Their debts are over £100M and they are losing £25M per year and heading for League One. He won't get an offer until he eats half the debt. Also has players on PL contracts killing their wage bill. I think they are in administration within 36 months.
think I read somewhere they have a £90m wage bill.
aren't they still paying Jack Rodwell £70k @ week and he never plays, rumoured to be the only player without a relegation clause from the prem
More info from Angeldust elsewhere. Without quoting the whole post, the gist is that Angeldust believes that the Aussies are still on the radar, while "nearly all" of the other interested parties have walked away over the price. His view is that the Aussies have reached some sort of agreement with RD, but it's far short of what he is looking for. As a result, his gut feeling is that RD will retain some interest in the club.
Angeldust also thinks that a timescale has been established for the deal to go through (the end of Feb or early March) but RD is still open to higher offers in the interim. Angeldust is concerned that this might not be a watertight arrangement with the Aussies, with the implication that RD might extend the deadline (that's my reading of it anyway). He ends on a more positive note that the Aussies are always looking for extra investment and could buy out RD over time.
Just thought people might find this interesting, and I know not everyone looks in "elsewhere" so might have missed it.
he must have read my post yesterday.
In fact yours and his posts were moments apart. You are Angeldust and I claim my m&s gift voucher!!
More info from Angeldust elsewhere. Without quoting the whole post, the gist is that Angeldust believes that the Aussies are still on the radar, while "nearly all" of the other interested parties have walked away over the price. His view is that the Aussies have reached some sort of agreement with RD, but it's far short of what he is looking for. As a result, his gut feeling is that RD will retain some interest in the club.
Angeldust also thinks that a timescale has been established for the deal to go through (the end of Feb or early March) but RD is still open to higher offers in the interim. Angeldust is concerned that this might not be a watertight arrangement with the Aussies, with the implication that RD might extend the deadline (that's my reading of it anyway). He ends on a more positive note that the Aussies are always looking for extra investment and could buy out RD over time.
Just thought people might find this interesting, and I know not everyone looks in "elsewhere" so might have missed it.
But RM promised RD wouldn't keep any part of the club
When asked if Roland Duchatelet would keep the ground and training ground
“I heard this thing that Roland was keeping The Valley and selling the club, no, not that I’m aware.
“To my knowledge this (the sale) would be lock, stock and barrel.
“The training ground for any buyer is quite key as well. They realise that for a club like us the academy is essential and I think Jason (Morgan, CEO of the Charlton Athletic Community Trust) is aware that the Trust is very much one of the assets which they (potential buyers) feel is linked to Charlton and can be expanded even further than it has been already.”
The quote clearly shows that RM does not promise anything. Nor is he in a position to promise it, is he?
One also needs to consider that what was the case then, may not be now.
Some rumours have suggested the deal is basically agreed but haggling over player sales and add on payments. I guess this could be how the Australian consortium are bridging the gap on price. One can but hope that they do not need to mortgage anything else to afford a takeover.
More info from Angeldust elsewhere. Without quoting the whole post, the gist is that Angeldust believes that the Aussies are still on the radar, while "nearly all" of the other interested parties have walked away over the price. His view is that the Aussies have reached some sort of agreement with RD, but it's far short of what he is looking for. As a result, his gut feeling is that RD will retain some interest in the club.
Angeldust also thinks that a timescale has been established for the deal to go through (the end of Feb or early March) but RD is still open to higher offers in the interim. Angeldust is concerned that this might not be a watertight arrangement with the Aussies, with the implication that RD might extend the deadline (that's my reading of it anyway). He ends on a more positive note that the Aussies are always looking for extra investment and could buy out RD over time.
Just thought people might find this interesting, and I know not everyone looks in "elsewhere" so might have missed it.
But RM promised RD wouldn't keep any part of the club
When asked if Roland Duchatelet would keep the ground and training ground
“I heard this thing that Roland was keeping The Valley and selling the club, no, not that I’m aware.
“To my knowledge this (the sale) would be lock, stock and barrel.
“The training ground for any buyer is quite key as well. They realise that for a club like us the academy is essential and I think Jason (Morgan, CEO of the Charlton Athletic Community Trust) is aware that the Trust is very much one of the assets which they (potential buyers) feel is linked to Charlton and can be expanded even further than it has been already.”
