What’s very clear is that RD threw his toys out of the pram last week, forcing the sale of Konsa for a discount, blocked the pre-season tour and talked to staff about other cuts. The pre-season tour is not a significant financial item in relation to the deal and neither is Harry Lennon. Players were being touted at discounts for cash on his instructions.
I think he lost his rag because the Aussies were unwilling or unable to complete on agreed terms.
When the details began to emerge via Richard Cawley on Tuesday there was a big PR effort involving Rubashow to pretend it was all a managed situation and everything had been planned all along. Perhaps by that point it had indeed calmed down, but you can’t explain RD’s behaviour just in terms of trying to close a gap in the value of the business. By that point the cat was out of the bag because RD had upset people at the club.
My assumption all along is that any buyer would have to more or less agree a price before getting into the serious nitty gritty of the details. If you don't accept the price, you walk away there and then. I thought the price had been agreed back in February when Murray made his statement? Murray might have made many dubious or debatable comments over the years, but I can't see an experienced businessman like him telling an outright lie, one which could be proved to be untrue.
I said in January that negotiations with two parties on the takeover were continuing well and I hoped a deal would be concluded in February of this year. Although the takeover has not yet been completed, the good news is the terms of the deal, including the price, have now been agreed between the parties and we are now just waiting for their respective lawyers to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.
If it's the Aussies who are attempting to move the goalposts or causing the delays, then it's hardly a surprise that RD would "throw his toys out of the pram", I imagine most people in that situation would do the same, if only to put pressure back on the buyers.
We don’t know why the Aussies’ position changed, if it did, but i can certainly see why RD would be upset about it. What’s not apparent is the rationality of what he did next - it does seem to have been akin to the tantrum which led to the post-Boro statement in 2016 and caused Mel Baroni to walk out.
He may have felt he needed to do something drastic to "get their attention".
To me it's a different situation to the post-Boro statement, as previously he was dealing with awkward fans and miles out of his comfort zone (and area of expertise). This now is a business transaction, which is RD's bread and butter
Football transfers and budgets, which is what he was getting involved with, are a long way from being Roland’s expertise - based on the evidence of the last four years.
What’s very clear is that RD threw his toys out of the pram last week, forcing the sale of Konsa for a discount, blocked the pre-season tour and talked to staff about other cuts. The pre-season tour is not a significant financial item in relation to the deal and neither is Harry Lennon. Players were being touted at discounts for cash on his instructions.
I think he lost his rag because the Aussies were unwilling or unable to complete on agreed terms.
When the details began to emerge via Richard Cawley on Tuesday there was a big PR effort involving Rubashow to pretend it was all a managed situation and everything had been planned all along. Perhaps by that point it had indeed calmed down, but you can’t explain RD’s behaviour just in terms of trying to close a gap in the value of the business. By that point the cat was out of the bag because RD had upset people at the club.
My assumption all along is that any buyer would have to more or less agree a price before getting into the serious nitty gritty of the details. If you don't accept the price, you walk away there and then. I thought the price had been agreed back in February when Murray made his statement? Murray might have made many dubious or debatable comments over the years, but I can't see an experienced businessman like him telling an outright lie, one which could be proved to be untrue.
I said in January that negotiations with two parties on the takeover were continuing well and I hoped a deal would be concluded in February of this year. Although the takeover has not yet been completed, the good news is the terms of the deal, including the price, have now been agreed between the parties and we are now just waiting for their respective lawyers to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.
If it's the Aussies who are attempting to move the goalposts or causing the delays, then it's hardly a surprise that RD would "throw his toys out of the pram", I imagine most people in that situation would do the same, if only to put pressure back on the buyers.
We don’t know why the Aussies’ position changed, if it did, but i can certainly see why RD would be upset about it. What’s not apparent is the rationality of what he did next - it does seem to have been akin to the tantrum which led to the post-Boro statement in 2016 and caused Mel Baroni to walk out.
He may have felt he needed to do something drastic to "get their attention".
