The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Or downblackpool72 said:Well we now know what league we are in next season.
I never renewed my season ticket at the early price.
Let's see how much they go up now.
FUCK OFF ROLAND0 -
Stand down people, they were just uploading the match report from today’s gameNorthStandUltra said:The OS is down, get the it’s happening GIF ready!
2 -
As Charlton's fate played out, I sweated a fitful sleep. I dreamt that Andrew Muir had taken over and with a microphone in his hand he stood in the centre circle and proclaimed:
"We need to get our Charlton back. And that requires every one of you to step up. But i don't want community leaders - that is not enough. We need... philosophers!"
Send in your explanations on the back of a postcard.
3 -
Sell the club.1
-
And FUCK OFFValley27000 said:Sell the club.
11 -
Gerard Murphy was there today10
-
JUST GO FUCK YOURSELF ROLAND .3
-
Sell the club and sort your teeth out you and I promise I won’t visit your hotel0
-
Hearing Rocunts gone?2
-
Source?i_b_b_o_r_g said:Hearing Rocunts gone?
0 - Sponsored links:
-
0
-
??1
-
A couple of posts on Facebook groups is all2
-
Any specific comments ?0
-
0
-
Just Fuck Off you poisonous twat, your experiments in politics and football have failed dismally now just concentrate on getting old and leave other peoples toys alone.2
-
Steady on. He's only reporting what he read on Facebook.Harry Gregory said:Just Fuck Off you poisonous twat, your experiments in politics and football have failed dismally now just concentrate on getting old and leave other peoples toys alone.
32 -
Naughty boy!Callumcafc said:SELL THE CLUB YOU OLD BALLBAG FACE.
3 -
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
0 -
But this is Charlton and even our takeovers have to be a bit sh*t.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
4 - Sponsored links:
-
As far as we are aware, this isn't a sole ownership deal, the Aussies are a consortium, and therefore Muir isn't going to put all of his wealth at risk, there would have been decisions taken about the sums of money that people will be investing. The Aussies aren't buying us for the love of the club, they are buying us because they can see a profit further down the line. It's likely they have some initial capital to make available for transfers and the general running of the club, but going forward they will need to find other ways to raise funds because outside of the Premiership, we aren't likely to make any money.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
Even back in our Premiership days there were various ways that the board tried to raise funds, often it was with share issues, so this thing is not that unusual.6 -
Much of what we are hearing is just speculation at the moment. There are sellers who, when offered their asking price, think that must indicate that they should be asking for more.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
In such cases it is sometimes difficult to agree the final figure.
The add ons may be structured as earn out clauses which are a way of bridging the gap between the respective valuations of the buyer and the seller.
Let’s just hope a deal can be done and we can move on to happier times.1 -
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".22 -
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.Chizz said:
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".2 -
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?cantersaddick said:
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.Chizz said:
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
1 -
Josh Harris. Don't know that much about the setup at Palarse to be honest.Nug said:
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?cantersaddick said:
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.Chizz said:
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".0 -
Well,basically,the set up is they are all stripey\black wearing virgins called Nigel and they all get together at a place in Surrey called Shithurst and bounce around when an Olympic diver called Wilfried falls over again.cantersaddick said:
Josh Harris. Don't know that much about the setup at Palarse to be honest.Nug said:
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?cantersaddick said:
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.Chizz said:
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".20 -
Original consortium wascantersaddick said:
Josh Harris. Don't know that much about the setup at Palarse to be honest.Nug said:
Isn't that how Palace have gone about things. Parish is just the front for them, he's wealthy but he had some seriously wealthy initial investors. And didn't he get investment from the american bloke Josh something or other a couple of years later?cantersaddick said:
Agree. Multiple people putting their money on the line means multiple people to hold the senior management to account if the club underperforms.Chizz said:
I don't have any inside information. But the idea of the owners of Charlton - or any other club - searching for additional investment doesn't fill me with quite so much fear. More investment means more investors. And an increased number of people ponying up dough means the club's aims have to become more transparent and better understood.NapaAddick said:
I must admit that despite of all the good things I have read about Muir, I cannot figure out why they would need to raise £50M in shares. Muir sold The Good Guys for $870M and then last year sold another set of holdings for $150M. Which means he is a billionaire. Why not just pay Roland in full? Why raise capital? If true, this is a bit worrisome. A club the size of CAFC should not have such a complicated ownership structure and a billionaire owner should not be so hard up for funds.i_b_b_o_r_g said:While I'm always the optimist and obviously want Rocunt out asap, if these Aussies are the same mob as those sniffing round for investment (backup) last year, something still don't sit right with either them, or the deal they / Rocunt are proposing re. Leases and 10% on future transfers etc. (if that is all true of course).
In fact, given the experience of the last four years, I would far sooner have a pool of interested investors, with a shared goal and a thoroughly tested strategy, than a single investor thoroughly convinced he knows best.
Wider ownership of the club exposes the senior management to scrutiny and accountability that's missing from an organisation that runs on the basis of "do it my way and keep doing it my way until Roland tells me I have changed my mind".
Parish (TAG Worldwide)
Stephen Browett (Farr Vinters)
Martin Long (Founder Churchill Insurance)
Jeremy Hosking (Marathon Asset Management) net worth £330 million0 -
Now the Play-offs are over this needs to happen ASAP and a full time manager appointed. Bowyer deserves a go IMHO. Very concerned about the ground ownership but hopefully this can be sorted out.4
-
Hopefully the talk of RD owning anything relating to the club after the sale turns out to be nonsense.SidewaysInOz said:Now the Play-offs are over this needs to happen ASAP and a full time manager appointed. Bowyer deserves a go IMHO. Very concerned about the ground ownership but hopefully this can be sorted out.
3
