are in the banking/ finance business cash rarely offers you the best returns.
Duchatelet secured ownership of Charlton by taking a €20mn dividend out of Standard Liege after the sale of 5 of their first team players.
In truth we do not know precisely how Duchatelet is funding Staprix.
For most people their wealth is tied up in fixed, revenue generating, assets, so the norm is people with fixed assets will often go to "the city" to secure liquidity against those fixed assets. It is what banks and "the city" are for.
Clearly the nature of the clubs financial future remains in the balance. Hopefully we will learn of the relevant numbers in relation to any continuing ex director and Duchatelet financial legacy and the proposed new financial structure of the club in the coming weeks.
The positioning of the ex director financial interest remains unclear but if their position in relation to their security remains unchanged upon the change of ownership then they may only be due a formal notice upon the completion of the deal.
In terms of the new ownership we can but expect the entirety of the finance to be structured in the best interests of the clubs' performance in the industry in which it operates.
At which point we can consign such matters to the recesses of our mind and focus on enjoying being part of a club who once again shares the traditional values of the game.