Does Lieven de Turck work for Charlton? Or Staprix? Or RD himself?
The reason I'm interested is that it could well be the case that Charlton's fans' forums are Chaired by someone who doesn't work for Charlton. Meaning that, in fact, no-one who works for Charlton can answer any questions about how Charlton are being run.
It's just all so weird. So weird in fact that I don't believe a word of that statement. And even if it was true, would I really want a group taking us over that has been sitting on signing on the dotted line for months now?
After pressing about other interest we were told an approach recently got to early stage DD but fell away at that point circa 2 weeks ago; and also there is no other interest at this moment
So presumably that was Airman’s “interest” ?
Who knows .
By just to reassure you (and others will correct me if I’m wrong), but members pressed hard on a range of issues including the staff bonus issue, playing budget/squad, ticket charges, and the wisdom of cutbacks that seem petty in nature in the big scheme of things - I’ll read through the statement again and minutes when I get a chance and see if there’s much to add.
After pressing about other interest we were told an approach recently got to early stage DD but fell away at that point circa 2 weeks ago; and also there is no other interest at this moment
So presumably that was Airman’s “interest” ?
Could be. Will try and find out. The info on the DD didn’t come from Varney.
After pressing about other interest we were told an approach recently got to early stage DD but fell away at that point circa 2 weeks ago; and also there is no other interest at this moment
So presumably that was Airman’s “interest” ?
Just to reassure you and others will correct me if I’m wrong, but members pressed hard on a range of issues including the staff bonus issue, playing budget/squad, ticket charges, and the wisdom of cutbacks that seem petty in nature in the big scheme of things - I’ll read through the statement again and minutes when I get a chance and see if there’s much to add.
I agree, there was much covered which will probably not interest most people, but on the Takeover & Staff Bonus alone we spent probably towards an hour I would guess. As Barnie says we pressed hard, maybe even more so on the staff bonus where with what we know it was easier to press hard.
After pressing about other interest we were told an approach recently got to early stage DD but fell away at that point circa 2 weeks ago; and also there is no other interest at this moment
So there isn’t a second bidder who has completed DD??
One point of interest was the two parties have agreed different prices although that doesn’t seem to affect who wins (seems unlikely to me, but if the second bidder is real I suppose anything is possible)
After pressing about other interest we were told an approach recently got to early stage DD but fell away at that point circa 2 weeks ago; and also there is no other interest at this moment
So there isn’t a second bidder who has completed DD??
To clarify. There are two current bidders who have both completed DD. Another only made initial DD stage recently and fell away
After pressing about other interest we were told an approach recently got to early stage DD but fell away at that point circa 2 weeks ago; and also there is no other interest at this moment
So there isn’t a second bidder who has completed DD??
To clarify. There are two current bidders who have both completed DD. Another only made initial DD stage recently and fell away
One point of interest was the two parties have agreed different prices although that doesn’t seem to affect who wins (seems unlikely to me, but if the second bidder is real I suppose anything is possible)
This story gets more unbelievable at ever new telling.
Secret 2nd parties
Cutting costs at request of buyers
No problems with debentures
Different prices agreed
First one to complete wins
They'll be telling us the training ground is on track next
One point of interest was the two parties have agreed different prices although that doesn’t seem to affect who wins (seems unlikely to me, but if the second bidder is real I suppose anything is possible)
This story gets more unbelievable at ever new telling.
Secret 2nd parties
Cutting costs at request of buyers
No problems with debentures
Different prices agreed
First one to complete wins
They'll be telling us the training ground is on track next
Training ground has a few bits to tidy but won't progress to the next stage under current owners - no shock there.
On cost cutting, not so much at request of buyers BUT the running costs has put off other buyers. I'm under no illusion it's purely to cut RD's monthly losses in my opinion anyway.
The term smoke and mirrors is used in business sometimes. This is pea souper fog and hall of mirrors stuff. I struggle to believe anything at all from this lot. It’s a bit like dealing with a child that lies; you can’t believe anything.
One point of interest was the two parties have agreed different prices although that doesn’t seem to affect who wins (seems unlikely to me, but if the second bidder is real I suppose anything is possible)
This story gets more unbelievable at ever new telling.
Secret 2nd parties
Cutting costs at request of buyers
No problems with debentures
Different prices agreed
First one to complete wins
They'll be telling us the training ground is on track next
Training ground has a few bits to tidy but won't progress to the next stage under new owners - no shock there.
On cost cutting, not so much at request of buyers BUT the running costs has put off other buyers. I'm under no illusion it's purely to cut RD's monthly losses in my opinion anyway.
Their board rejected the proposal was all he said I think
Correct.
This bit I’ve put in bold is a bit odd - @Rob7Lee is it possible you meant “until” rather than “under”? I don’t know how the current regime could know whether new owners would do anything with the training ground?
I imagine its because they cant find another idiot....sorry, investor, to replace the one(s) who had to drop out.
