Another Bonkers Statement from Roland - the "The EFL must buy the club" one
Comments
-
I’d be in for 2.5k4
-
Goonerhater said:the club wouldnt give us access
i wonder if it would be possible to purchase one of the Due Diligence already undertaken ? unfortunately i think this would still cost tens of thousands of pounds----unless of course the owners of the DD were pissed off at RD and then maybe that might sell it for a small amount ?I wouldnt have thought a desk-top valuation would be expensive.And access to The Valley costs about £20...As for sparrows lane, google earth and a school kid with a drone might be adequate2 -
Which means it must be split under any and all circumstances.Rudders22 said:
The club and the ground/training ground MUST never be split under no circumstances !!Henry Irving said:One issue I see with the fans owning the ground and training ground is what happens if the club doesn't pay the rent or carry out the required maintenance?
Will we evict the club?
We would be hostages to the owners and they would know that.
Even a "friendly" separation of club and ground is, IMHO, a bad idea although still better than Duchatelet.3 -
I think if JW had joined in with Simon Jordan in slagging Roland off, the call would have been ended pretty quickly. He was acting sympathetically to keep Duchatelet talking.Redmidland said:
Can I just clarify my statement about JW being 'bestie' with RD. You are right @cafctom JW has done a lot to highlight our case and I've welcomed that and been very encouraged by him (JW) keeping it in the public-eye when he could. However the interview on Wednesday seemed to me that, strangely, Simon Jordon was taking RD on and JW kept apologising for the vandalism caused, even though its not been proved it was CAFC fans, that was not what I was expecting. So I'm happy to state that on Wednesday that's how it came across to me, and not any of the other media attention he has given us. I hope that clarify's my use of the word 'bestie'cafctom said:Bit tired of the constant digs at Jim White saying he is ‘best mates’ with Roland etc.
Jim White is not my favourite character in the world, but he has done what was necessary to get Roland talking publicly and ultimately to get Roland to expose and embarrass himself on more than one occasion.
Yes I know he got fooled by the whole “it’s happening” thing, but I think JW has helped our cause a lot more than people are giving him credit for.
Also, a friend of a friend has told me that someone called Talksport on Monday to suggest it might be a good time for Jim to call RD. We should be grateful he took that advice.
9 -
.seth plum said:If £2.5k would steer us out of this mess I will find the money.
There are many here who would like to be able to do that too, but don't have the resources, their passion for the club is the same as mine however, it isn't measured by money.
But for me, like Grapevine, I would contribute with no expectation of return, but the string I would attach would be that it has to be a way out of this nightmare.0 -
You would think that at the very least we could commission and educated estimate. But surely the value is not that of a piece of land, but land with a football club that loses money attached to it.1
-
Too busy taking calls in the ticket office.Patchthecat said:Why can’t Roland be sectioned under the mental health act surely there are 2 doctors who support Charlton who could sign the section order2 -
Whoosh!iainment said:
The problem is that he doesn't spend any time here and his stupidity isn't sectionable.Patchthecat said:Why can’t Roland be sectioned under the mental health act surely there are 2 doctors who support Charlton who could sign the section order
Also a doctor who did this on the basis of the football team they support would be struck off.
Apart from that well done.1 -
I'm surprised at no official statement from CARD regarding this and any possible protest (unless I've missed it)0
-
..0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Sympathetic article attacking Duchatelet by Rod Liddle in today's Sunday Times. Sorry cannot post.0
-
An excellent article by Daniel Taylor in The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/mar/03/football-fans-owen-oyston-blackpool-charlton-coventry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other8
-
Apologies if posted elsewhere, a good article in The Guardian lampooning RD.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/mar/03/football-fans-owen-oyston-blackpool-charlton-coventry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
1 -
But then there's protest fatigue, and it needs good numbers for impact.Greenie said:
Thats what your words say, the reality is different.LargeAddick said:clive said:
Disappointed in those comments. The protests are not about how the team is doing, they are about ridding ourselves of Roland. What happens on the pitch is of no consequence.Ive said it before on here, when the team is doing well then no one wants to protest, and Roland is put to the back of our minds, look at the attendance at the play off semi at our place as an example.
Then as soon as we lose 3 or 4 games then the talk is of protests, so that is how it is interpreted, footy fans spitting their dummies when the club is doing badly.
The protests had stopped and then he sells Grant and doesn't replace him and all of a sudden lets protest.We either protest/boycott or we dont, its continual or it isn't, and Roland will spin it as results driven by a bunch of cry baby supporters, so the perception is, it is about results and that is how the general public and press see it, no matter what fans say on forum.
A couple of my non Charlton mates commented on why the protests have stopped, then looked at the table, saw we are in the play offs and said 'oh I see why'That is the reality, sadly we have let ourselves down.
