Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Precisely. If a bunch of rich arabs bought us then I doubt they would matter. An ever changing consortium who have taken 18 months to stump up with just the purchase monies just maybe looking to borrow against the club.Cafc43v3r said:
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?JamesSeed said:
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?1 -
After re reading Rolands update you can just tell he is just toying with us fans. Making fun of us. He will still be here next season. And he will delibratley leave us short with tranfers hoping we will get relegated.
Hes never wanted us to be in premiere league or championship. He never wanted promotion. I wouldn't be suprised if he is delibratley offering a poor contract to bowyer in hope he walks away. The takeover dragging on. it's all a game to him to get back at fans.4 -
As I posted elsewhere clean title means in the event of administration the former directors are not in front of the new investors chances of getting any money back
It could also be (or have been) a hidden element of the true asking price
1 -
So what do we do about this? Simple question but seriously this is getting serious now!!4
-
Or not.golfaddick said:
Precisely. If a bunch of rich arabs bought us then I doubt they would matter. An ever changing consortium who have taken 18 months to stump up with just the purchase monies just maybe looking to borrow against the club.Cafc43v3r said:
They don't need to be settled, they have rolled over twice already. They only need to be sorted if the new owner insists on clean title. If they do one may question why?JamesSeed said:
The loans have to be sorted before the sale. Clean title. Because Roland didn’t do DD he wasn’t aware of the loans, which might be why he seems to be dragging his feet.cafcwill said:So in regards to these directors loans
For the 'Aussie' deal is it that have agreed a fee with Roland for the club but have negotiated that he sorts out the Directors Loans, or are the Aussies responsible for paying them.
Have any of the other parties offered to pay the Directors Loans as part of their 'deals'?1 -
I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.2
-
So RD has lowered his price by quite a lot it seems. £333
-
I will go £40ShootersHillGuru said:So RD has lowered his price by quite a lot it seems. £331 -
Airman said he turned down 45m last summer. We all know RD is crazy but he isn't crazy enough to suddenly accept 12m less.JamesSeed said:I’ve head £33m agreed. Wasn’t told by Aussies so can’t guarantee this.
Also i'm pretty sure he wouldn't have released yesterdays statement if he'd accepted a new bid.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
If he has agreed £33M, which is doubtful if he turned down £45M, then presumably that is with the ex-director loans still outstanding ?
If I'm trying to be more than fair, I think £33M is a not an unreasonable sum. But I doubt it's true.2 -
Where did £33m come from? I saw it mentioned by a former member of this site on the forum that shall not be named. Same person is saying we need the ex directors loans to be sorted for the deal to go through.Covered End said:If he has agreed £33M, which is doubtful if he turned down £45M, then presumably that is with the ex-director loans still outstanding ?
If I'm trying to be more than fair, I think £33M is a not an unreasonable sum. But I doubt it's true.0 -
Do Rentokil have a Belgian branch?2
-
He’s told me who his source is, and if true, it’s entirely possible that £33m is the agreed figure, and it is the Directors loans holding things up (which I heard elsewhere, although he’s said the same thing.)JamesSeed said:1 -
So if £33M has been agreed and the ex-director loans are the sticking point.JamesSeed said:
He’s told me who his source is, and if true, it’s entirely possible that £33m is the agreed figure, and it is the Directors loans holding things up (which I heard elsewhere, although he’s said the same thing.)JamesSeed said:
What is the agreement re the ex-director loans, because there must be one ?0 -
_MrDick said:My insider says that ‘there’s a meeting on Friday with RD with a group mainly based in Austria ... not sure if there they’re new or one of the existing groups that have shownAirman Brown said:Athletico Charlton said:So @Airman Brown , if you were a betting man what odds would0
-
So looking at this as best I can, RD has potentially agreed a price of £33m. Some £12m less than he apparently turned down recently. The Directors loans are holding up the sale which amount to circa £7m.
If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion?
I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway!
No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.0 -
James, with your track record of providing info obtained from a fella who's normally pretty good, you'll forgive me for taking a rain check on this one.JamesSeed said:
3 -
It was always agreed that Roland would pay them off, I believe.Covered End said:
So if £33M has been agreed and the ex-director loans are the sticking point.JamesSeed said:
He’s told me who his source is, and if true, it’s entirely possible that £33m is the agreed figure, and it is the Directors loans holding things up (which I heard elsewhere, although he’s said the same thing.)JamesSeed said:
What is the agreement re the ex-director loans, because there must be one ?1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yes. But what if the new owners simply don't want to add another £3.5m to the cost of buying the club? Why should they fork out anything at all?Redmidland said:So looking at this as best I can, RD has potentially agreed a price of £33m. Some £12m less than he apparently turned down recently. The Directors loans are holding up the sale which amount to circa £7m.
If that's the case then if it is the same group who have secured a £12m reduction in price why don't they approach the ex-directors and offer terms in relation to the money owed. If they want a clean title can they not set up a legal agreement where £3.5m is paid upfront, the titles are released, and the further £3.5m is paid as soon as the PL is reached or within 3 years whichever is the soonest. The restrictions are lifted and a water-tight legal agreement is drawn up, that should the new owners sell, (within the 3 years) the o/s £3.5 million is paid on completion?
I'm not a legal expert, but that seems a sensible solution.......in my head anyway!
No doubt the legal people on here will tell me where my idea falls down.
Or, let me put it another way. What's the best way for the new owners to spend £3.5m - use it to clear up the Belgian waffler's debts or give it to Lee Bowyer to spend on new signings?2 -
8
-
1666, Thomas Farriner leaves his oven on.26
-
a lower price would explain why the deal is now in play with the Aussies1
-
I wonder if Muzza is seen as the spokesperson (rightly or wrongly) for part of the FDs and there arises the confusion/issue with Mr White, as I said on the other thread his recent rant is typical of someone with poor information who is not directly involved and no longer wants to even be remotely so.0
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
3.5 million (loans)Is far too small an amount of money to have stopped this deal going through for the last couple of years.
Shitweasel is asking far too much money and that's it in a nutshell.4 -
And another thing. If the Aussies agreed a price of £65/70M 2 years ago & we've been told all along a price has been agreed.
Why is the agreed price now halved?0 -
I’d agree, but now I know who his source is I’m less skeptical.bazjonster said:
James, with your track record of providing info obtained from a fella who's normally pretty good, you'll forgive me for taking a rain check on this one.JamesSeed said:
Aussies wouldn’t tell me the price for the usual reason. But when I mentioned a range of prices they agreed, and 33m was inside the range (and it wasn’t £1m - £100m!).
But WIOTOS we’ll know for sure, either way. But I certainly understand the skepticism.
@Redmidland it’s never been on the cards that they run around chasing ex directors offering deals. It’s always been the seller’s job. For some reason this hasn’t happened so far, and reading the official side, RD says ‘that may take time’. The remaining questions are:
1 Why?
2 Why hasn’t anything been done about it already.
1
This discussion has been closed.
