Aussies only have a month before the transfer window shuts. I believe we can loan players after this but it's not a massive incentive to get a deal done in time imo
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
Dealing with any consortium/committee/group of people is always a nightmare. Lots of different opinions, ideas and 'hidden agendas'. It will always slow things down and, quite often, each member will want to do an element of DD before signing on the dotted line. Getting consensus on decisions from a group, possibly in different time zones is tortuous - so the term consortium and dynamic in the same sentence...don't really fit. It's very frustrating but understandable IMO.
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
Dealing with any consortium/committee/group of people is always a nightmare. Lots of different opinions, ideas and 'hidden agendas'. It will always slow things down and, quite often, each member will want to do an element of DD before signing on the dotted line. Getting consensus on decisions from a group, possibly in different time zones is tortuous - so the term consortium and dynamic in the same sentence...don't really fit. It's very frustrating but understandable IMO.
Sounds good going forward!
If every decision and move they make takes this long is it really worth them getting involved?
Naturally, the consortium do not post on here, so you @JamesSeed have set yourself up as the self imposed consortium spokesperson and thus you set the expectation level via your postings. This is not a criticism of you but I feel the expectation bar was far too high and I, for one, also feel that progress is much slower than I have expected and I am somewhat frustrated.
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
Dealing with any consortium/committee/group of people is always a nightmare. Lots of different opinions, ideas and 'hidden agendas'. It will always slow things down and, quite often, each member will want to do an element of DD before signing on the dotted line. Getting consensus on decisions from a group, possibly in different time zones is tortuous - so the term consortium and dynamic in the same sentence...don't really fit. It's very frustrating but understandable IMO.
Yeah I know all that, which is why maybe a consortium / this consortium, ain't the best people to be looking at buying us?
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
Dealing with any consortium/committee/group of people is always a nightmare. Lots of different opinions, ideas and 'hidden agendas'. It will always slow things down and, quite often, each member will want to do an element of DD before signing on the dotted line. Getting consensus on decisions from a group, possibly in different time zones is tortuous - so the term consortium and dynamic in the same sentence...don't really fit. It's very frustrating but understandable IMO.
Yeah I know all that, which is why maybe a consortium / this consortium, ain't the best people to be looking at buying us?
Too many cooks and all that
Perhaps in the initial purchase phase every member investing has to sign off. That’s to be expected. Once the club is owned by the consortium it’s not likely that every decision would need to be run by each investor. A business plan and management structure with Chairman and CEO would just like in any business be making those day to day, week to week and month to month decisions with no input from the “shareholders”.
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
Dealing with any consortium/committee/group of people is always a nightmare. Lots of different opinions, ideas and 'hidden agendas'. It will always slow things down and, quite often, each member will want to do an element of DD before signing on the dotted line. Getting consensus on decisions from a group, possibly in different time zones is tortuous - so the term consortium and dynamic in the same sentence...don't really fit. It's very frustrating but understandable IMO.
Yeah I know all that, which is why maybe a consortium / this consortium, ain't the best people to be looking at buying us?
Too many cooks and all that
I don't see it that way.
Of course there is a need for painstaking detail and sign off processes during the acquisition stage. All the investors will want to know exactly how the deal is shaping, and so they should - they are each putting £millions on the line.
But when its up and running, there will be an annual plan and budget approved by the board and then delegated to the Chief Executive to execute. The Chief Executive would have a very high level of authority to operate and make decisions within those parameters, with proper oversight of and accountability to, a Board of Directors - something which has been sorely lacking at Charlton in recent years.
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
Dealing with any consortium/committee/group of people is always a nightmare. Lots of different opinions, ideas and 'hidden agendas'. It will always slow things down and, quite often, each member will want to do an element of DD before signing on the dotted line. Getting consensus on decisions from a group, possibly in different time zones is tortuous - so the term consortium and dynamic in the same sentence...don't really fit. It's very frustrating but understandable IMO.
Yeah I know all that, which is why maybe a consortium / this consortium, ain't the best people to be looking at buying us?
Too many cooks and all that
Perhaps in the initial purchase phase every member investing has to sign off. That’s to be expected. Once the club is owned by the consortium it’s not likely that every decision would need to be run by each investor. A business plan and management structure with Chairman and CEO would just like in any business be making those day to day, week to week and month to month decisions with no input from the “shareholders”.
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
No they’re terrible aren’t they
Why give that response..?
"This consortium don't seem very dynamic"sums up the feelings of many fans right now.
Certainly not the way I feel, I’m glad they’re still in the hunt. As someone who buys and sells stuff almost every day I cannot imagine how complicated a deal of this nature must be.
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
No they’re terrible aren’t they
Why give that response..?
"This consortium don't seem very dynamic"sums up the feelings of many fans right now.
