The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

CatAddick said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.

Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away

Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.

Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’.
They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’.
You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.

Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.

You don’t really know for sure that happened, and if papers were lodged that there was an agreed price attached.
It’s all above my pay grade, so I don’t know they weren’t either.

I do know both things, as the EFL themselves have confirmed it.

Unless they are lying?

I don’t know anything about that (above my pay grade) but others are saying price not necessary part of that sale agreement.

But even if it is, unless the deal is concluded a buyer can pull out and offer a lower sum if circumstances change. If that’s what’s happened then it’s Roland slowing things up by not being realistic. Normal rues don’t seem to apply to him.

The information is in the public domain: https://www.castrust.org/2018/10/a-productive-meeting-with-the-efl/

Now, of course I'm assuming to file a Sale and Purchase Agreement you would have to agree a price, I could well be wrong, but I doubt it.

Of course, a purchaser can pull out, or change their offer, which is exactly what I think happened, I've been saying it for months.

However, I also think in Roland's deluded mind the fact that the price was originally agreed means it's a fair price, which why, in my opinion, both parties take some of the blame for our current predicament.

There is no sign of a sale happening anytime soon.
The club is losing 800k per month, He is reducing the wage budget by letting everyone at the clubs contracts run out in the summer. He is also adding these costs to the debt owed to him. Come July we have hardly any players, and no management.
He is valuing the club based on land value of London, which is madness as its not like you can tear it down and build flats.
He doesn't want the club to get promotion, as this would just increase his running costs and any increased revenue would be negligible.
What he believes the club is worth is crazy, no one will pay it. He is that stubborn he will never reduce it. Its been on sale for two years!

We are stuffed come July, and I don't know what the answer is other than a billionaire coming along and paying what he wants.

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

CatAddick said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.

Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away

Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.

Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’.
They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’.
You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.

Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.

You don’t really know for sure that happened, and if papers were lodged that there was an agreed price attached.
It’s all above my pay grade, so I don’t know they weren’t either.

I do know both things, as the EFL themselves have confirmed it.

Unless they are lying?

I don’t know anything about that (above my pay grade) but others are saying price not necessary part of that sale agreement.

But even if it is, unless the deal is concluded a buyer can pull out and offer a lower sum if circumstances change. If that’s what’s happened then it’s Roland slowing things up by not being realistic. Normal rues don’t seem to apply to him.

The information is in the public domain: https://www.castrust.org/2018/10/a-productive-meeting-with-the-efl/

Now, of course I'm assuming to file a Sale and Purchase Agreement you would have to agree a price, I could well be wrong, but I doubt it.

Of course, a purchaser can pull out, or change their offer, which is exactly what I think happened, I've been saying it for months.

However, I also think in Roland's deluded mind the fact that the price was originally agreed means it's a fair price, which why, in my opinion, both parties take some of the blame for our current predicament.

Some agreement, but I’m not going to blame a buyer for having common sense.

What? Like turning up at The Valley, highly visible in their shiny new red & white scarves?

Addickted said:

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

CatAddick said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.

Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away

Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.

Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’.
They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’.
You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.

Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.

You don’t really know for sure that happened, and if papers were lodged that there was an agreed price attached.
It’s all above my pay grade, so I don’t know they weren’t either.

I do know both things, as the EFL themselves have confirmed it.

Unless they are lying?

I don’t know anything about that (above my pay grade) but others are saying price not necessary part of that sale agreement.

But even if it is, unless the deal is concluded a buyer can pull out and offer a lower sum if circumstances change. If that’s what’s happened then it’s Roland slowing things up by not being realistic. Normal rues don’t seem to apply to him.

The information is in the public domain: https://www.castrust.org/2018/10/a-productive-meeting-with-the-efl/

Now, of course I'm assuming to file a Sale and Purchase Agreement you would have to agree a price, I could well be wrong, but I doubt it.

Of course, a purchaser can pull out, or change their offer, which is exactly what I think happened, I've been saying it for months.

However, I also think in Roland's deluded mind the fact that the price was originally agreed means it's a fair price, which why, in my opinion, both parties take some of the blame for our current predicament.

Some agreement, but I’m not going to blame a buyer for having common sense.

What? Like turning up at The Valley, highly visible in their shiny new red & white scarves?

Yeah, misguided as the deal wasn’t completed, but I think they meant well. Muir might even have flown over from Oz, and was expecting the deal was almost done.

But with the benefit of hindsight.....

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

Henry Irving said:

Airman Brown said:

Henry Irving said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

JamesSeed said:

CatAddick said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.

Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away

Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.

Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’.
They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’.
You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.

Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.

Were such papers lodged with the EFL?

Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.

And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.

CAST reported from their meeting with the EFL in October that they had been told by Shaun Harvey that a "sale and purchase agreement" had been submitted.

And yet no sale or purchase has been agreed.

Maybe because the key element, the price, has not been agreed.

