I spoke with Gerard Murphy around about this time last year. He contacted me after I emailed henslow and just showed some interest At no point did I state I was a Charlton fan and at no point did he state that Charlton were the club they were looking at. I think he thought I was going to or interested in investing, so I sort of played along to a point.
Much of the stuff he told me was pie in the sky sort of stuff to my mind but I won't go into that. He did state that there were differing levels of investment opportunities and I think the lower level was around £3-5 mill. So you can see how there might be many comings and goings as things drag on. I'm not sure how far they've gone in making the investment opportunity visible to those Charlton supporters with that kind of Capital? I'm sure there are a few around that might be interested. The silence around this whole deal suggests they haven't. But who better to own a chunk of this great club than one of our own. Or are they trying to keep this Aussie inclusive? Saying that, I didn't put on my terrible Australian accent so maybe not. Who knows,but they need to pull their bloody finger out.
Can anyone recall from where the rumour came that the EFL had "rejected two investors" in the Aussie consortium, and why the source for it can be considered authoritative?. I ask because understanding the true status of he EFL in respect of any bids would greatly help our understanding. The Supporters Trust is trying to get info on this. One Trust member has info on the EFL considerations which completely contradicts the rumour. He has checked it twice.
The EFL doesn't want to talk about such things. It apparently was upset that status of the Sunderland bid was leaked. And it basically acts as a trade association so does not consider itself answerable to fans. However it also feels under pressure from fans and the media, thanks in no small measure to pressure from Blackpool fans. If we are going to build in that, it would be good to know what is authoritative, and what just unsourced chat, before approaching them.
So for this reason ( and not to fuel an increasingly destructive argument on here) it would be great if someone can pinpoint where that came from ( -and when)
If, as I've suspected all along, the Aussies are funding this with some sort of crowd funding / timeshare (give us £3 miilion and we'll chuck in a free season ticket) type of carry on, they can fuck off with RD
All this BS about getting in Aussie talent etc etc, it ain't nothing new ffs, big big British clubs have had scouts and links to academies in Australia for fuckin years.
Why can't we have an unconditional owner who is there for the right reasons ffs
I still maintain that the consortium has the funds between them, but have budgeted future expenditure and know getting us to where we want to go isn't going to be cheap. So the members must be reluctant to up their personal initial outlay, as they understand what future costs await them. They did DD and seem same unlike RD.
It is worrying that they are still hunting an investor, but we are Charlton and whilst being the next Man City would be fun it wouldn't be the club I grew to love. I am happy with owners that care, that get what the club is all about and actually want success on the pitch, that would be an improvement on the current bloke anyway.
If there's truth in the Directors being pressured on their loans and tainted with causing the takeover to fail, I would hope every single one of us, irrespective of positions on Aussies etc, absolutely laugh that off. It's disgusting that Duchatelet might be anywhere near to cutting the losses he deserves for ruining this football club and giving us the pain and heartache he has over four years. Some people have very short memories. To still be attempting to get much more than the club's worth by leveraging £7m of loan money the club has relied upon in the past to keep going and from men significantly less able to give it than him, is even more sickening. I really hope that those who are owed relatively modest sums hold fast and leave it to the billionaire or the AFL to sort it out. If that means they have to engineer a deal that leaves Duchatelet as landlord, then so be it, even if the Aussies know that will cost them more in the long-run (including fans goodwill). Similarly, if they walk, then so be it - they didn't have the wherewithal to do it. Personally, I am not even thinking about returning if Roland Duchatelet even owns a burger stand post any sale.
He called you a troll for daring to ask about Muir...… twice!
I think he was talking about Stu of Kunming........not me.....least I hope so!
Certainly wasn't you sir! Stu has a go at me at every opportunity for some reason best known to himself.
No, i dont, disagreeing with what you post is not having a go, you senile old goat.
Anyway. When I have time I'll reply to the offensive PM you have sent me at 1am.