I’d take anything Murray says with a pinch of salt.
And what about angel dust?
I don’t really know who he is, other than he posts on ITTV.... so.....
Reminds me of when I was in the Valley Cafe and saw former chess Grand Master, Gary Kasparov in there. When I asked him to pass the salt, it took him half hour
I try to treat all my celebrity sightings confidential
Yes indeed I heard he had quite a checkered career after his chess days. Mind you, of course, he was pretty set in his ways, everything was very much black or white to him..
Indeed..... he fell on hard times and had to pawn most of his possessions
Without having any inside information I suspect we have one serious bidder and one that Roland is entertaining solely to put pressure on the other to complete. As the club loses a significant amount of money each month, the serious bidders would seem to have no incentive to rush if they don't believe they have serious competition.
Roland just has to wake up and smell the coffee - as a businessman he should know that mistakes cost and that is what he and those working for him have made from day one. As for us, we need to be patient - economics will dictate that Roland sells us and if I was buying I would not be in a great hurry. The window has closed so you can't really affect what happens between now and the end of the season anyway and it may even be beneficial for the team and manager not to have too many distractions at this point.
I'm still very confident we will be going into next season with new owners.
More info from Angeldust elsewhere. Without quoting the whole post, the gist is that Angeldust believes that the Aussies are still on the radar, while "nearly all" of the other interested parties have walked away over the price. His view is that the Aussies have reached some sort of agreement with RD, but it's far short of what he is looking for. As a result, his gut feeling is that RD will retain some interest in the club.
Angeldust also thinks that a timescale has been established for the deal to go through (the end of Feb or early March) but RD is still open to higher offers in the interim. Angeldust is concerned that this might not be a watertight arrangement with the Aussies, with the implication that RD might extend the deadline (that's my reading of it anyway). He ends on a more positive note that the Aussies are always looking for extra investment and could buy out RD over time.
Just thought people might find this interesting, and I know not everyone looks in "elsewhere" so might have missed it.
he must have read my post yesterday.
Yes - but does the 'nearly all' include your mega rich guy(s)?
Yes they are still there, they seem to have gone under the radar of all the ITK
I’ve never been persuaded by the idea of two Australian groups - the name Gerard Murphy is still being given and he was the original AFC front man. Andrew Muir I’ve assumed to be a significant part of that or perhaps a progression of it. Just because he has money doesn’t mean he’ll put it all on the table. Paul Elliott is also named as becoming a director if they take over.
Duchatelet cannot retain and lease assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) to the club unless the former directors agree. No deal to do that has been done - or even put forward AFAIK. And we would know.
If RD retained a share of the ownership of the club (or if he sold it “lock, stock and barrel” as promised) there would be no new leases needed but if part-owner he would presumably have to continue funding it in the same proportion, which he surely won’t do, although I guess you could construct a mechanism where existing Staprix debt was progressively reduced instead of new money being provided.
I’ve never been persuaded by the idea of two Australian groups - the name Gerard Murphy is still being given and he was the original AFC front man. Andrew Muir I’ve understood to be a significant part of that. Just because he has money doesn’t mean he’ll put it all on the table. Paul Elliott is also named as becoming a director if they take over.
Duchatelet cannot retain and lease assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) unless the former directors agree. No deal to resolve that has been done. If RD retained a share of the ownership of the club there would be no new leases needed but he would presumably have to continue funding it in the same proportion, which he surely won’t do, although I guess you could construct a mechanism where existing debt was progressively reduced instead.
Good Lord......that first paragraph has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons! And there we all were thinking there were two Oz parties interested! Yes, Andrew Muir was evidently going to be (or was) involved in the original AFC consortium but it has been assumed by most of us that he was heading another bid, with maybe one or two other interested parties and had thus split from AFC. As I say, this was assumed to be ‘gospel’......you have certainly put that widely held assumption in considerable doubt Mr E.
I’ve never been persuaded by the idea of two Australian groups - the name Gerard Murphy is still being given and he was the original AFC front man. Andrew Muir I’ve understood to be a significant part of that. Just because he has money doesn’t mean he’ll put it all on the table. Paul Elliott is also named as becoming a director if they take over.
