The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
If RD stops paying the bills to put Charlton into administration, he will lose all the money he has put in, less what the administrator recovers which will be the square roof of eff all !
When you say Charlton start borrowing to pay the costs, you seem to have forgotten that RD (and all our owners) start borrowing from day 1.
Sorry, but your post is wrong wrong wrong.
Which is why RD won't let the club go into admin. But he is taking steps to reduce his personal monthly costs. Which is what he is doing with Konsa and other proposed player sales.
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
Paragraph 1 is correct. He won't less us go into administration, so as SHG said it was a red herring for you to introduce administration in the first place.
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
If RD stops paying the bills to put Charlton into administration, he will lose all the money he has put in, less what the administrator recovers which will be the square roof of eff all !
When you say Charlton start borrowing to pay the costs, you seem to have forgotten that RD (and all our owners) start borrowing from day 1.
Sorry, but your post is wrong wrong wrong.
Which is why RD won't let the club go into admin. But he is taking steps to reduce his personal monthly costs. Which is what he is doing with Konsa and other proposed player sales.
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
Paragraph 1 is correct. He won't less us go into administration, so as SHG said it was a red herring for you to introduce administration in the first place.
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
Not a Red Herring. And perfectly valid to point out that the alternative to him not selling players to reduce wages and generate income (given that he wants to stop or at least reduce his monthly payments) is administration.
Charlton borrowing money from Staprix is not the same as RD borrowing money to invest in Charlton, which is what you were suggesting in your earlier post.
Too much analysis is being undertaken around the potential statement.
that fact that it appears to be occurring is a positive thing. people were saying yesterday that the Aussies had walked away. If they are issuing statements in partnership with the club, that would strongly suggest in advance that is not the case.
People have unrealistic expectations if they expect it to be anything other than vanilla.
The interesting thing is that RD is offering big discounts on players for cash.
Says who
Why else do you think Brentford got Konsa when other bigger clubs have been sniffing around?
But never offered the asking price or even a very near offfef from what I heard
It benefits RD that sale massively it’s asset stripping at the very least it’s criminal at best
But it also reduces the value of the club and its price
Which may just help those who ain’t showing the colour of their money yet
So back to my point before, what if after selling Konsa (for say £2m rising to a potential £3m, but with an inflated up front payment- my guess figures), the Aussies say ok, you’ve sold one our key value player assets, we want the deal price reduced by the amount you’ve just received up front as the squad value has been reduced, and RD says no, the price is not changing a penny. Who is in the wrong then?
Not,saying that is what has happened, but equally it could. As I said, we don’t really know
Even worse, as others have mentioned, they might value Konsa higher than Roly. So he sells for £3M but they want £4M off the asking price?
Still don't see how any potential buyer can complain about RD selling player assets and using the proceeds to keep the the club running as a going concern. The alternative is that Charlton stop playing all their wages and other bills for the next few months and then go into administration because of those unpaid wages and bills or start borrowing in order to pay these monthly costs and thus increasing the debt burden on the club which the new owners will inherit.
If RD stops paying the bills to put Charlton into administration, he will lose all the money he has put in, less what the administrator recovers which will be the square roof of eff all !
When you say Charlton start borrowing to pay the costs, you seem to have forgotten that RD (and all our owners) start borrowing from day 1.
Sorry, but your post is wrong wrong wrong.
Which is why RD won't let the club go into admin. But he is taking steps to reduce his personal monthly costs. Which is what he is doing with Konsa and other proposed player sales.
Are you suggesting that RD is borrowing the money he is paying into the club each month? That is new piece of info for me.
Paragraph 1 is correct. He won't less us go into administration, so as SHG said it was a red herring for you to introduce administration in the first place.
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
Not a Red Herring. And perfectly valid to point out that the alternative to him not selling players to reduce wages and generate income (given that he wants to stop or at least reduce his monthly payments) is administration.