That’s quite wrong sending PMs to people that are offensive at any time of the morning
All because I'm not convinced the aussies are our saviours, I then get accussed to following some bloke I've never heard of, on a forum I've never visited, it's beyond weird.
It's not my fault nothing he's said on this thread has come true, although I've never blamed that on him, I really think he posted what he did in good faith, saldy its looking more and more likely the Aussies found a willing idiot to get their story across, maybe they should focus a little more on getting their own house on order.
as their own website stated, they've been trying to raise funds for 16 months, that is a long, long time.
Anyway I'm not getting involved with him anymore, I really think the bloke is wired up wrong he loses his shit as soon as anyone doesn't fall in line with what he's saying. Everyone is being fed spin and lies, apart from him, of course, no way would his contacts say anything that wasn't 100% true. Delusional.
My thoughts as well mate, particularly after the PM he sent me.
Apparantly some geezer has his hand up my backside then I start talking.
Probably discussed before, just about everything else has, but if the Australian Football Consortium do complete the takeover does that mean the club will be AFC Charlton Athletic ? Could be a deal breaker in my opinion - don’t sell Roland...
@Airman Brown you're probably best placed to answer this one.
Could there potentially be a scenario where the three ex-directors who would refuse to have The Valley & Sparrows Lane leased out could they potentially be repaid there money owed to them leaving just four ex-directors all in favour of The Valley & Sparrows Lane being leased out? A partial repayment if you like of the ex-directors loans or is the repayment of the loans kind of an all or nothing arrangement?
In short if we were left with 4 ex-directors all happy to have The Valley and Sparrows Lane leased is this possible?
The loans are all independent of each other, so they can all be settled on different terms - or not settled - but whether the individuals would agree to that is another matter.
So can they refuse to have their loans paid off? I hope they can.
The way I see it is that Roland already tried to go down the route of keeping the Valley and training ground. He found that not all of the ex directors wanted this. IF all it needed was for him to pay off the debts of those who didn't want him to keep the Valley then he could have done that there and then. He's not short of a penny and could have raised the money easily via Melexis, for example.
IMHO he's having a sell off while he can - probably to use the cash to do something on his latest farm idea.
@Airman Brown you're probably best placed to answer this one.
Could there potentially be a scenario where the three ex-directors who would refuse to have The Valley & Sparrows Lane leased out could they potentially be repaid there money owed to them leaving just four ex-directors all in favour of The Valley & Sparrows Lane being leased out? A partial repayment if you like of the ex-directors loans or is the repayment of the loans kind of an all or nothing arrangement?
In short if we were left with 4 ex-directors all happy to have The Valley and Sparrows Lane leased is this possible?
The loans are all independent of each other, so they can all be settled on different terms - or not settled - but whether the individuals would agree to that is another matter.
So can they refuse to have their loans paid off? I hope they can.
The way I see it is that Roland already tried to go down the route of keeping the Valley and training ground. He found that not all of the ex directors wanted this. IF all it needed was for him to pay off the debts of those who didn't want him to keep the Valley then he could have done that there and then. He's not short of a penny and could have raised the money easily via Melexis, for example.
IMHO he's having a sell off while he can - probably to use the cash to do something on his latest farm idea.
The difference though is previously RD never needed to pay off the loans either in full or part.
He still doesn't need to either but if partially paying them off clears the way for a deal to be struck for him to retain The Valley and Sparrows Lane then unless we have a watertight guarantee to be able to buy both back in the future for an agreed fixed price and a watertight guarantee we can't ever be evicted then this is a seriously worrying scenario you only need to look at Coventry for example of how badly that could potentially go. Let's just hope this isn't on RD's radar.
@Airman Brown you're probably best placed to answer this one.
Could there potentially be a scenario where the three ex-directors who would refuse to have The Valley & Sparrows Lane leased out could they potentially be repaid there money owed to them leaving just four ex-directors all in favour of The Valley & Sparrows Lane being leased out? A partial repayment if you like of the ex-directors loans or is the repayment of the loans kind of an all or nothing arrangement?