That certainly seem the most plausible explanation, and also the most worrying one. Are we really that bad a bet? They thing I was most keen on was the 5 yr plan, which would at least have given us some stability. Someone coming up with the bare minimum to buy the club may rid us of Roland, but where would it leave us long term?
One point of interest was the two parties have agreed different prices although that doesn’t seem to affect who wins (seems unlikely to me, but if the second bidder is real I suppose anything is possible)
This story gets more unbelievable at ever new telling.
Secret 2nd parties
Cutting costs at request of buyers
No problems with debentures
Different prices agreed
First one to complete wins
They'll be telling us the training ground is on track next
Training ground has a few bits to tidy but won't progress to the next stage under new owners - no shock there.
On cost cutting, not so much at request of buyers BUT the running costs has put off other buyers. I'm under no illusion it's purely to cut RD's monthly losses in my opinion anyway.
Their board rejected the proposal was all he said I think
Correct.
This bit I’ve put in bold is a bit odd - @Rob7Lee is it possible you meant “until” rather than “under”? I don’t know how the current regime could know whether new owners would do anything with the training ground?
Apology, have amended, just saying RD not doing anymore.
I imagine its because they cant find another idiot....sorry, investor, to replace the one(s) who had to drop out.
That certainly seem the most plausible explanation, and also the most worrying one. Are we really that bad a bet? They thing I was most keen on was the 5 yr plan, which would at least have given us some stability. Someone coming up with the bare minimum to buy the club may rid us of Roland, but where would it leave us long term?
Maybe its The plan thats bad (unrealistic) not us?
Maybe they didn't expect to have their bluff called, who knows.
The paperwork still outstanding at the EFL is surely the name or names of the missing investors which might never materialise. I find it hard to believe that it’s anything other than that.
Cost cutting to the point of denying water and toast to academy players and turning off the lights in the offices along with other inconsequential savings is almost bizarre. How much per month can that possibly save. £2000 ? My guess is Roland looking to save every grimy penny rather than show any prospective buyers that CAFC is a viable business. He really is as mad as a box of frogs.
I don’t believe there is a second bidder. To have two that have agreed a price and completed due diligence and yet are moving at the speed of Harry Cripps on an overlap is pushing credulity for me.
I think at some point in the not too distant future we are going to find ourselves back to square one.
What the daft old fucker does at that point is anyone’s guess but I’m confident that whatever it is it won’t be good for CAFC.
CARD need to swing into full gear again. I think what was said by the club at the FF was purely spin, lies and deflection to stave off protests. Nothing more.
I find de Turck's statements regarding the Aussies and the EFL particularly perplexing.
He asks us to believe that the status is exactly as it was at the last FF, namely that the Aussies still have some documents to submit to the EFL. I checked with @Rob7Lee , and de Turck did not go so far as to describe them as "issues". Yet these papers are so difficult to submit that they have -apparently - been fannying around for at least 6 weeks or maybe a lot more, as we understood that they were ready to move to the EFL test stage in mid May. What on earth can these papers be that are so damn difficult to produce? @Rob7Lee pushed him on this and LdT put it down to the Aussies "complex structure that they are trying to resolve". Well just how complex can it be for the EFL? After all, as I keep saying, the actual business of a football club is not complex at all, especially at this level. The only complexity is that it isn't really feasible to make an operating profit, so you need funding.
Hanging over this is the Lifer who has an EFL contact, who has insisted more than once that while there were at an early stage a copile of "clarifications" the EFL required, these were delivered, and the Aussies have been given the green light. And this first emerged around 8 weeks ago.
@Rob7Lee asks himself quite reasonably, if what LdT says is not true, why would he say it twice to a fan forum, and agree that it can be put in the public domain?.
But that brings me to the second thing that puzzles me. The NDA. The thing that otherwise is the excuse for all three parties to tell us sod all. Well now. Are you telling me that it is not a breach of an NDA to reveal to a highly active audience that one party is struggling to satisfy an ODT which has seen convicted criminals sail through? Apart from anything else, such info gives an advantage to any other bidding party.
That then raises the question, what do the Aussies think about him saying this, and thus presumably breaching the NDA? Why are they not furious, or alternatively seeking to dispute the info in public?
Well I will offer you one possible answer. It is only my opinion, and I accept that it might be driven by wishful thinking. The Aussies don't give a toss what he says about this. They are not prepared to pay the ridiculous price, and are convinced that no one else will be either. They can afford to wait. They see LdT move as a desperate attempt to put pressure on them, and think the best thing to do is just shrug their shoulders and let him flail around.
Of course, one body could clarify this particular question very easily. The EFL. CAST has asked them a series of carefully worded questions which potentially would allow them to shed some light on the issue, and also allow us to go back and seek further clarification of their answers. We do not have a high expectation that they will answer in any meaningful way, at first. But we have our follow up plans in place.