Charlton borrowing money from Staprix is not the same as RD borrowing money to invest in Charlton, which is what you were suggesting in your earlier post.
You misunderstood my meaning. I could have worded it better I agree. When I said RD and all previous owners start borrowing from day 1, a better wording would have been Charlton borrow from all owners including RD/Staprix from day 1. The original buying price for Charlton was not a gift. RD/Staprix lent the money to Charlton and the £18M original debt has now grown to something like £55/56M as of June 2017 and is probably now heading towards £70M.
I hope it reaches the purpose and poise of Martin Allen's latest statement on Chesterfield's website....
Good afternoon.
I really do apologise if I've messed up anyone's plans for the away pre-season game at Nuneaton by changing the kick-off to 2pm.
To be perfectly honest with you all, I only got it changed to watch my wife swim in the River Thames to raise money for Cancer Research UK. Of course I'll be very proud when she takes on that tough challenge and no doubt she will not be defeated.
If I have messed your day up, come and see me in my office for a chat.
When you're selling a house, or business for that matter, you don't start stripping it of the fixtures and fittings because you consider the process to be taking too long. I don't see this as any different meself
Nice work!
It’s been a while before anyone put up a solid house selling analogy.
I was thinking more of the time when I sold my shop up next to Grove Park BR Station
you used to have a shop? Never knew that.
Yer, next to Grove Park BR Station, and I would have started tuckin into the Mars bars after we done the stock take once we sold
And stick the centrefold pages together from the top shelf
I reckon we'll easy make it to page 950 once the statements released and from then on it's down hill all the way for another 50 pages, then it's the magic 1000 and a done deal !!!
I reckon we'll easy make it to page 950 once the statements released and from then on it's down hill all the way for another 50 pages, then it's the magic 1000 and a done deal !!!
I reckon we'll easy make it to page 950 once the statements released and from then on it's down hill all the way for another 50 pages, then it's the magic 1000 and a done deal !!!
I have been avoiding this thread over the past weeks mainly because the endless speculation does get a little crazy and on top of that it is clear that nobody on this site really knows what is going on. For a while I have been pondering why this hasn't happened yet and my own personal opinion (not speculation just opinion) is that RD has more or less lost interest in CAFC and so has no urgency to sell, he will do it in his own time and hold out for what he wants, if he doesn't get it he will run the club on a shoestring. What is clear is that if this buyout doesn't happen sharpish we are in for an extremely rocky new season, with a diminished playing staff lacking the necessary quality or experience.
I have thought all along that RD has no real interest in the health of our club, he sees it as an asset and nothing else and will find ways to redeem his outlay whatever that takes. Lets hope the current "speculation" is more that just that because right now it al looks rather bleak.
If the Aussies can't get this done and / or can't agree a price with Roland is it possible we could still a situation where Roland ends up owning The Valley and / or Sparrows Lane? Temporarily at least.
If the Aussies can't get this done and / or can't agree a price with Roland is it possible we could still a situation where Roland ends up owning The Valley and / or Sparrows Lane? Temporarily at least.
Not unless he pays the ex-directors or they agree.
Comments
I need a can of Red Bull which I will consume on the peninsula.
'Ere, now I'm not at all superstitious, but could that be an omen? Will we see our old mate Flaggy any minute?
Charlton are borrowing the money from Staprix and will continue to do so.
Charlton borrowing money from Staprix is not the same as RD borrowing money to invest in Charlton, which is what you were suggesting in your earlier post.
When I said RD and all previous owners start borrowing from day 1, a better wording would have been Charlton borrow from all owners including RD/Staprix from day 1.
The original buying price for Charlton was not a gift.
RD/Staprix lent the money to Charlton and the £18M original debt has now grown to something like £55/56M as of June 2017 and is probably now heading towards £70M.
I have thought all along that RD has no real interest in the health of our club, he sees it as an asset and nothing else and will find ways to redeem his outlay whatever that takes. Lets hope the current "speculation" is more that just that because right now it al looks rather bleak.