It's like the clock being right twice a day. Just because the claim of two o'clock is eventually correct does not mean the prediction was correct. And just because the clock struck two, does not mean the person who made the prediction deserves credit, especially when it comes literally months after the predictions were made.
If nothing else from this thread, at least I've been told what the phrase "like the clock being right twice a day" meant. Had no idea....
It's like the clock being right twice a day. Just because the claim of two o'clock is eventually correct does not mean the prediction was correct. And just because the clock struck two, does not mean the person who made the prediction deserves credit, especially when it comes literally months after the predictions were made.
If nothing else from this thread, at least I've been told what the phrase "like the clock being right twice a day" meant. Had no idea....
:-)
actually the expression is "even a broken clock is right twice a day" : - )
Is everyone seriously getting their knickers in a twist over someone suggesting that there is the option to buy the club minus the training ground & Valley?
It may be true but it doesn't mean the Aussies have to accept the deal!
Calm down people. Jeez.
It’s the Aussies looking in to that deal not the other way around
Simple fact is all clues lead to the concluson , the Aussies dont seem to enough money somehow..
Why would they need so many investors? Why would they consider thr purchase without buying the bricks and mortar? Why have taken so long? Why hasn't muir invested more of his own money?
Is everyone seriously getting their knickers in a twist over someone suggesting that there is the option to buy the club minus the training ground & Valley?
It may be true but it doesn't mean the Aussies have to accept the deal!
Calm down people. Jeez.
It’s the Aussies looking in to that deal not the other way around
It's like the clock being right twice a day. Just because the claim of two o'clock is eventually correct does not mean the prediction was correct. And just because the clock struck two, does not mean the person who made the prediction deserves credit, especially when it comes literally months after the predictions were made.
If nothing else from this thread, at least I've been told what the phrase "like the clock being right twice a day" meant. Had no idea....
:-)
actually the expression is "even a broken clock is right twice a day" : - )
Actually, the expression is 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day'.
It's like the clock being right twice a day. Just because the claim of two o'clock is eventually correct does not mean the prediction was correct. And just because the clock struck two, does not mean the person who made the prediction deserves credit, especially when it comes literally months after the predictions were made.
If nothing else from this thread, at least I've been told what the phrase "like the clock being right twice a day" meant. Had no idea....
:-)
The only thing other than the broken clock analogy that I have learned, is that its easier to sell a flat, a house and a corner shop than buying a third rate football club. Im also mightily impressed at the amount of property owned by my fellow addicks.
Is everyone seriously getting their knickers in a twist over someone suggesting that there is the option to buy the club minus the training ground & Valley?
It may be true but it doesn't mean the Aussies have to accept the deal!
Calm down people. Jeez.
It’s the Aussies looking in to that deal not the other way around
And do you think Roland is likely to agree to it?
whether he does or not it would still need the approval of all the ex-directors and we know from ROT's recent 'chat' with Roland that three of the seven will not agree to that. That's not to say that Roland can't repay those loans and then be free to do as he wishes.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
The best way to understand this takeover is to imagine you're selling a house with a broken clock...
I think the best way to understand the Aussie approach is that of an investment consortium like a Private Equity company (I work for one). Before investing in businesses they create a fund and invite interested parties to contribute - then, when they reach a predetermined threshold they invest in companies they think they can make money on. Looking at the AFC website - that's exactly what they are doing but with a goal to making money by getting CAFC to the Premier League. Ambitious and risky - hence the difficulty in getting investors to buy-into the consortium. Suspect the EFL might have objected to 1 or more of the investors (anyone with a greater than 10% interest) and so they are now back out to market to find some new interested parties - which is probably time consuming and each investor (from experience) will do their own DD.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Jimmy it’s not incorrect the difference is I have no bias in what I share all I want is RD gone your source does not want to release the info that has dogged them from the start ref funds
I assure you the pup lines being told from within are not the ones I speak
Be careful who you believe mate is all i say
I could say exactly the same as you nth, with all due respect. They’ve certainly told me no lies up to now. The fact that they don’t want to tell me all about their financing is hardly a surprise is it? Why the hell would they tell me?
They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
not entirely correct as it said 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?
Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'
The statement was not meant for the fans. We're just collateral damage. It was drawn up by the lawyers simply to reassure the football industry at large that CAFC is open for business as "normal", and this takeover malarkey is just some little local difficulty, soon to be resolved. Meanwhile the whole weary process continues at glacier speed, to the profound detriment of the club, the rage and frustration of the fans, and the customary enrichment of the briefs. IMHO.