Duchatelet cannot retain and lease assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) unless the former directors agree. No deal to resolve that has been done. If RD retained a share of the ownership of the club there would be no new leases needed but he would presumably have to continue funding it in the same proportion, which he surely won’t do, although I guess you could construct a mechanism where existing debt was progressively reduced instead.
Good Lord......that first paragraph has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons! And there we all were thinking there were two Oz parties interested! Yes, Andrew Muir was evidently going to be (or was) involved in the original AFC consortium but it has been assumed by most of us that he was heading another bid, with maybe one or two other interested parties and had thus split from AFC. As I say, this was assumed to be ‘gospel’......you have certainly put that widely held assumption in considerable doubt Mr E.
I had always assumed that the Aussie Muir interest was related to the original interest. I assumed he would have been brought on board by the existing party. However I also guessed that with him (and possibly others) on board the Aussie bid would look very different from the original interest and so can seem them as two different entities.
I’ve never been persuaded by the idea of two Australian groups - the name Gerard Murphy is still being given and he was the original AFC front man. Andrew Muir I’ve understood to be a significant part of that. Just because he has money doesn’t mean he’ll put it all on the table. Paul Elliott is also named as becoming a director if they take over.
Duchatelet cannot retain and lease assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) unless the former directors agree. No deal to resolve that has been done. If RD retained a share of the ownership of the club there would be no new leases needed but he would presumably have to continue funding it in the same proportion, which he surely won’t do, although I guess you could construct a mechanism where existing debt was progressively reduced instead.
Good Lord......that first paragraph has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons! And there we all were thinking there were two Oz parties interested! Yes, Andrew Muir was evidently going to be (or was) involved in the original AFC consortium but it has been assumed by most of us that he was heading another bid, with maybe one or two other interested parties and had thus split from AFC. As I say, this was assumed to be ‘gospel’......you have certainly put that widely held assumption in considerable doubt Mr E.
I had always assumed that the Aussie Muir interest was related to the original interest. I assumed he would have been brought on board by the existing party. However I also guessed that with him (and possibly others) on board the Aussie bid would look very different from the original interest and so can seem them as two different entities.
Yes, originaly that was what most of us assumed, but it’s my belief that shortly afterwards he had decided to fly solo and had fronted another group. Hence the two Oz bids that have been talked about for months! So, were there/are there two different Oz bidders or not?
I’ve never been persuaded by the idea of two Australian groups - the name Gerard Murphy is still being given and he was the original AFC front man. Andrew Muir I’ve understood to be a significant part of that. Just because he has money doesn’t mean he’ll put it all on the table. Paul Elliott is also named as becoming a director if they take over.
Duchatelet cannot retain and lease assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) unless the former directors agree. No deal to resolve that has been done. If RD retained a share of the ownership of the club there would be no new leases needed but he would presumably have to continue funding it in the same proportion, which he surely won’t do, although I guess you could construct a mechanism where existing debt was progressively reduced instead.
Good Lord......that first paragraph has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons! And there we all were thinking there were two Oz parties interested! Yes, Andrew Muir was evidently going to be (or was) involved in the original AFC consortium but it has been assumed by most of us that he was heading another bid, with maybe one or two other interested parties and had thus split from AFC. As I say, this was assumed to be ‘gospel’......you have certainly put that widely held assumption in considerable doubt Mr E.
I had always assumed that the Aussie Muir interest was related to the original interest. I assumed he would have been brought on board by the existing party. However I also guessed that with him (and possibly others) on board the Aussie bid would look very different from the original interest and so can seem them as two different entities.
Yes, originaly that was what most of us assumed, but it’s my belief that shortly afterwards he had decided to fly solo and had fronted another group. Hence the two Oz bids that have been talked about for months! So, were there/are there two different Oz bidders or not?
Like buses! No Aussie bidders have ever bid for a football club ever.Then two come along at once?
I assumed there were 2 Aussie bids purely on the basis that AFC were hunting for cash, whist A Muir has bundles of it, so (logically in my mind) couldn't be part of the apparently cash-strapped AFC bid.