@redredrobin re your good question, de Turck is currently a CFO at one of RD's micro electronic companies. I think it most unlikely that he has been pulled out of that role simply to handle this nonsense. The best guess is that this is an additional project, for which RD will doubtless have agreed to remunerate him on a performance basis. (Oh dear, Lieven!). That might be paid out of the Staprix budget, but I very much doubt it has changed his overall contract of employment. He works for RD, and he knows what his goals are.
Comments
The reason I'm interested is that it could well be the case that Charlton's fans' forums are Chaired by someone who doesn't work for Charlton. Meaning that, in fact, no-one who works for Charlton can answer any questions about how Charlton are being run.
Odd really.
By just to reassure you (and others will correct me if I’m wrong), but members pressed hard on a range of issues including the staff bonus issue, playing budget/squad, ticket charges, and the wisdom of cutbacks that seem petty in nature in the big scheme of things - I’ll read through the statement again and minutes when I get a chance and see if there’s much to add.
Secret 2nd parties
Cutting costs at request of buyers
No problems with debentures
Different prices agreed
First one to complete wins
They'll be telling us the training ground is on track next
On cost cutting, not so much at request of buyers BUT the running costs has put off other buyers. I'm under no illusion it's purely to cut RD's monthly losses in my opinion anyway. Correct.
What a surprise.
Boycott this demeaning sham.
I don’t know how the current regime could know whether new owners would do anything with the training ground?
Maybe they didn't expect to have their bluff called, who knows.
=
Cost cutting to the point of denying water and toast to academy players and turning off the lights in the offices along with other inconsequential savings is almost bizarre. How much per month can that possibly save. £2000 ? My guess is Roland looking to save every grimy penny rather than show any prospective buyers that CAFC is a viable business. He really is as mad as a box of frogs.
I don’t believe there is a second bidder. To have two that have agreed a price and completed due diligence and yet are moving at the speed of Harry Cripps on an overlap is pushing credulity for me.
I think at some point in the not too distant future we are going to find ourselves back to square one.
What the daft old fucker does at that point is anyone’s guess but I’m confident that whatever it is it won’t be good for CAFC.
CARD need to swing into full gear again. I think what was said by the club at the FF was purely spin, lies and deflection to stave off protests. Nothing more.
Depressed of Shooters Hill
He asks us to believe that the status is exactly as it was at the last FF, namely that the Aussies still have some documents to submit to the EFL. I checked with @Rob7Lee , and de Turck did not go so far as to describe them as "issues". Yet these papers are so difficult to submit that they have -apparently - been fannying around for at least 6 weeks or maybe a lot more, as we understood that they were ready to move to the EFL test stage in mid May. What on earth can these papers be that are so damn difficult to produce? @Rob7Lee pushed him on this and LdT put it down to the Aussies "complex structure that they are trying to resolve". Well just how complex can it be for the EFL? After all, as I keep saying, the actual business of a football club is not complex at all, especially at this level. The only complexity is that it isn't really feasible to make an operating profit, so you need funding.
Hanging over this is the Lifer who has an EFL contact, who has insisted more than once that while there were at an early stage a copile of "clarifications" the EFL required, these were delivered, and the Aussies have been given the green light. And this first emerged around 8 weeks ago.
@Rob7Lee asks himself quite reasonably, if what LdT says is not true, why would he say it twice to a fan forum, and agree that it can be put in the public domain?.
But that brings me to the second thing that puzzles me. The NDA. The thing that otherwise is the excuse for all three parties to tell us sod all. Well now. Are you telling me that it is not a breach of an NDA to reveal to a highly active audience that one party is struggling to satisfy an ODT which has seen convicted criminals sail through? Apart from anything else, such info gives an advantage to any other bidding party.
That then raises the question, what do the Aussies think about him saying this, and thus presumably breaching the NDA? Why are they not furious, or alternatively seeking to dispute the info in public?
Well I will offer you one possible answer. It is only my opinion, and I accept that it might be driven by wishful thinking. The Aussies don't give a toss what he says about this. They are not prepared to pay the ridiculous price, and are convinced that no one else will be either. They can afford to wait. They see LdT move as a desperate attempt to put pressure on them, and think the best thing to do is just shrug their shoulders and let him flail around.
Of course, one body could clarify this particular question very easily. The EFL. CAST has asked them a series of carefully worded questions which potentially would allow them to shed some light on the issue, and also allow us to go back and seek further clarification of their answers. We do not have a high expectation that they will answer in any meaningful way, at first. But we have our follow up plans in place.
@redredrobin re your good question, de Turck is currently a CFO at one of RD's micro electronic companies. I think it most unlikely that he has been pulled out of that role simply to handle this nonsense. The best guess is that this is an additional project, for which RD will doubtless have agreed to remunerate him on a performance basis. (Oh dear, Lieven!). That might be paid out of the Staprix budget, but I very much doubt it has changed his overall contract of employment. He works for RD, and he knows what his goals are.