I don't agree with that. I think the problem is more likely to be that the person heading up the consortium agreed a price that he is unable to deliver because the consortium members wouldn't put it in the table when it came to it. The agreement was in place but not the money.

He told me that sale was agreed subject to confirmation by a couple of people. Obviously looks highly probably they said no.
But even if a price was verbally agreed and Roland didn't hear the 'subject to approval' bit, the buyer has the right to reduce the offer, as the sale wasn't concluded. Unless a contract was signed and sealed I guess, in which case they might be in breach of contract, but that seems unlikely.

They cannot be in breach of contract as long as the EFL refuses to ratify the sale. It cannot be completed unless they do.

After reading this posts for over a year now (in the vain hope of the club changing ownership)

I have come to the following conclusion

1. The price for a League One club status has been agreed
2. Just waiting for both parties to sign.

The prospective new buyers are unwilling to sign up to the contract conditions attached to the sale of the Club.

Our Belgium owner has probably included that extra substantial money must be paid when:

Should promotion be achieved to the Championship (my guess would be 20 to 30 million pounds) or promotion to the Premier League (again my estimate could be 50 to 80 million)

Other conditions may include a share of transfer fees for current players and from any emerging academy squad players.

The prospective buyers would have to invest many millions to gain these promotions, while our current owner just has to sit back and collect.

Now if I gambled on Charlton Athletic I would expect to keep all or most of the profits and not share them with the previous owner.

Otherwise it is not worth the gamble.

Fansince1963 said:

After reading this posts for over a year now (in the vain hope of the club changing ownership)

I have come to the following conclusion

1. The price for a League One club status has been agreed
2. Just waiting for both parties to sign.

The prospective new buyers are unwilling to sign up to the contract conditions attached to the sale of the Club.

Our Belgium owner has probably included that extra substantial money must be paid when:

Should promotion be achieved to the Championship (my guess would be 20 to 30 million pounds) or promotion to the Premier League (again my estimate could be 50 to 80 million)

Other conditions may include a share of transfer fees for current players and from any emerging academy squad players.

The prospective buyers would have to invest many millions to gain these promotions, while our current owner just has to sit back and collect.

Now if I gambled on Charlton Athletic I would expect to keep all or most of the profits and not share them with the previous owner.

Otherwise it is not worth the gamble.

Fanny, I guess you've heard no more following your encouraging post last week?

_MrDick said:

Has this been mentioned ? thebusinessdesk.com/eastmidlands/news/2022316-australian-consortium-eye-notts-county-takeover?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EastMidlands_31st_Jan_2019_Daily#

Yes. No conclusion.

Dung deal

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up

If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up

If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled

But the house is costing you 8k a month to run, so do you take the 250k now, or gamble you can sell for 400k in less than the 20 months before you've spent the difference just running the place?

RD has proven time and again what a totally shit owner he is yet I come on here and read people who are laying the blame on the purchasers and then go on the transfer rumours thread and see a handful of people saying Bowyer and Gallen have to take part of the blame.

I know the phrase; ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’ but what is the end of the line ‘full me hundreds of time repeatedly....’

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up

If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled

Would it at any point dawn on you that the reason that one buyer had offered substantially more than anyone else was that your house wasn't, in fact, worth that amount?

For example, a year after agreeing the price, if the buyer hadn't completed the purchase, and you had receive no other offers in the same region, would you begin to have the feeling that the house wasn't worth what you're asking for it?

And would you continue to hold out for the higher price? Or would you reconsider offering it at a price at which a deal could be completed?

Because, if it's the latter, you'd sell the house and, at the same time, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it's the seller that sets the price, not the buyer. And that, despite agreeing to sell to one buyer who fails to complete, it's perfectly possible to sell to another.

oohaahmortimer said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

killerandflash said:

Chizz said:

So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?

In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.

Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.

If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.

If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.

So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?

Yes. If Roland had set a price at say 40m and every potential buyer had laughed and only offered 25m, then he would have had to lower the price. Having one buyer who at some stage agreed his ludicrous price gives it credibility, and as a result we’ve wasted a year while Roland waited for them to cough up

If I was selling a house and one buyer offered 400k when everyone else was only prepared to pay 250k, I’d wait for the 400k offer to be settled

Would it at any point dawn on you that the reason that one buyer had offered substantially more than anyone else was that your house wasn't, in fact, worth that amount?

For example, a year after agreeing the price, if the buyer hadn't completed the purchase, and you had receive no other offers in the same region, would you begin to have the feeling that the house wasn't worth what you're asking for it?

And would you continue to hold out for the higher price? Or would you reconsider offering it at a price at which a deal could be completed?

Because, if it's the latter, you'd sell the house and, at the same time, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it's the seller that sets the price, not the buyer. And that, despite agreeing to sell to one buyer who fails to complete, it's perfectly possible to sell to another.

Not forgetting as time goes on you are selling expensive fixtures and fittings off and replacing them with cheaper versions that aren’t as good and won’t last as long

Agreed, and they last Six months even if they are quality.