Certainly not the way I feel, I’m glad they’re still in the hunt. As someone who buys and sells stuff almost every day I cannot imagine how complicated a deal of this nature must be.
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
No they’re terrible aren’t they
Folks, I replied to ibborg's comment with 'No they're terrible aren't they' and then I added a ;-) emoji. I think because I used an emoticon (is that the right word?) the text after the emoticon didn't appear, along with the emotico/emoji.
My full post was something like...
No they’re terrible aren’t they ;-)
The bid was fully funded on May 21st for the purchase of the club, as well as for a 5 year plan for the running of the business, along with funds for the squad improvements that would be required to mount promotion bids.
It's really frustrating that, because of the withdrawal of a backer, there has been a delay of four weeks getting a replacement in place. But remember this wasn't a replacement with two or three million burning a hole in his or her pocket, this was a backer with the funds to support a 5 year plan.
So I'd say rather than being 'not very dynamic', perhaps we should be they're holding their nerve at a time when others may not have.
Personally I'd rather put up with a delay, no matter how frustrating this might be, rather than sell to another consortium, who might be able to cobble together enough money to buy the club, but with no clear plan or funding for the future.
This is just an opinion, and if you don't agree with it, fine, but let's debate politely without getting carried away. There's at least two sides to every argument :-)
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
No they’re terrible aren’t they
Why give that response..?
"This consortium don't seem very dynamic"sums up the feelings of many fans right now.
Certainly not the way I feel, I’m glad they’re still in the hunt. As someone who buys and sells stuff almost every day I cannot imagine how complicated a deal of this nature must be.
I just buy stuff everyday and that's a tactical nightmare. 'That's £1.65.' 'Shit, SHIT. What do I do? Here's a tenner.'
Has anyone else got the feeling that this is all gonna be a massive anti-climax. This consortium don't seem very dynamic do they
No they’re terrible aren’t they
Why give that response..?
"This consortium don't seem very dynamic"sums up the feelings of many fans right now.
Certainly not the way I feel, I’m glad they’re still in the hunt. As someone who buys and sells stuff almost every day I cannot imagine how complicated a deal of this nature must be.
Could see it as "persistent, calm, attention to detail, ensuring they are getting it right, having a plan and funding in place before jumping in, not put off by Roland's spoiling tactics, want Charlton, not just any old club".
Too many cooks spoil the broth v Many hands make light work
Roland is a proven terrible owner v We don't know how the Aussies will be as owners as yet
I personally wouldn't mind a consortium, but one that is proactive and one that can at least point out that they, or identify that their fellow members are not eligible to get involved in the first place
Comments
Fu****** nailed on mate!
If every decision and move they make takes this long is it really worth them getting involved?
Too many cooks and all that
Of course there is a need for painstaking detail and sign off processes during the acquisition stage. All the investors will want to know exactly how the deal is shaping, and so they should - they are each putting £millions on the line.
But when its up and running, there will be an annual plan and budget approved by the board and then delegated to the Chief Executive to execute. The Chief Executive would have a very high level of authority to operate and make decisions within those parameters, with proper oversight of and accountability to, a Board of Directors - something which has been sorely lacking at Charlton in recent years.
My full post was something like...
No they’re terrible aren’t they ;-)
The bid was fully funded on May 21st for the purchase of the club, as well as for a 5 year plan for the running of the business, along with funds for the squad improvements that would be required to mount promotion bids.
It's really frustrating that, because of the withdrawal of a backer, there has been a delay of four weeks getting a replacement in place. But remember this wasn't a replacement with two or three million burning a hole in his or her pocket, this was a backer with the funds to support a 5 year plan.
So I'd say rather than being 'not very dynamic', perhaps we should be they're holding their nerve at a time when others may not have.
Personally I'd rather put up with a delay, no matter how frustrating this might be, rather than sell to another consortium, who might be able to cobble together enough money to buy the club, but with no clear plan or funding for the future.
This is just an opinion, and if you don't agree with it, fine, but let's debate politely without getting carried away. There's at least two sides to every argument :-)
Roland is a proven terrible owner v We don't know how the Aussies will be as owners as yet
@Stu_of_Kunming my typo, should read "if Roland doesn't feck off soon"
However, I felt a huge surge of positivity after the Shrewsbury play off game, at the sight of members of the AFL consortium wearing Charlton gear.
This was compounded by many of those same people at the away leg.
But now? All that positivity has gone. I don't know what to think. And I feel a little betrayed.
(just to get the binary back on track)
Would anyone prefer Roland still to be in charge of the whole club, simply because the Aussies are acting diligently instead of just quickly?
Who has a preference for continued Roland ownership, over and above a consortium with plans, finance and ambition?