Surely, with their stated plan, the Aussies have a large pot of money. That pot would be divided into 3 sections: A: The money to buy the club (£25m - £50m) B: The money to run the club (circa. £1m a month) C: The money to fund transfers for the stated promotion ambitions
B is pretty much set in stone, there are things you can do to try to raise revenue and/or lower costs, but it's not going to make a massive difference, especially in the short term.
Therefore, the most sensible route is to try and minimise A to maximise C. Now the complications with the EFL may have shrunk the overall pot (there's zero proof of this, but lets play that game anyway), in which case C shrinks and the pressure to minimise A is higher.
When it is stated that the Aussies don't have the money, that is clearly false. That they may not want to spend as much on A as Roland wants is almost certainly true. The question is, will Roland lower A (through desperation to get out, sale of assets or some sort of leasing arrangement) to a point where the Aussies are happy that it won't impact on C and the ability to meet their stated aims.
Sounds like RD is trying to help with A by settling with ex-directors, as he has realised he's not going to sell the club for his ridiculous overvaluation.
@Airman Brown you've now stated the British party interest is legitimate. A few questions on that to anyone with knowledge.
1. Why are they so quiet / why have they not been aggressive in trying to outdo the Aussies? 2. Do the Aussies have a period of exclusivity over the British bid? 3. Why did RD not mention them in the statement last Wednesday?
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
And that is to be expected AB I would be very happy to have been put right over the weekend that the information was correct but the other way round instead I was told I was lieing and it’s not being discussed at all
Which I knew was incorrect who was pushing for it would be a matter of PR management but when you consider we both know that as of Saturday they were still looking for a final set of investors or investor it gave me enough to respect what I was told by 2 entirely separate sources that it was due to finance
Reasonable I’d suggest whilst funding not in place that the Aussies could ask the question and RD be open too it
I’d even suggest based on a weekend of reflection that it would make sense for RD to suggest it if they were struggling to raise the amounts
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
What's the delay with the British consortium then? Now that we accept they exist.
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
What's the delay with the British consortium then? Now that we accept they exist.
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
What's the delay with the British consortium then? Now that we accept they exist.
Does anyone else find it strange that we know more about the Aussie bid/people involved than we do the British one? I get that the Aussies have probably been in the process for longer and may be further along, but still you would think there would be a much bigger chance of someone on here knowing somebody linked to a British bid than to an Aussie one.
Does anyone else find it strange that we know more about the Aussie bid/people involved than we do the British one? I get that the Aussies have probably been in the process for longer and may be further along, but still you would think there would be a much bigger chance of someone on here knowing somebody linked to a British bid than to an Aussie one.
Maybe because the Aussies have made an effort to reach out to fan outlets such as rick everritt and richard Cawley.
Does anyone else find it strange that we know more about the Aussie bid/people involved than we do the British one? I get that the Aussies have probably been in the process for longer and may be further along, but still you would think there would be a much bigger chance of someone on here knowing somebody linked to a British bid than to an Aussie one.
The British bidders have been using Aussie accents, the flaming gallahs...
Does anyone else find it strange that we know more about the Aussie bid/people involved than we do the British one? I get that the Aussies have probably been in the process for longer and may be further along, but still you would think there would be a much bigger chance of someone on here knowing somebody linked to a British bid than to an Aussie one.
Well we don't know that much about them, considering they're a consortium, i.e. several different people
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
What's the delay with the British consortium then? Now that we accept they exist.
It’s a bloody good question Tbh and one I don’t know the answer too
Does anyone else find it strange that we know more about the Aussie bid/people involved than we do the British one? I get that the Aussies have probably been in the process for longer and may be further along, but still you would think there would be a much bigger chance of someone on here knowing somebody linked to a British bid than to an Aussie one.
Maybe because the Aussies have made an effort to reach out to fan outlets such as rick everritt and richard Cawley.
Again I get that - what I mean is with the number of members CL has, you would think that knowing somebody involved, or knowing somebody through a friend of a friend involved, even just by chance alone would be pretty likely, especially when compared to the Aussie bid.
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
The thought of Roland keeping the Valley and training ground turns my stomach.
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
The thought of Roland keeping the Valley and training ground turns my stomach.
Cawley tweeting that we are now going away on a pre-season tour, imagine this means the takeover is even further away
How do you get that?
Just me reading between the lines, RD suddenly agreeing to send the players away sounds like the takeover isnt about to happen. I may be wrong, was just the impression I got.
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
How much would the Australian group need to pay if they were to purchase the club without the Valley and Sparrows Lane? I read the VOTV piece and then took a brief look at the financial statements for last year. It says the net book value of tangible fixed assets (supposedly mainly the Valley and the training ground?) is £42m. What's the point of buying Charlton without its core assets? Besides, I can't imagine having new owners while still needing to pay RD for the use of the Valley. It would mean regardless how the club perform financially he'd get part of the earnings. That surely is terrible. He'd be laughing his head off!!
If the Aussies take over without taking ownership of The Valley and Sparrows Lane, they'll find that a lot of fans against them from the outset. I personally don't feel they have the right to come along and allow the club and the ground to be separated because they are so desperate to get a deal done. I will certainly feel resentment towards them if this happens, and I'm sure I will not be the only one. Not the best way to get fans on board.
How much would the Australian group need to pay if they were to purchase the club without the Valley and Sparrows Lane? I read the VOTV piece and then took a brief look at the financial statements for last year. It says the net book value of tangible fixed assets (supposedly mainly the Valley and the training ground?) is £42m. What's the point of buying Charlton without its core assets? Besides, I can't imagine having new owners while still needing to pay RD for the use of the Valley. It would mean regardless how the club perform financially he'd get part of the earnings. That surely is terrible. He'd be laughing his head off!!
If the Aussies take over without taking ownership of The Valley and Sparrows Lane, they'll find that a lot of fans against them from the outset. I personally don't feel they have the right to come along and allow the club and the ground to be separated because they are so desperate to get a deal done. I will certainly feel resentment towards them if this happens, and I'm sure I will not be the only one. Not the best way to get fans on board.
For me it would all depend on the detail of the agreement.
If a long term realistic lease is in place with a buy back set and in place, it allows the Aussies to come not over pay for the club at present and use the cash to try sign players within a structured plan to get to the premier league and then purchase the ground and training ground back.
The worry would be in the detail of the lease/agreement and what would happen if the Aussie want out.
Cawley tweeting that we are now going away on a pre-season tour, imagine this means the takeover is even further away
How do you get that?
Just me reading between the lines, RD suddenly agreeing to send the players away sounds like the takeover isnt about to happen. I may be wrong, was just the impression I got.
Funny. I would have said the opposite. That it's nearly there and the new owners have agreed to fund it - can't see why RD would approve otherwise.
Comments
Which I knew was incorrect who was pushing for it would be a matter of PR management but when you consider we both know that as of Saturday they were still looking for a final set of investors or investor it gave me enough to respect what I was told by 2 entirely separate sources that it was due to finance
Reasonable I’d suggest whilst funding not in place that the Aussies could ask the question and RD be open too it
I’d even suggest based on a weekend of reflection that it would make sense for RD to suggest it if they were struggling to raise the amounts
Flippant, unnecessary posts will get us over the line too soon.
Doh ....
If a long term realistic lease is in place with a buy back set and in place, it allows the Aussies to come not over pay for the club at present and use the cash to try sign players within a structured plan to get to the premier league and then purchase the ground and training ground back.
The worry would be in the detail of the lease/agreement and what would happen if the Aussie want out.
911 and counting !