To me it's a different situation to the post-Boro statement, as previously he was dealing with awkward fans and miles out of his comfort zone (and area of expertise). This now is a business transaction, which is RD's bread and butter
Football transfers and budgets, which is what he was getting involved with, are a long way from being Roland’s expertise - based on the evidence of the last four years.
I'm not so sure, there are a lot of agents out there that think him and Katie are both feckin geniuses.
What’s very clear is that RD threw his toys out of the pram last week, forcing the sale of Konsa for a discount, blocked the pre-season tour and talked to staff about other cuts. The pre-season tour is not a significant financial item in relation to the deal and neither is Harry Lennon. Players were being touted at discounts for cash on his instructions.
I think he lost his rag because the Aussies were unwilling or unable to complete on agreed terms.
When the details began to emerge via Richard Cawley on Tuesday there was a big PR effort involving Rubashow to pretend it was all a managed situation and everything had been planned all along. Perhaps by that point it had indeed calmed down, but you can’t explain RD’s behaviour just in terms of trying to close a gap in the value of the business. By that point the cat was out of the bag because RD had upset people at the club.
My assumption all along is that any buyer would have to more or less agree a price before getting into the serious nitty gritty of the details. If you don't accept the price, you walk away there and then. I thought the price had been agreed back in February when Murray made his statement? Murray might have made many dubious or debatable comments over the years, but I can't see an experienced businessman like him telling an outright lie, one which could be proved to be untrue.
I said in January that negotiations with two parties on the takeover were continuing well and I hoped a deal would be concluded in February of this year. Although the takeover has not yet been completed, the good news is the terms of the deal, including the price, have now been agreed between the parties and we are now just waiting for their respective lawyers to finalise the sale and purchase agreement.
If it's the Aussies who are attempting to move the goalposts or causing the delays, then it's hardly a surprise that RD would "throw his toys out of the pram", I imagine most people in that situation would do the same, if only to put pressure back on the buyers.
We don’t know why the Aussies’ position changed, if it did, but i can certainly see why RD would be upset about it. What’s not apparent is the rationality of what he did next - it does seem to have been akin to the tantrum which led to the post-Boro statement in 2016 and caused Mel Baroni to walk out.
He may have felt he needed to do something drastic to "get their attention".
To me it's a different situation to the post-Boro statement, as previously he was dealing with awkward fans and miles out of his comfort zone (and area of expertise). This now is a business transaction, which is RD's bread and butter
Football transfers and budgets, which is what he was getting involved with, are a long way from being Roland’s expertise - based on the evidence of the last four years.
Which is why he asked Tommy and Daisy to deal with them.
I am surprised that DD is still being mentioned as one of the reasons for the delay. That really should have been completed some time ago.
Probably explains what the 'legal' people have been doing since around february time when it was announced that the price had been agreed with 2 separate consortiums and it was now with the solicitors or words to that affect.
You know very well that Murray said due diligence was already complete at that point. You can’t rely on his statements on the one hand and dismiss them on the other, just because it happens to suit you.
You know very well that there can be a difference between the dd process being completed and any issues resulting from it being satisfactorily resolved.
Correct which is why I said that earlier.
Beardy is trying to make it look like his unreliable source's "fact" that nothing was happening back end of last year was correct when even his ultimate source IE Murray has said DD has long been done.
DD is done. The argument now is what did it reveal that impacts on the price.
WIOTOS
Does Beardy mean the same as Jimmy Hill itchy chin?
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
@Pedro45 that's what I thought but a lot of effort to go to. Being disruptive isn't going to gain favour with either party is it?
Does anyone know how much he lost on Charlton? Could he want his charge converted to equity? Could be his only chance of making some serious wedge back?
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
Yesterday the statement seemed vapid and useless, having slept on it it looks even more vapid and useless. Shame on those who issued it, it won't get my put aside season ticket monies out of me.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
Not quite true, apparently RD mentioned a second bidder when questioned by ROT recently.
Yesterday the statement seemed vapid and useless, having slept on it it looks even more valid and useless. Shame on those who issued it, it won't get my put aside season ticket monies out of me.
Looking unlikely it will be done in 44 days time (51 days till the first home league game)
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
Not quite true, apparently RD mentioned a second bidder when questioned by ROT recently.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
Maybe have some integerety this time and not post it on every single social media medium
Why is that so important to you?
