Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Scoham said:
Anyone know who the bloke next to Elliott is in the Newsshoper photo? Pretty sure it isn't him but looks a bit like Usmanov - owns 30% of Arsenal (and is looking to sell those shares) and 30% of Rangers and is the business partner of Moshiri, who is the majority shareholder at Everton, a deal brokered by Keith Harris.
Don't think it's him but not too dissimilar.3 -
I think you've got that 100% the wrong way round. Why fork out £7M if you have no need to do so. Would you ?Davidsmith said:
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved.
Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
If I was buying something and was told you can have added protection (insurance) for £7M, there would only be one answer.
In fact I wouldn't shell out an extra £50 if I deemed it unnecessary.1 -
seeing as Murray is one of the seven I think we can safely assume at least one knowsbobmunro said:
Maybe someone knows (or assumes) something by omission, if they haven't heard from anyone.Airman Brown said:
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
No contact would mean the loans will be rolled over - there would only be contact if either the loans were to be repaid or a part buy/part lease deal was on the table.
0 -
as stated before , if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn.Covered End said:
I think you've got that 100% the wrong way round. Why fork out £7M if you have no need to do so. Would you ?Davidsmith said:
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved.
Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
If I was buying something and was told you can have added protection (insurance) for £7M, there would only be one answer.
In fact I wouldn't shell out an extra £50 if I deemed it unnecessary.
Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt.
My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.0 -
Murray is a non-exec and there is no reason he would be involved with the detail of the deal between the buyer and seller, apart from being mine host at The Valley.LargeAddick said:
seeing as Murray is one of the seven I think we can safely assume at least one knowsbobmunro said:
Maybe someone knows (or assumes) something by omission, if they haven't heard from anyone.Airman Brown said:
We can assume that one of the seven knows something.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
No contact would mean the loans will be rolled over - there would only be contact if either the loans were to be repaid or a part buy/part lease deal was on the table.1 -
For understandable reasons, the ex-directors look at the situation through the prism of their loans, but if you take out Murray’s element we are “only” talking about £4.4m between six people. In the context of the deal that’s about ten per cent.
IMO their significance is that RD hasn’t wanted to meet the liability and the buyer/s haven’t seen what the hell they have go to do with them. That’s why they have been a problem in any deal, rather than just because people want to borrow against the assets or take leases, if indeed they do.
There is also no reason to suppose Maurice Hatter or Dave Hughes wouldn’t agree to leases and they are £1.5m, although I defer to anyone who knows better.0 -
You seem to have ignored the fact that they may not be willing to pay £48M for a club worth less than half that ?Davidsmith said:
as stated before , if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn.Covered End said:
I think you've got that 100% the wrong way round. Why fork out £7M if you have no need to do so. Would you ?Davidsmith said:
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved.
Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
If I was buying something and was told you can have added protection (insurance) for £7M, there would only be one answer.
In fact I wouldn't shell out an extra £50 if I deemed it unnecessary.
Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt.
My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.2 -
not ignored,but why buy scarves and go to play offs? , we all know its worth £25mn at best.Covered End said:
You seem to have ignored the fact that they may not be willing to pay £48M for a club worth less than half that ?Davidsmith said:
as stated before , if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn.Covered End said:
I think you've got that 100% the wrong way round. Why fork out £7M if you have no need to do so. Would you ?Davidsmith said:
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved.
Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
If I was buying something and was told you can have added protection (insurance) for £7M, there would only be one answer.
In fact I wouldn't shell out an extra £50 if I deemed it unnecessary.
Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt.
My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.0 -
.
That's an expensive scarf.Davidsmith said:
not ignored,but why buy scarves and go to play offs? , we all know its worth £25mn at best.Covered End said:
You seem to have ignored the fact that they may not be willing to pay £48M for a club worth less than half that ?Davidsmith said:
as stated before , if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn.Covered End said:
I think you've got that 100% the wrong way round. Why fork out £7M if you have no need to do so. Would you ?Davidsmith said:
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved.
Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
If I was buying something and was told you can have added protection (insurance) for £7M, there would only be one answer.