It was initially drawn up by a couple of the Aussie consortium, but I expect it was checked and/or modified by the Roland side, but then agreed by all parties (and their lawyers) before release.
Only a joint document would have been acceptable to all protagonists. Any fan-friendliness in the original draft has been thoroughly lawyered out in this frigid communication from the parallel universe wherein CAFC is presently marooned, slowly drifting ever more distant from us.
I think that’ll change. They’re pretty laid back for one thing. We’ll see how fan friendly they are when they select me a random fan for the board.
Laid back, are they, Jim?
Well, waking up to find this latest alleged scenario - a true Weston - I have a message for Mr Muir and his mates. It's this. Walk away. Now.
Mr M, I like the cut of your jib. It's plain that, putting business to one side, you've found something in CAFC/CACT that appeals. I think the Addicks would suit you very well, and you us. But let's face facts. We're all being played, held to ransom by our feelings for this grand old club. The Owner will never understand that while there's a hole in his arse, except to use our loyalty as leverage for his own foul purposes.
Oh, you can summon up advisers, brokers, middlemen and bankers to fight your corner, but what you need is a real Negotiator. Someone who doesn't give a hoot, except to get a result. That's where you and we go wrong, see, because we all DO care. We care an awful lot. I'll bet that none of your mob has ever had to do business before with someone like you-know-who.
Well, as of now don't feel you need to speak for me. Call it a day. I've got 64 seasons of memories to keep me going. In that time there have been several Charltons but never one like this. Let the Owner wallow in the God-awful mess he's created, the monumental losses he's piled up - and growing every single week, of course - and instead of clearing off at least with your decent offer he'll have to kiss that good money goodbye as well. How d'yer like THEM eggs, Roly boy?
So let him keep The Valley and Sparrows Lane. What are they worth without us? Buttons. I'd rather see The Valley become another Mountsfield Park than continue like this. And give the players (and staff) their freedom, instead of having their careers blighted by this tin-eared despot and his hapless commissar. To matey they're not people, they're just contracts on legs.
So, just let the Owner stew. In the meantime you'll know where to find me and I guess thousands like me - just whistle and we'll be back, ok? Only, don't leave it too long.
Blimey mate, the tears were starting to well up as I read you post. You may well be bang on the nail here. The Aussies have to either piss or get off the pot; it's all or nothing, the club, the ground and the training ground cannot be separated.
But why are you assuming this rumour is true? The source is a highly disgruntled former director with a major axe to grind. The other source is a group who have already spend a million Pounds to just clear up legal issues. I'd stick with the latter unless there's proof that they've done something wrong.
I think I might join #TeamWIOTOS and keep away from all of the nonsense.
I'm now seriously concerned that, contrary to what I previously said, the Aussies may not have the funds to buy the club.
Received a message wishing me luck for Friday's ProstateCancerUK ride to Amsterdam, but no sponsorship. Not a penny :-(
I am beginning to think there is a lot of brinkmanship going on now. Two parties still interested ,one if not two in for EFL approval, but deal dragging on. Neither of them seem to be in a rush probably because they both have long term plans and the short term pain to Roland with next season planning and summer wages to pay leaves him in a difficult position. I have mentioned this before but I think his actions of playing one off against the other has done nothing but drive price lower and delay takeover. This EFL approval is also strange, put yourself in Roland's position, wouldn't you want that done when proof of funds was done,so as to not waste time and Lawyers fees only to find out your buyer didn't get approval? This is going to drag on for a while longer yet is my guess.
I have not posted for a month because as far as I can see nothing has changed. Roland knocked back ages ago on Directors Loans by 3 Ex Directors, so we all know he can’t seperate Ground from Club unless he pays up a sum somewhere between £3mn and £7mn , which he has refused to do for a year. Aussies have agreed a price but dont have the full amount. British do exist I believe and had agreed a deal as far back as September with Roland but they want Directors Loans cleared. Murray and the other 3 Directors position on their Loans is unclear , does it rely on involvement. Only thing holding this up is the removal of those charges and Roland can do that any time he chooses, he knows the price I am sure.
