Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
So he will only sell to investors with the clout to take us to the premier league so he gets his money back but won’t do that himself. The man is
unbelievablea cnut!4 -
The sad part is, had he invested properly in that first season, and continued to do so thereafter, the money that's been spent at the club may well have been enough to see us in the Premier League. Unfortunately for us, he wasted millions before realising his little experiment wasn't working.24
-
Henry Irving
It would only be third party ownership if he owns the player. Of the players mentioned above (Konsa excluded), Charlton do not own them, merely a charge on the players. If you are suggesting that Roland owning this charge is third party ownership then Charlton owning the charge would also constitute third party ownership. He can own the sell on rights over a player. I think CAFC have sold these in the past, either Shelvey or Jenkinson ring a bell here but I may be incorrect.
11:01AM edited 11:01AM
"Look at Batishuyi at Chelsea. When Roland owned Standard he sold him to (i think) Marseille for a fee with a large sell on fee (25% i think). The when Chelsea bought him for £40 million, Roland pocketed £10 Million just from the sell on fee due to the terms of the agreement (from what i read in the papers and i think on here)
I can only assume this will be the same case for Lookman, Gomez, Harriott, JBG, Pope and the eventual sale of Konsa. Charlton won't see the Sell on Fee if they are sold on, Roland will get them all. "
That would be third party ownership and so illegal0 -
Lets be honest about Roland, he wants to be the richest man in the cemetery14
-
You should put all the swingometers back in the box let this thread drop down the page
Yes there’s talks yes things are still being discussed but this is a long long long long long way from being anywhere near concluded
Nothing has been agreed no price has been met
The thing is doucher has posted the closest to the truth so far but your all ripping him a new one6 -
I don't know how that Batishuyi deal hasn't been investigated for third party ownership..0
-
'The thing is doucher has posted the closest to the truth so far but your all ripping him a new one'
really? because he says nothing is happening and yet your very own post says different. for him to be right you'd have to be bullshitting2 -
FFS, people ripped him a new one quite rightly, not for what was said, but how he said it. He knows what he is doing.nth london addick said:You should put all the swingometers back in the box let this thread drop down the page
Yes there’s talks yes things are still being discussed but this is a long long long long long way from being anywhere near concluded
Nothing has been agreed no price has been met
The thing is doucher has posted the closest to the truth so far but your all ripping him a new one12 -
nla.....in all honesty you know nothing more than anyone else.
You should have started by saying “ in my opinion” and not written like it was fact if you wanted to encourage readers to believe you.3 -
@Henry Irving I dont think it is 3rd party ownership. This was being discussed by Simon Jordan on Talksport about the potential Newcastle takeover and he was indicating that as part of the sale Mike Ashley could take x amount up front and then gamble on sell on clauses in the future going to him when and if they happened, so sounded like normal practice.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Carl Leaburn
2:18PM
@Henry Irving I dont think it is 3rd party ownership. This was being discussed by Simon Jordan on Talksport about the potential Newcastle takeover and he was indicating that as part of the sale Mike Ashley could take x amount up front and then gamble on sell on clauses in the future going to him when and if they happened, so sounded like normal practice
Agree with this - it's just a club asset that isn't sold with the other assets, but is instead retained by the selling shareholder.1 -
There is a difference between having extra payments based on performance of the club ie Newcastle and having a share in the ownership and so future fees of a player.
I'm not an expert on this and there is no concrete evidence that RD owns or wants a share of the Lookman/konsa/RHF money.
But ownership of a player's registration (which is what is bought and sold not the actual player) is regulated and can only, as I understand it, be between two clubs ie the first and second party.
yes, another club maybe entitled to a share of a future transfer fee (see Darren Bent and Ipswich) but that is not third party ownership as I understand it.2 -
Theresa May and David Davis are currently consoling themselves that they're not involved in anything as convoluted as a Charlton takeover.25
-
The way it was phrased on the radio was that if x player got sold then the price of the sale would go up by x amount with the extra payment being due then. A bit like older directors getting x amount if we hit the premier league. No ownership of registration.0
-
"Henry Irving
2:24PM
There is a difference between having extra payments based on performance of the club ie Newcastle and having a share in the ownership and so future fees of a player.
I'm not an expert on this and there is no concrete evidence that RD owns or wants a share of the Lookman/konsa/RHF money.
But ownership of players registrations (which is what is bought and sold not the actual player) is regulated and can only, as I understand it be between two club ie the first and second party."
I wouldnt have thought it's ownership of the player's registration - he's gone and his registration is owned outright by the buying club, albeit with the possibility of further payments. Those payments may even be made to the selling club, but the outgoing shareholder may retain a conditional consideration owed to him by the selling club in the event of further fees becoming due from the buying club. So there's an indirect rather than a direct link between the buying club and the outgoing shareholder. Praps.1 -
Another football club can have a consideration but not a third party. See West Ham and Tevez
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_ownership_in_association_football2 -
Precisely my original point @Henry Irving
Standard would be quite entitled to any sell on fee for Batshuayi as a football club, but not their previous owner (if he really doesn't still own them). That is surely third party ownership as it implies Duchatelet always owned Batshuayi and not Standard Liege. If he really had sold Standard Liege then surely he is entitled to £0 of any player sold after his departure?3 -
Henry Irving -
Another football club can have a consideration but not a third party. See West Ham and Tevez
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_ownership_in_association_football
-----------
I don't believe that is the same thing.
Cork City had an unscrupulous owner in one Tom Coughlan during the 2009 season. He sold the rights to the sell on fee that Cork City had for Shane Long to a third party.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-claims-share-of-shane-long-s-transfer-fee-to-west-brom-1.24370310 -
It's a very shady world and something that should be investigated by the FA and Duchatelet banned from football. I'd love to see the Trust take this one on.6
-
Rich Cawley: "Duchatelet recently admitted he was open to selling Charlton and is in talks with at least one interested party."
Karl also says again he's been told it's not for sale, I should add, for balance.
https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-takeover-would-be-the-end-of-my-valley-career-manager-karl-robinson/4 - Sponsored links:
-
If those are KR’s words then all that spells out to me is a plea to any potential future owner?
“Everything that has been put in place”!!??
That sounds to me like he knows more than he is letting off!1 -
“The work put in over the last 12 months has been difficult – the hardest things is things you have not quite seen.”
Reference to the nightmeire? Two Sheds?3 -
If he knows nothing about a takeover surely he would say "They (the new owners) 'probably' have their own ideas".0
-
Either that Bob or the inconvenience to training and match preparation at Sparrows Lane with the constant comings and goings of heavy plantbobmunro said:“The work put in over the last 12 months has been difficult – the hardest things is things you have not quite seen.”
Reference to the nightmeire? Two Sheds?
4 -
This is KR we're talking about!Red_in_SE8 said:If he knows nothing about a takeover surely he would say "They (the new owners) 'probably' have their own ideas".
0 -
-
-
On BBC London just now they had a piece about our 25 years back at The Valley. Asked about a takeover, Robbo said:
"I was told no [there isn't one]. But I guess every club has its price."
He also said something about him not being a politician but I missed the exact context.0 -
Airman Brown said:
Rich Cawley: "Duchatelet recently admitted he was open to selling Charlton and is in talks with at least one interested party."
Karl also says again he's been told it's not for sale, I should add, for balance.
https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-takeover-would-be-the-end-of-my-valley-career-manager-karl-robinson/
0
This discussion has been closed.
