Lost complete confidence in this Australian consortium. If they can’t get some paperwork together to give rhe EFL how on earth can they be trusted to run our Club
You are very much wrong @cafcfan1990 . Accuse Airman of some things but denying being part of CARD is probably the most far for truth possible. He’s made that clear From Day 1and has publicly represented the group dozens of times since.
So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
The EFL say that they cannot proceed until the documentation they asked for from the Australians is lodged with them, the absence of that paper work has nothing to do with RD.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I believe it is purchase price plus 2 years' running costs (losses!). I could very easily be wrong though!
And it does make sense - say the losses are £7m a year, so they would need capital of £14m - doesn't stop them cutting costs. They don't have to spend all of it!
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
I still blame RD. WE are aware of several other people who are interested in buying the club and put off by RD's inflated price. It would seem a likely scenario that the price agreed with the Aussies is relatively high and his judgement is that they would come good. This judgement looks questionable now and if the price was lower a sale would have happened ages ago.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I’m as certain as I can be that this isn’t about funds. Proof of funds possibly, but not funding. They wouldn’t go ahead without funding for the ‘5 yr plan’ as anything else wouldn’t makes sense. ‘We just want to scramble together enough cash so that we can lose £600k a month’ isn’t going to attract backers. A bid aimed potentially at the Prem (i.e. a gamble with a possible reward at the end) might.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I’m as certain as I can be that this isn’t about funds. Proof of funds possibly, but not funding. They wouldn’t go ahead without funding for the ‘5 yr plan’ as anything else wouldn’t makes sense. ‘We just want to scramble together enough cash so that we can lose £600k a month’ isn’t going to attract backers. A bid aimed potentially at the Prem (i.e. a gamble with a possible reward at the end) might.
Indeed and they haven't which suggests they don't have that funding
So the delay for the sale is down to the Australia consortium, not RD and or the price he asking for the club. Do we want to be owned by a group of people who are either incompetent or are not willing to supply the infomation to the EFL as it would show up problems that even the EFL would find unacceptable, makes you think!
Please can you tell us the problems that you are aware of, that the EFL would find unacceptable, as no one else is in the know.
If the Aussies take this long on the takeover (if it happens), what will happen in the transfer window, by the time they decide to buy someone, it will be over
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I’m as certain as I can be that this isn’t about funds. Proof of funds possibly, but not funding. They wouldn’t go ahead without funding for the ‘5 yr plan’ as anything else wouldn’t makes sense. ‘We just want to scramble together enough cash so that we can lose £600k a month’ isn’t going to attract backers. A bid aimed potentially at the Prem (i.e. a gamble with a possible reward at the end) might.
Indeed and they haven't which suggests they don't have that funding
RD has clearly stated more than once that the asking price has been agreed and is not an issue. He also said that meeting the running costs is an issue. I believe him on these points. However, it also means that if he dropped the agreed asking price, then a buyer would have more money to meet the running costs.
Mind you if they are struggling to meet the running costs for a few years I fail to see how they would make a success of things.
I'm not saying I don't want the Aussies, far from it, but only a fool would be welcoming them with open arms, without the knowledge that they have the funds to run the club for more than a few years, before putting us into administration.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I believe it is purchase price plus 2 years' running costs (losses!). I could very easily be wrong though!
And it does make sense - say the losses are £7m a year, so they would need capital of £14m - doesn't stop them cutting costs. They don't have to spend all of it!
That makes no sense at all. But that doesn't mean it's not true!
I don't "get" why a business taking over another business would have to "show" that it had the funds to continue to service the previous owner's losses.
If Roland paid himself £10m a year out of Charlton's money and just lumped that onto the debt, a new owner wouldn't need to show they had an extra £20m to cover that (easily avoided) debt over two years.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation". Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I believe it is purchase price plus 2 years' running costs (losses!). I could very easily be wrong though!
And it does make sense - say the losses are £7m a year, so they would need capital of £14m - doesn't stop them cutting costs. They don't have to spend all of it!
That makes no sense at all. But that doesn't mean it's not true!
I don't "get" why a business taking over another business would have to "show" that it had the funds to continue to service the previous owner's losses.
If Roland paid himself £10m a year out of Charlton's money and just lumped that onto the debt, a new owner wouldn't need to show they had an extra £20m to cover that (easily avoided) debt over two years.
I'd like to think that the EFL looked at the accounts with some common sense and would take into account a departing owner taking a £10M pa salary or dividend.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I believe it is purchase price plus 2 years' running costs (losses!). I could very easily be wrong though!
And it does make sense - say the losses are £7m a year, so they would need capital of £14m - doesn't stop them cutting costs. They don't have to spend all of it!
That makes no sense at all. But that doesn't mean it's not true!
I don't "get" why a business taking over another business would have to "show" that it had the funds to continue to service the previous owner's losses.
If Roland paid himself £10m a year out of Charlton's money and just lumped that onto the debt, a new owner wouldn't need to show they had an extra £20m to cover that (easily avoided) debt over two years.
I'd like to think that the EFL looked at the accounts with some common sense and would take into account a departing owner taking a £10M pa salary or dividend.
Comments
Really don't think people realise how lucky we are as a fan base to have these people on our side.
"Hero" does not do it justice.
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
And it does make sense - say the losses are £7m a year, so they would need capital of £14m - doesn't stop them cutting costs. They don't have to spend all of it!
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
He also said that meeting the running costs is an issue.
I believe him on these points.
However, it also means that if he dropped the agreed asking price, then a buyer would have more money to meet the running costs.
Mind you if they are struggling to meet the running costs for a few years I fail to see how they would make a success of things.
I'm not saying I don't want the Aussies, far from it, but only a fool would be welcoming them with open arms, without the knowledge that they have the funds to run the club for more than a few years, before putting us into administration.
I don't "get" why a business taking over another business would have to "show" that it had the funds to continue to service the previous owner's losses.
If Roland paid himself £10m a year out of Charlton's money and just lumped that onto the debt, a new owner wouldn't need to show they had an extra £20m to cover that (easily avoided) debt over two years.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.