In short if we were left with 4 ex-directors all happy to have The Valley and Sparrows Lane leased is this possible?
The loans are all independent of each other, so they can all be settled on different terms - or not settled - but whether the individuals would agree to that is another matter.
So can they refuse to have their loans paid off? I hope they can.
The way I see it is that Roland already tried to go down the route of keeping the Valley and training ground. He found that not all of the ex directors wanted this. IF all it needed was for him to pay off the debts of those who didn't want him to keep the Valley then he could have done that there and then. He's not short of a penny and could have raised the money easily via Melexis, for example.
IMHO he's having a sell off while he can - probably to use the cash to do something on his latest farm idea.
The difference though is previously RD never needed to pay off the loans either in full or part.
He still doesn't need to either but if partially paying them off clears the way for a deal to be struck for him to retain The Valley and Sparrows Lane then unless we have a watertight guarantee to be able to buy both back in the future for an agreed fixed price and a watertight guarantee we can't ever be evicted then this is a seriously worrying scenario you only need to look at Coventry for example of how badly that could potentially go. Let's just hope this isn't on RD's radar.
What I'm still confused about is can they refuse to have their loans paid off - effectively blocking him keeping the Valley?
@Airman Brown you're probably best placed to answer this one.
Could there potentially be a scenario where the three ex-directors who would refuse to have The Valley & Sparrows Lane leased out could they potentially be repaid there money owed to them leaving just four ex-directors all in favour of The Valley & Sparrows Lane being leased out? A partial repayment if you like of the ex-directors loans or is the repayment of the loans kind of an all or nothing arrangement?
In short if we were left with 4 ex-directors all happy to have The Valley and Sparrows Lane leased is this possible?
The loans are all independent of each other, so they can all be settled on different terms - or not settled - but whether the individuals would agree to that is another matter.
So can they refuse to have their loans paid off? I hope they can.
The way I see it is that Roland already tried to go down the route of keeping the Valley and training ground. He found that not all of the ex directors wanted this. IF all it needed was for him to pay off the debts of those who didn't want him to keep the Valley then he could have done that there and then. He's not short of a penny and could have raised the money easily via Melexis, for example.
IMHO he's having a sell off while he can - probably to use the cash to do something on his latest farm idea.
The difference though is previously RD never needed to pay off the loans either in full or part.
He still doesn't need to either but if partially paying them off clears the way for a deal to be struck for him to retain The Valley and Sparrows Lane then unless we have a watertight guarantee to be able to buy both back in the future for an agreed fixed price and a watertight guarantee we can't ever be evicted then this is a seriously worrying scenario you only need to look at Coventry for example of how badly that could potentially go. Let's just hope this isn't on RD's radar.
What I'm still confused about is can they refuse to have their loans paid off - effectively blocking him keeping the Valley?
I've not got a clue myself though Beardface posted about a page ago, believes if the full terms are met then legally they would have to accept.
I spoke with Gerard Murphy around about this time last year. He contacted me after I emailed henslow and just showed some interest At no point did I state I was a Charlton fan and at no point did he state that Charlton were the club they were looking at. I think he thought I was going to or interested in investing, so I sort of played along to a point.
Much of the stuff he told me was pie in the sky sort of stuff to my mind but I won't go into that. He did state that there were differing levels of investment opportunities and I think the lower level was around £3-5 mill. So you can see how there might be many comings and goings as things drag on. I'm not sure how far they've gone in making the investment opportunity visible to those Charlton supporters with that kind of Capital? I'm sure there are a few around that might be interested. The silence around this whole deal suggests they haven't. But who better to own a chunk of this great club than one of our own. Or are they trying to keep this Aussie inclusive? Saying that, I didn't put on my terrible Australian accent so maybe not. Who knows,but they need to pull their bloody finger out.