I’ve never been persuaded by the idea of two Australian groups - the name Gerard Murphy is still being given and he was the original AFC front man. Andrew Muir I’ve understood to be a significant part of that. Just because he has money doesn’t mean he’ll put it all on the table. Paul Elliott is also named as becoming a director if they take over.
Duchatelet cannot retain and lease assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) unless the former directors agree. No deal to resolve that has been done. If RD retained a share of the ownership of the club there would be no new leases needed but he would presumably have to continue funding it in the same proportion, which he surely won’t do, although I guess you could construct a mechanism where existing debt was progressively reduced instead.
Good Lord......that first paragraph has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons! And there we all were thinking there were two Oz parties interested! Yes, Andrew Muir was evidently going to be (or was) involved in the original AFC consortium but it has been assumed by most of us that he was heading another bid, with maybe one or two other interested parties and had thus split from AFC. As I say, this was assumed to be ‘gospel’......you have certainly put that widely held assumption in considerable doubt Mr E.
I had always assumed that the Aussie Muir interest was related to the original interest. I assumed he would have been brought on board by the existing party. However I also guessed that with him (and possibly others) on board the Aussie bid would look very different from the original interest and so can seem them as two different entities.
Yes, originaly that was what most of us assumed, but it’s my belief that shortly afterwards he had decided to fly solo and had fronted another group. Hence the two Oz bids that have been talked about for months! So, were there/are there two different Oz bidders or not?
Like buses! No Aussie bidders have ever bid for a football club ever.Then two come along at once?
I assumed there were 2 Aussie bids purely on the basis that AFC were hunting for cash, whist A Muir has bundles of it, so (logically in my mind) couldn't be part of the apparently cash-strapped AFC bid.
I honestly think people are jumping to conclusions with them hunting for money though. It's entirely possible they have the money on paper but want further investment either to reduce the risk to each major invenstor or to put more money in.
Perhaps I am having an optimistic view, but looking for investors is not the same as trying to find the funding.
I know that the recent dip in form has not helped with trying to bring to a conclusion the bids that are under consideration - certainly implies things are not 'done'
Comments
aren't they still paying Jack Rodwell £70k @ week and he never plays, rumoured to be the only player without a relegation clause from the prem
You are Angeldust and I claim my m&s gift voucher!!
One also needs to consider that what was the case then, may not be now.
Some rumours have suggested the deal is basically agreed but haggling over player sales and add on payments. I guess this could be how the Australian consortium are bridging the gap on price. One can but hope that they do not need to mortgage anything else to afford a takeover.
I think we all hope Red Henry’s group win out.
Roland just has to wake up and smell the coffee - as a businessman he should know that mistakes cost and that is what he and those working for him have made from day one. As for us, we need to be patient - economics will dictate that Roland sells us and if I was buying I would not be in a great hurry. The window has closed so you can't really affect what happens between now and the end of the season anyway and it may even be beneficial for the team and manager not to have too many distractions at this point.
I'm still very confident we will be going into next season with new owners.
Duchatelet cannot retain and lease assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) to the club unless the former directors agree. No deal to do that has been done - or even put forward AFAIK. And we would know.
If RD retained a share of the ownership of the club (or if he sold it “lock, stock and barrel” as promised) there would be no new leases needed but if part-owner he would presumably have to continue funding it in the same proportion, which he surely won’t do, although I guess you could construct a mechanism where existing Staprix debt was progressively reduced instead of new money being provided.
And there we all were thinking there were two Oz parties interested!
Yes, Andrew Muir was evidently going to be (or was) involved in the original AFC consortium but it has been assumed by most of us that he was heading another bid, with maybe one or two other interested parties and had thus split from AFC.
As I say, this was assumed to be ‘gospel’......you have certainly put that widely held assumption in considerable doubt Mr E.
Hence the two Oz bids that have been talked about for months!
So, were there/are there two different Oz bidders or not?
No Aussie bidders have ever bid for a football club ever.Then two come along at once?
Think someone's got their wires crossed.
Perhaps I am having an optimistic view, but looking for investors is not the same as trying to find the funding.