In fact I wouldn't shell out an extra £50 if I deemed it unnecessary.
Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt.
My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.8 -
wonder how many more months of this shit have we got to go through?4
- Sponsored links:
-
The Mercury piece by Richard Cawley.
Is that just a mash up of the rumours and speculation on here or do we think Richard really does know that Muir is set to assume control ?0 -
we are in big trouble for next season if we doGoonerhater said:wonder how many more months of this shit have we got to go through?
2 -
Scoham said:
Now he's far left?
Not happy about his swinging political leanings.
We might end up with all players being paid the same and all seats the same price too.7 -
Is it just us?
I mean the fuckers have been sat warming seats in the directors boxes at the Valley AND Shrewsbury...
JUST FUCKING ANNOUNCE IT!!!!1 -
You missed out Jim Davidson in his Twitter pic. He really does tick every box for the CL right.Goonerhater said:Alt right---Brexiter---likes Angie---slated by CLs Red Wedge----i like him already
1 -
Could it be Philip Aiken? He was apparently sniffing around Coventry a year ago with Murphy. https://coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/who-gerard-murphy-philip-aiken-12966086The Red Robin said:Scoham said:
Anyone know who the bloke next to Elliott is in the Newsshoper photo? Pretty sure it isn't him but looks a bit like Usmanov - owns 30% of Arsenal (and is looking to sell those shares) and 30% of Rangers and is the business partner of Moshiri, who is the majority shareholder at Everton, a deal brokered by Keith Harris.
Don't think it's him but not too dissimilar.
He, too, is Australian but lives in the UK. He is Non-exec Chairman of Balfour Beatty the construction giant. Here's a photo for comparison:
You'd have to add a touch of "Just For Men" mind.0 -
-
I wondered about that last week, but I wasn’t convinced by the hair and I am aware that Aiken has said recently he isn’t involved. Could be a relative?cafcfan said:
Could it be Philip Aiken? He was apparently sniffing around Coventry a year ago with Murphy. https://coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/who-gerard-murphy-philip-aiken-12966086The Red Robin said:Scoham said:
Anyone know who the bloke next to Elliott is in the Newsshoper photo? Pretty sure it isn't him but looks a bit like Usmanov - owns 30% of Arsenal (and is looking to sell those shares) and 30% of Rangers and is the business partner of Moshiri, who is the majority shareholder at Everton, a deal brokered by Keith Harris.
Don't think it's him but not too dissimilar.
He, too, is Australian but lives in the UK. He is Non-exec Chairman of Balfour Beatty the construction giant. Here's a photo for comparison:
You'd have to add a touch of "Just For Men" mind.0 -
Surely it has to be a done deal by now. There is absolutely no other reason Muir & co would turn up two games running wearing a Charlton scarf.
I expect we are just waiting for official clearance from the Football League.
Just chill everyone.12 - Sponsored links:
-
20% off all merchandiseThe Red Robin said:.
That's an expensive scarf.Davidsmith said:
not ignored,but why buy scarves and go to play offs? , we all know its worth £25mn at best.Covered End said:
You seem to have ignored the fact that they may not be willing to pay £48M for a club worth less than half that ?Davidsmith said:
as stated before , if you needed to borrow £20mn and the Lender wanted first charge as security , then you might have to pay off £7mn to get the £20mn.Covered End said:
I think you've got that 100% the wrong way round. Why fork out £7M if you have no need to do so. Would you ?Davidsmith said:
They can be rolled if buyers don't want charges or more importantly their Lenders don't, but if they were a cash rich group with Millions to spend,why would you leave charges in place.ShootersHillGuru said:
If the standing agreement is that their loans can be rolled over without agreement as per Aimans understanding of the situation and we know that none of the magnificent seven have heard a dicky bird. I’m not sure what their respective legal teams can be on the case of.Davidsmith said:
I know but stating 7 wealthy businessmen,you would think 3 or 1 or 4 or whatever number individually would have their Lawyers on the case.Airman Brown said:
They are not “a group” of seven though, as you know. At least three of them wouldn’t put Murray out if he was on fire.Davidsmith said:
I heard the same, my question is why have they not called a Creditors meeting, isn't there a requirement in their Loan Documentation to inform Lenders of a potential change of ownership.Airman Brown said:
Simply they have had no approach or contact from the Aussies or re the Aussies as of yesterday.Stig said:
Airman, can I just check that I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the ex-directors are looking after the interests of the club by blocking any deal that would give Duchatelet any level of control over the club or income from the club post-sale?Airman Brown said:
There is conflicting information, some of it anecdotal, but I was also told that it is a “clean” deal - and that is the only way (lease element) it can be completed without the ex-directors.PragueAddick said:
You're right. Sorry for the diversion. But at least now we know Bob's a Lifer, I'm sure everyone would really be pleased if he could explain his tweet which kicked it all off.razil said:I know they’re both adults just not sure this should carry on in full view now
FWIW, I've heard this morning from other decent sources that the rumours regarding the structure of the deal (landlease, cut on transfers and funding via share issue) have no credibility. Which seems like good news to me.