This is quite a shock to think that there could be that many people involved then it is more in line with a crowd funding like @i_b_b_o_r_g has said
What if those numbers from @carly burn has mentioned reduced because they couldn’t raise the capital and the options started lower than £3 mil it would be a very messy way to run a football club
My impression on this consortium was it would be no more than 5 very wealthy individuals with one owning 51% or more and then the rest taking the remainder
All of this should be made public to us the fans before we just accept anyone owning the club in this way
Especially if those who are creating the consortium are able to be be contacted and openly discuss their interests after an email and call
Surely all interested parties would have to show proof of funds or allow a credit Check before Any further coms would happen
So either @carly burn has done really well for themselves in life (congratulations and no disrespect Intended) or we have a real risk of being bought out by a bunch of wannabes all over again
Comments
Give peas a chance?
At no point did I state I was a Charlton fan and at no point did he state that Charlton were the club they were looking at.
I think he thought I was going to or interested in investing, so I sort of played along to a point.
Much of the stuff he told me was pie in the sky sort of stuff to my mind but I won't go into that.
He did state that there were differing levels of investment opportunities and I think the lower level was around £3-5 mill. So you can see how there might be many comings and goings as things drag on.
I'm not sure how far they've gone in making the investment opportunity visible to those Charlton supporters with that kind of Capital?
I'm sure there are a few around that might be interested. The silence around this whole deal suggests they haven't. But who better to own a chunk of this great club than one of our own. Or are they trying to keep this Aussie inclusive? Saying that, I didn't put on my terrible Australian accent so maybe not.
Who knows,but they need to pull their bloody finger out.
We choose our friends.
The EFL doesn't want to talk about such things. It apparently was upset that status of the Sunderland bid was leaked. And it basically acts as a trade association so does not consider itself answerable to fans. However it also feels under pressure from fans and the media, thanks in no small measure to pressure from Blackpool fans. If we are going to build in that, it would be good to know what is authoritative, and what just unsourced chat, before approaching them.
So for this reason ( and not to fuel an increasingly destructive argument on here) it would be great if someone can pinpoint where that came from ( -and when)
All this BS about getting in Aussie talent etc etc, it ain't nothing new ffs, big big British clubs have had scouts and links to academies in Australia for fuckin years.
Why can't we have an unconditional owner who is there for the right reasons ffs
It is worrying that they are still hunting an investor, but we are Charlton and whilst being the next Man City would be fun it wouldn't be the club I grew to love. I am happy with owners that care, that get what the club is all about and actually want success on the pitch, that would be an improvement on the current bloke anyway.
Apparantly some geezer has his hand up my backside then I start talking.
Target 2,000 here we come...
So can they refuse to have their loans paid off? I hope they can.
The way I see it is that Roland already tried to go down the route of keeping the Valley and training ground. He found that not all of the ex directors wanted this. IF all it needed was for him to pay off the debts of those who didn't want him to keep the Valley then he could have done that there and then. He's not short of a penny and could have raised the money easily via Melexis, for example.
IMHO he's having a sell off while he can - probably to use the cash to do something on his latest farm idea.
He still doesn't need to either but if partially paying them off clears the way for a deal to be struck for him to retain The Valley and Sparrows Lane then unless we have a watertight guarantee to be able to buy both back in the future for an agreed fixed price and a watertight guarantee we can't ever be evicted then this is a seriously worrying scenario you only need to look at Coventry for example of how badly that could potentially go. Let's just hope this isn't on RD's radar.
What if those numbers from @carly burn has mentioned reduced because they couldn’t raise the capital and the options started lower than £3 mil it would be a very messy way to run a football club
My impression on this consortium was it would be no more than 5 very wealthy individuals with one owning 51% or more and then the rest taking the remainder
All of this should be made public to us the fans before we just accept anyone owning the club in this way
Especially if those who are creating the consortium are able to be be contacted and openly discuss their interests after an email and call
Surely all interested parties would have to show proof of funds or allow a credit Check before Any further coms would happen
So either @carly burn has done really well for themselves in life (congratulations and no disrespect Intended) or we have a real risk of being bought out by a bunch of wannabes all over again
Ffs typical fucking Charlton