The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Exactly.roseandcrown said:
As it’s not on the os does that mean it’s not cancelled?Henry Irving said:What disappointed me was that this statement was given prominence but nothing on the OS about the Bromley Addicks meeting being cancelled.
Sort your priorities out @Ollywozere1 -
They've announce the Maidstone and the Weald meeting is cancelled0
-
The takeover includes taking over the Bromley Addicks.Henry Irving said:What disappointed me was that this statement was given prominence but nothing on the OS about the Bromley Addicks meeting being cancelled.
Sort your priorities out @Ollywozere
As always the Devil is in the detail.0 -
Surely 'parties' means RD and RB?1
-
-
4 -
Maybe RD has sold it twice so he can get the £77.5 million I was talking about. I am sure the two buyers won't mind.28
-
I can't believe it's got this far and there's no clue as to who the buyer is2
-
How do you come to terms with two different parties?
Are they going to be joint owners or something?0 -
One is purchasing the assets and the other purchasing the enterprise value? :-)NapaAddick said:Maybe RD has sold it twice so he can get the £77.5 million I was talking about. I am sure the two buyers won't mind.
4 - Sponsored links:
-
An SPA is one legal document negotiated by lawyers for the buyer and seller. Obviously two different lawyers for the buyers and one Mischon for Roland.0
-
@kentaddick has been banned for improper support of the RB regime that will be taking over from the RD regime.
#DOME
#Banned
#UserBannedPleaseCarryOn1 -
I've been provided with some additional information by another poster on CL who I believe is very clearly ITK but it wasn't one of the usual suspects (Airman, RedHenry or even Doucher!). However, I have promised to keep my mouth shut so out of respect I will not divulge further.Callumcafc said:Airman Brown said:The original legal source info was correct. The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.
Given the hint above (second serious party come back to the table) is that second party involved with the Scottish Muir maybe?
Muir or Muir?
I'd hope for some mega rich blokes but that doesn't happen to us...
What I will say is that I don't think the bidder has anything to do with either of the two Muir's.3 -
It's badly worded mate. Read the last paragraph a few times...SELR_addicks said:How do you come to terms with two different parties?
Are they going to be joint owners or something?1 -
Not ITK at all about anything, least of all this fecking takeover but to clarify my post above I think the legal wording would be:
"Whereas, the party of the first part [RD] has agreed with the party of the second part [the buyer] to sell the asset for the price of [undisclosed]. The party of the second part and the party of the first part hereinafter referred to as the parties shall hereinafter no longer engage with the party of the third part [mysterons] who, being unwilling to pay the sum of [undisclosed] for fourteen chips and a Bovril will be referred to as the party of the second part and that the party of the first part shall hereinafter be referred to as the party of the third part notwithstanding that the party of the second part and the party of the third part be one and the same, hereunto the interested parties shall be known as the parties and that the party of the second part and the party of the first part shall be indistinguishable from the party of the third part.
Whereunto we have this day set our seal."
Hope that makes it clearer.10 -
I assume you're snowed in across the channel as well mate and whiling away the hours on here, yes / no?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
It's badly worded mate. Read the last paragraph a few times...SELR_addicks said:How do you come to terms with two different parties?
Are they going to be joint owners or something?
0 -
Based on the info you've been given, are you optimistic about our future?flyingkiwiDK said:
I've been provided with some additional information by another poster on CL who I believe is very clearly ITK but it wasn't one of the usual suspects (Airman, RedHenry or even Doucher!). However, I have promised to keep my mouth shut so out of respect I will not divulge further.Callumcafc said:Airman Brown said:The original legal source info was correct. The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.
Given the hint above (second serious party come back to the table) is that second party involved with the Scottish Muir maybe?
Muir or Muir?
I'd hope for some mega rich blokes but that doesn't happen to us...
What I will say is that I don't think the bidder has anything to do with either of the two Muir's.
0 -
I swore I wasn't going to get dragged back into the 'it's happening' game but sod it.
Tentative gif deployment in 3...2...1...