Maybe their Lawyers are watching to see what happens.
Either way you would assume as a group of seven substantially wealthy individuals ,that Roland's actions are being monitored.
Particularly when at least one major creditor in that group would do a deal to stay involved.
Unless they are still scrambling for funds as they have been for a year.
If I was buying something and was told you can have added protection (insurance) for £7M, there would only be one answer.
In fact I wouldn't shell out an extra £50 if I deemed it unnecessary.
Or unlike Roland you might have done your DD and want to put your own Debt in and want first charge rather than unsecured debt.
My point is if they don't need to pay off charges why has it taken over a year for anyone to buy the club, you can only assume because they are not mega rich.
2 -
Think sunderlands EFL approval has been about 10 days in the waiting so we may have a little way to go yet, assuming its reached the EFL that is.0
-
Not sure, but I plan to retire in 2020 so maybe I can have a joint retirement/takeover celebration?Goonerhater said:wonder how many more months of this shit have we got to go through?
Or will we be in the Champion's League by then?
0 -
I feel your pain as a childcfgs said:Reading this thread I feel like a kid at Christmas desperate for a bicycle and getting a bicycle shaped package, that turns out to be two hula hoops wrapped to disguise them.
0 -
And Bob Whitehand has revealed he's a big Van Susans fan.
The plot thickens.0 -
Airman if you would take a guess these new owners could be worth £m?.3
-
We don’t know who is involved beyond Andrew Muir, or what Muir is willing to put on the table, so it’s pointless speculating in my view.Valley27000 said:Airman if you would take a guess these new owners could be worth £m?.
10 -
Ok thanks.Airman Brown said:
We don’t know who is involved beyond Andrew Muir, or what Muir is willing to put on the table, so it’s pointless speculating in my view.Valley27000 said:Airman if you would take a guess these new owners could be worth £m?.
4 -
So back to page one then.Airman Brown said:
We don’t know who is involved beyond Andrew Muir, or what Muir is willing to put on the table, so it’s pointless speculating in my view.Valley27000 said:Airman if you would take a guess these new owners could be worth £m?.
4 -
No I sent it to my pal last week who knows him and he confirmed it wasn't him. He also told him he wasn't involved any more.cafcfan said:
Could it be Philip Aiken? He was apparently sniffing around Coventry a year ago with Murphy. https://coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/who-gerard-murphy-philip-aiken-12966086The Red Robin said:Scoham said:
Anyone know who the bloke next to Elliott is in the Newsshoper photo? Pretty sure it isn't him but looks a bit like Usmanov - owns 30% of Arsenal (and is looking to sell those shares) and 30% of Rangers and is the business partner of Moshiri, who is the majority shareholder at Everton, a deal brokered by Keith Harris.
Don't think it's him but not too dissimilar.
He, too, is Australian but lives in the UK. He is Non-exec Chairman of Balfour Beatty the construction giant. Here's a photo for comparison:
You'd have to add a touch of "Just For Men" mind.
0
This discussion has been closed.