West and Large have nailed it. ACL have the vision not Muir. Muir is contributing as an interested party and may have a bigger % than others involved, but I believe it is the commitment to the annual investment needed, not the asking price. RD is just stirring.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
IF they have agreed the valuation but the Aussies are short of tin then one way to bridge that gap is for RD to leave some loan notes in the club. The problem with this is where these would rank with the ones already in existence from the old Directors. Its not just about security but also terms and priority of repayment.
Jimmy it’s not incorrect the difference is I have no bias in what I share all I want is RD gone your source does not want to release the info that has dogged them from the start ref funds
I assure you the pup lines being told from within are not the ones I speak
Be careful who you believe mate is all i say
I could say exactly the same as you nth, with all due respect. They’ve certainly told me no lies up to now. The fact that they don’t want to tell me all about their financing is hardly a surprise is it? Why the hell would they tell me?
They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.
How do you know they have told you no lies? If they tell you something and you in good faith post it on here. You have not been lying but they might have been. I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?
Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'
But Murphy has always been AFC. Gardikiotis may or may not have been - it’s also unclear to me that he ever had any money. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the language in that statement, which is a bit of a mess in general.
I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.
However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.
There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.
If all this talk of the Aussies buying the club but Roland keeping hold of the valley and sparrows lane are true I would rather nothing happens. If the Aussies and Roland can't come to an agreement that means that the Aussies buy the lot I would hope they just walk away. That would leave Roland losing potentially 10 million over the next year and force him to lower his asking price to a more realistic price. In the meantime it appears we may be stuck with him for next season.
What makes you think he will ask for a more realistic price ? The blokes a madman !
Update from "the dark side": Colin's suggested NLA made it up. He' claiming the deal includes everything and talk that the Aussies not having the money is very wide of the mark.
he's also saying its a different group of investors than last year.. despite the fact the official statement from the club explicitly named AFC as the buyers and Gerard Murphy has been involved since we knew of their involvement a year or so ago.
Not saying I believe him but that could be true - who is involved in AFC could have changed, for example wasn't there talk of a Greek investor that is no longer involved? And at what point did Muir join?
Muir wasn't involved initially, a Greek guy was so hence the statement saying .... 'Charlton Athletic can confirm that it is expecting a takeover of the club to be completed by a select group of investors linked to The Australian Football Consortium'
But Murphy has always been AFC. Gardikiotis may or may not have been - it’s also unclear to me that he ever had any money. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the language in that statement, which is a bit of a mess in general.
I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.
However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.
There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.
interesting you mention youth players who have no book value. So if say Sarmiento (sp?) was sold to say Man City he could trouser that money as he has no value in the accounts and therefore no need to reduce the price. By doing so on two or three such players he could possibly raise some funds. If he wanted to buy out the ex directors in full could they refuse?
Comments
:-)
Why would they need so many investors?
Why would they consider thr purchase without buying the bricks and mortar?
Why have taken so long?
Why hasn't muir invested more of his own money?
They’ve said ‘all incorrect’, and I hope we’ll find out if this is itself correct very soon. I believe it will be, but that’s just my opinion, as I’m not ITK.
I think I might join #TeamWIOTOS and keep away from all of the nonsense.
Roland knocked back ages ago on Directors Loans by 3 Ex Directors, so we all know he can’t seperate Ground from Club unless he pays up a sum somewhere between £3mn and £7mn , which he has refused to do for a year.
Aussies have agreed a price but dont have the full amount.
British do exist I believe and had agreed a deal as far back as September with Roland but they want Directors Loans cleared.
Murray and the other 3 Directors position on their Loans is unclear , does it rely on involvement.
Only thing holding this up is the removal of those charges and Roland can do that any time he chooses, he knows the price I am sure.
It’s next on the list, once the training ground is finished.
I have been told, from a very good source, something completely different.
I think there is evidence RD may be raising cash within the business to buy out the former directors and obviously he will try to do that as cheaply as possible. He is certainly trying to do cash deals.
However, it’s a stretch from there to say he is doing it because the Aussies want to lease the land, particularly if they say not.
There are other possible reasons why buying out the ex-directors might be desirable to make a deal work. And if he sells assets that are not on the balance sheet (youth players) to pay down third party debt he is not reducing the value of the business, presumably.
If the Aussies find investors then it won’t happen
If the club is sold and the ground and training ground is not sold with it then we will see
But the Aussies ascot 1327 today do not have the money available to buy us FACT