Not many boycotters return for the protests, therefore they are boycotting the match and the protest.0 -
Funny that The Guardian article features a picture of "Coventry" fans protesting at their game at The Valley when it is, in fact, Charlton fans that are wearing the t-shirts spelling "SISU OUT" .Blucher said:An excellent article by Daniel Taylor in The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/mar/03/football-fans-owen-oyston-blackpool-charlton-coventry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other2 -
Easy mistake to makesuperclive98 said:
Funny that The Guardian article features a picture of "Coventry" fans protesting at their game at The Valley when it is, in fact, Charlton fans that are wearing the t-shirts spelling "SISU OUT" .Blucher said:An excellent article by Daniel Taylor in The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/mar/03/football-fans-owen-oyston-blackpool-charlton-coventry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
@Addickted and @Live by the sword also pictured.
Henry Jnr just visible behind the Katrien Meire flag1 -
I'm in that Coventry pic too, just above the t of out!0
-
I'm trying to get a consortium of all the Charlton supporting family Soapboxes to pay the 2.5k.
Due diligence is taking place and Great Granny Soapbox fancies being a Karen Brady. Great Grandad is cashing in his Premium bonds and 5 year old Sammy Reza Clive Yann Bradley Soapbox is rattling his moneybox.
Glamorous Cousin Sharon Soapbox is selling her shares in Anne Summers even though she will miss the free gift each year with batteries.
My son said he will only put money in if he can pick the team like Roland did and my twin Brothers Sid and Simon both said will we have to pay extra to make the Directors/Owners box bigger.
My Uncle in Australia Spuce Soapbox said he's fed up with being asked to join a CAFC
Consortium down under and for that reason he's out.
The NDA will be a problem as it's good to talk.
2 -
Just bought a copy of the Observer with the article by Daniel Taylor and there is a picture of me and my dog Dora outside the Football League offices.7
-
Were you there putting up the Charlton sign for our new owners or did you or Dora just piss against the wall ?Mosscat said:Just bought a copy of the Observer with the article by Daniel Taylor and there is a picture of me and my dog Dora outside the Football League offices.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Here's the article which I've posted in full as the Times is subscription only. As a Millwall fan you'd expect a couple of digs at us, and they are there, but generally, as Southbank stated, he's very sympathetic towards us.Southbank said:Sympathetic article attacking Duchatelet by Rod Liddle in today's Sunday Times. Sorry cannot post.It is often said, light-heartedly, that you would need to be “mad” to want to own a football club. Unless you’re near the top of the Premier League, there’s not much chance of turning a profit — unless you decide to asset strip. But still, of course, they do it.
The word “mad” is usually deployed in this context to mean a bit crazy, rather than genuinely deranged. Unless you’re talking about the Belgian owner of League One Charlton Athletic, Roland Duchatelet. The only real question to be asked is whether Roland was always this doolally or if owning Charlton has kind of tipped him over the edge.
Last week Duchatelet, or his people, posted on the club’s official website one of the barmiest letters I have ever seen in relation to football. It was a tirade against the fans, which the Charlton supporters will have read with some familiarity, given that relations between the two sides have never risen above the extremely chilly.
Bizarre tirade: Charlton Athletic’s owner Roland Duchatelet has accused the club’s fans of preventing it from being soldDOMINIC LIPINSKIBut it was also a tirade against the English Football League and, more pertinently, a demand that the league buy Charlton Athletic from Duchatelet. The owner blames the fans for a perpetual stream of “fake news” about the club and “acts of vandalism” directed at himself or his friends and family. But the letter claims that the EFL, through its tinkering with the Financial Fair Play rules, effectively discriminated against his club and have failed to investigate his complaints against Charlton supporters.
Here’s an example of the paranoia: “. . . new incidents were created by a coalition of fans against the owner based on fake news, like young players were not getting water to drink and staff not being paid due bonuses. It’s hard to deny that such actions could jeopardise the ongoing purchase process. The EFL said it would intervene to find out who was telling the truth but nothing like that happened.”
The letter concludes with the allegation that effectively fans are preventing the sale of the club: “Which foreign candidate owner will be prepared to invest millions to get a chance to bring a club to the Premier League and at the same time accept acts of vandalism against his property and intrusion in his private life, wherever in the world he/she lives? Therefore the owner demands that the EFL acquires his football club.”
Just a little bizarre, no? The rest of the letter is a case of Duchatelet exonerating himself from any blame in Charlton’s decline: relegation was all down to supporters staging protests and the EFL making it harder for the club to compete. Duchatelet has been trying to flog Charlton for quite a while and fans were optimistic in 2017 when two decent offers were lying on the table.
But their hopefulness has somewhat diminished since then — the club still has not been sold. And the protests continue against an owner and administration which at the very best might be deemed inept.
Ironically, Charlton are having a fairly successful season, comfortably ensconced in the playoff places and possessing the useful knack of winning the truly crucial games.
As well as winning away at Portsmouth, they have held top-of-the-table Luton Town and high-flying Sunderland to draws.