2 -
To speculate, one bid might be X up front with the rest on attaining promotion. The other might be more cash but retaining a share of Konsa, Aribo and others per Leige.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Knowing our luck, the two parties are Toys R Us and Maplins.53
-
Yes. Very.charente addick said:
Based on the info you've been given, are you optimistic about our future?flyingkiwiDK said:
I've been provided with some additional information by another poster on CL who I believe is very clearly ITK but it wasn't one of the usual suspects (Airman, RedHenry or even Doucher!). However, I have promised to keep my mouth shut so out of respect I will not divulge further.Callumcafc said:Airman Brown said:The original legal source info was correct. The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.
Given the hint above (second serious party come back to the table) is that second party involved with the Scottish Muir maybe?
Muir or Muir?
I'd hope for some mega rich blokes but that doesn't happen to us...
What I will say is that I don't think the bidder has anything to do with either of the two Muir's.10 -
you absolute cocktease of a slut.flyingkiwiDK said:
Yes. Very.charente addick said:
Based on the info you've been given, are you optimistic about our future?flyingkiwiDK said:
I've been provided with some additional information by another poster on CL who I believe is very clearly ITK but it wasn't one of the usual suspects (Airman, RedHenry or even Doucher!). However, I have promised to keep my mouth shut so out of respect I will not divulge further.Callumcafc said:Airman Brown said:The original legal source info was correct. The same source said last week that what happened was that a serious party which had previously withdrawn had come back to the table and that was why things didn’t get finalised as expected.
Given the hint above (second serious party come back to the table) is that second party involved with the Scottish Muir maybe?
Muir or Muir?
I'd hope for some mega rich blokes but that doesn't happen to us...
What I will say is that I don't think the bidder has anything to do with either of the two Muir's.42 -
For all those wondering about selling to two parties....
Roly was spotted at a belgian production of The Producers in January.
Just saying.......
1 -
Given the differing interpretations people have arrived at as a result of the latest Richard Murray statement, i.e. are there still 2 potential purchasing parties remaining in the process, or was "parties" simply referring to one bidder and RD (my interpretation)), perhaps @Ollywozere could arrange for some kind of clarification to be issued by the club?3
-
Can someone please find out who this mystery party is?
Can't be that hard.0 -
Two purchasing parties remain in the processrobinofottershaw said:Given the differing interpretations people have arrived at as a result of the latest Richard Murray statement, i.e. are there still 2 potential purchasing parties remaining in the process, or was "parties" simply referring to one bidder and RD (my interpretation)), perhaps @Ollywozere could arrange for some kind of clarification to be issued by the club?
53 -
Olly speaks!Ollywozere said:
Two purchasing parties remain in the processrobinofottershaw said:Given the differing interpretations people have arrived at as a result of the latest Richard Murray statement, i.e. are there still 2 potential purchasing parties remaining in the process, or was "parties" simply referring to one bidder and RD (my interpretation)), perhaps @Ollywozere could arrange for some kind of clarification to be issued by the club?
First time since Meire took her thumb off his head.
;-)38 -
Is that what RM told you then? If so what's your take on it?Ollywozere said:
Two purchasing parties remain in the processrobinofottershaw said:Given the differing interpretations people have arrived at as a result of the latest Richard Murray statement, i.e. are there still 2 potential purchasing parties remaining in the process, or was "parties" simply referring to one bidder and RD (my interpretation)), perhaps @Ollywozere could arrange for some kind of clarification to be issued by the club?
1 -
I hope he's wearing a suit this time.carly burn said:
Olly speaks!Ollywozere said:
Two purchasing parties remain in the processrobinofottershaw said:Given the differing interpretations people have arrived at as a result of the latest Richard Murray statement, i.e. are there still 2 potential purchasing parties remaining in the process, or was "parties" simply referring to one bidder and RD (my interpretation)), perhaps @Ollywozere could arrange for some kind of clarification to be issued by the club?
First time since Meire took her thumb off his head.
;-)3