Only posted on Twitter. Was asked on here to go all out to get press coverage, but decided not to go down that route. I wanted to make a gesture is all.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
That can't be true.
was the figure quoted by Airman Brown in an article on his online VOTV here:
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
As I said in a previous reply, Murray may make dubious or ambiguous statements but is experienced enough not to tell an outright lie, something which can be factually disproved. There must have been or still is some sort of second bidder, even if they're not as near to closing as the Aussies.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
I think the Aussies have kept a reasonably tight rein on leaks after my beer meeting, when there were no details about the business/financial side, and not just because I didn't ask. (I *think* he said something like 'I can't talk about that stuff'.) They did say the earlier issues were to do with the pre Duchatelet regime rather than Roland, which he (and his lawyers) would presumably not object to.
Anything else I've heard has been variations on the 'we're still working away on it' theme, but they haven't once mentioned what the difficulties are. It seems they're being pretty taciturn with Rich Cawley as well. I think NDAs can be pretty robust, especially over financial and legal matters. Telling me that they don't want Charlton to become a nursery club they could get away with, just about.
I think there is an important question that needs answering. The process is leaking like the cabinet office, lots noise on all sides but no detail.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why? It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Wants to maintain his seat at the top table perhaps?
just what I was going to post. RM is the only one PUBLICLY to say that there are 2 bidders in the race......both in Feb & to the Trust last week.
As I said in a previous reply, Murray may make dubious or ambiguous statements but is experienced enough not to tell an outright lie, something which can be factually disproved. There must have been or still is some sort of second bidder, even if they're not as neat to closing as the Aussies.
maybe the 'second bidder' involves Murray in a small way and he too is scrabbling around trying to put together a consortium.
I wouldn't individually criticise anyone for doing so but I'm amazed that as many as 5000 people have committed to buying a season ticket with the way things are.
That can't be true.
I think it can. Nearly bought two myself, expecting the deal to be done by now.
Comments
Mind you, there is some way between £735 and a family pack of Curly Wurlies and £60m.
Now I believe that the vast majority of people that communicate the leaks on here do so in good faith and are passing on what they have been told and believe to be true. I also don't think they are passing on "work place gossip" as anyone that knows anything will know it will be repeated on social media. So every leak serves a purpose. I also appears there are 3 sides leaking.
The aussies are leaking that it's still on, be patient etc. I take that at face value and they are still in the process, the joint statement backs that up.
Someone is leaking that the aussies don't have the money, big question is who and why?
It can't be the "ownership" as it makes them look idiots for joint statements, agreements on LB caretaking etc.
Someone else is leaking that RD, who knows about as much about football administration and English football as my cat, woke up in a bad mood, picked up the phone and sold konsa in paddy? On top of that the whole thing was conducted with out the aussies knowledge and did not leak?
It was also leaked that the deal was off earlier this week. Now why would that be leaked if it wasn't true?
The aussies could leak that it was off and that RD is an idiot, to stir unrest amongst the fans and increase pressure on RD to sell quickly? Unlikely?
It really does point to a third party, who has the tools to ensure it enters the public demain. As neither the buyer or the seller look good in this. There is an obvious candidate it's the motivation that I don't understand.
Does anyone know how much he lost on Charlton? Could he want his charge converted to equity? Could be his only chance of making some serious wedge back?
Shame on those who issued it, it won't get my put aside season ticket monies out of me.
Was asked on here to go all out to get press coverage, but decided not to go down that route.
I wanted to make a gesture is all.
http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2017-18-blogs/14-6-time-for-the-authorities-to-intervene-in-charlton-takeover-shambles/
says fewer than five thousand but must be close to that otherwise surely he'd have said fewer than 4,800 for example
Anything else I've heard has been variations on the 'we're still working away on it' theme, but they haven't once mentioned what the difficulties are. It seems they're being pretty taciturn with Rich Cawley as well. I think NDAs can be pretty robust, especially over financial and legal matters. Telling me that they don't want Charlton to become a nursery club they could get away with, just about.