If they went up this year — and there are a few other very strong playoff candidates who might have a word to say about that, not least Sunderland and Portsmouth — then the market value of the club would surely rise. The final point is that I assume Duchatelet knows that the EFL could not possibly buy Charlton Athletic and that his letter is therefore a kind of psychotic rhetoric, a wailing at the wind.
Have the fans expected too much of their owner? Perhaps, perhaps. The Addicks think of themselves as a Premier League club, which is why they refer to my lot down the road in SE16 as “Smallwall”. They did not take relegation kindly. But they are hardly alone, throughout the football league, in having expectations which exceed their abilities. And with Duchatelet, they are far more sinned against than sinning.
It would be remiss when talking about bizarre owners in this week of all weeks not to mention Notts County’s Alan Hardy. Alan is the chap who gained some notoriety by tweeting a photograph of his penis, which he claims was done by accident. I can see how falling down stairs, or knocking over a vase, might be an accident, but not displaying a snap of your old fella to the entire world. But that’s by the by. Notts County, the oldest professional club in the world, are facing administration and a winding up order.
Hardy’s business has gone bust and he needs £1.25m just to see them through to the end of the season, money he does not remotely have, and the club are anchored to the bottom of League Two. But Hardy has taken action this week. He banned a supporter from attending yesterday’s game against fellow strugglers Port Vale at Meadow Lane. The supporter in question was himself. Couldn’t he have just not gone?
These are dark days at this lovely, venerable old club. But my suspicion is that Mr Hardy has been more naïve than mad. Let’s hope a buyer comes in soon.
4 -
Two trouble makers and a dog
4 -
More trouble makers
3 -
You can tell from the dog’s expression that he is a vinegar-pisserHenry Irving said:Two trouble makers and a dog3 -
Caused a problem in the pub afterwards too.Blucher said:
You can tell from the dog’s expression that he is a vinegar-pisserHenry Irving said:Two trouble makers and a dog1 -
Coming late to this, but I wonder if you could put the Valley in the hands of the fans by whatever legal means, and lease it back to the club effectively free and allow the tenant to retain all revenues on the basis they retain all associated costs of operation and improvement. In essence the ground would be held in trust, but operated to the sole benefit of the football club at the cost of the football club.Henry Irving said:One issue I see with the fans owning the ground and training ground is what happens if the club doesn't pay the rent or carry out the required maintenance?
Will we evict the club?
We would be hostages to the owners and they would know that.
Even a "friendly" separation of club and ground is, IMHO, a bad idea although still better than Duchatelet.7 -
Possibly but when owner doesn't pay the rates or maintain the pitch, what then?rikofold said:
Coming late to this, but I wonder if you could put the Valley in the hands of the fans by whatever legal means, and lease it back to the club effectively free and allow the tenant to retain all revenues on the basis they retain all associated costs of operation and improvement. In essence the ground would be held in trust, but operated to the sole benefit of the football club at the cost of the football club.Henry Irving said:One issue I see with the fans owning the ground and training ground is what happens if the club doesn't pay the rent or carry out the required maintenance?
Will we evict the club?
We would be hostages to the owners and they would know that.
Even a "friendly" separation of club and ground is, IMHO, a bad idea although still better than Duchatelet.
1 -
I'm afraid this question needs a good answer. Right now, I don't have one.Henry Irving said:
Possibly but when owner doesn't pay the rates or maintain the pitch, what then?rikofold said:
Coming late to this, but I wonder if you could put the Valley in the hands of the fans by whatever legal means, and lease it back to the club effectively free and allow the tenant to retain all revenues on the basis they retain all associated costs of operation and improvement. In essence the ground would be held in trust, but operated to the sole benefit of the football club at the cost of the football club.Henry Irving said:One issue I see with the fans owning the ground and training ground is what happens if the club doesn't pay the rent or carry out the required maintenance?
Will we evict the club?
We would be hostages to the owners and they would know that.
Even a "friendly" separation of club and ground is, IMHO, a bad idea although still better than Duchatelet.0 -
Under normal circumstances, I'm sure Addicks would not be contemplating a scheme such as that outlined by Grapevine, and people like Henry are very right to point out the potential pitfalls. My fear would be what sort of owner would want to buy a loss-making club without the ground.
However, circumstances are NOT normal, and in my opinion CASTrust should be encouraged to investigate all possibilities as thoroughly as they can. Then any decisions which need to be made - maybe at short notice - can be taken from a position of knowledge, not just guesswork.
Of course, in an ideal world Charlton would be owned lock, stock & barrel by a single well-intentioned entity with deep pockets and long arms. We may not get there in a single step, particularly while Roland is responsible for the sale.
Sometimes it is quicker and easier to go round 3 sides of a square to get to the next corner, and IF fan action can provide that necessary detour then surely we should be looking into it? It may prove to be a non-starter for many reasons, but at the moment no-one knows for sure.
8
