Just Fuck Off you poisonous twat, your experiments in politics and football have failed dismally now just concentrate on getting old and leave other peoples toys alone.
Just Fuck Off you poisonous twat, your experiments in politics and football have failed dismally now just concentrate on getting old and leave other peoples toys alone.
Steady on. He's only reporting what he read on Facebook.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
But this is Charlton and even our takeovers have to be a bit sh*t.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
As far as we are aware, this isn't a sole ownership deal, the Aussies are a consortium, and therefore Muir isn't going to put all of his wealth at risk, there would have been decisions taken about the sums of money that people will be investing. The Aussies aren't buying us for the love of the club, they are buying us because they can see a profit further down the line. It's likely they have some initial capital to make available for transfers and the general running of the club, but going forward they will need to find other ways to raise funds because outside of the Premiership, we aren't likely to make any money.
Even back in our Premiership days there were various ways that the board tried to raise funds, often it was with share issues, so this thing is not that unusual.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
Much of what we are hearing is just speculation at the moment. There are sellers who, when offered their asking price, think that must indicate that they should be asking for more. In such cases it is sometimes difficult to agree the final figure. The add ons may be structured as earn out clauses which are a way of bridging the gap between the respective valuations of the buyer and the seller. Let’s just hope a deal can be done and we can move on to happier times.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?
Josh Harris. Don't know that much about the setup at Palarse to be honest.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?
Josh Harris. Don't know that much about the setup at Palarse to be honest.
Well,basically,the set up is they are all stripey\black wearing virgins called Nigel and they all get together at a place in Surrey called Shithurst and bounce around when an Olympic diver called Wilfried falls over again.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?
Josh Harris. Don't know that much about the setup at Palarse to be honest.
Original consortium was
Parish (TAG Worldwide) Stephen Browett (Farr Vinters) Martin Long (Founder Churchill Insurance) Jeremy Hosking (Marathon Asset Management) net worth £330 million
Now the Play-offs are over this needs to happen ASAP and a full time manager appointed. Bowyer deserves a go IMHO. Very concerned about the ground ownership but hopefully this can be sorted out.
Now the Play-offs are over this needs to happen ASAP and a full time manager appointed. Bowyer deserves a go IMHO. Very concerned about the ground ownership but hopefully this can be sorted out.
Hopefully the talk of RD owning anything relating to the club after the sale turns out to be nonsense.
Ran a dishwasher on a hot pans cycle in Florida once. Went to unload it and a huge roach sauntered out like he'd just had a luke-warm shower with some "no tears" Simple Baby All-in-One-Wash. The only way to get rid of them is to crush them under a heel.
I'm taking some comfort from yesterday's capitulation in that the mad old scrote from across the North Sea won't get any extra money for his disastrous failed experiment and ruination of our club. Now in true Blackpool72 style please f*ck right off, once and for all !
Ran a dishwasher on a hot pans cycle in Florida once. Went to unload it and a huge roach sauntered out like he'd just had a luke-warm shower with some "no tears" Simple Baby All-in-One-Wash. The only way to get rid of them is to crush them under a heel.
Actually, it’s the worst way to kill them. Eggs will stick to your shoe and spread them. The best way is poison. They return to their shed, sorry, nest and die. They are then eaten by other cockroaches who in turn die.
While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Our ownership in the 90s was like this. An ever increasing number of rich investors joining the board, which at one point, when you added in the associate directors, was almost as big as the playing squad!
When this is all over I think we should vote for the best page of the thread before the actual announcement, have it printed, framed and displayed in the museum.
Comments
"Deal was completed on Monday"
Even back in our Premiership days there were various ways that the board tried to raise funds, often it was with share issues, so this thing is not that unusual.
In such cases it is sometimes difficult to agree the final figure.
The add ons may be structured as earn out clauses which are a way of bridging the gap between the respective valuations of the buyer and the seller.
Let’s just hope a deal can be done and we can move on to happier times.
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Parish (TAG Worldwide)
Stephen Browett (Farr Vinters)
Martin Long (Founder Churchill Insurance)
Jeremy Hosking (Marathon Asset Management) net worth £330 million
Muir must have been behind the goal then.
*eyes emoji*