The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1669, due to failing eyesight Samuel Pepys stops writing his diary.

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

JamesSeed said:

cafcfan1990 said:

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

Todds_right_hook said:

clb74 said:

seth plum said:

If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.

Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years 
Frying pan into the fire

Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up

Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.

You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?

Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?

No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.

if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?

So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with. 

Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal. 

I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.  

Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. 
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. 
And yes, it’s frustrating. 

And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.

There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.

Yes, by the spivs and Roland Duchâtelet, which you’ll agree is a pretty low benchmark. Buying the club without sorting the loans would be like buying a house with some outstanding loans secured on the buildings. You’d have to be a bit crazy to do that. The Aussies have always asked for clean title. 

So as I’ve said, the sorting out of the loans are holding up the sale of the club.
Roland doesn’t want to pay them off in full, and would like it if we blamed someone else for that, whether it’s GM or the ex-Directors. Some of the ex Directors want repaying in full, others are happy to take a haircut in order to get their money back in advance of any future return to the Premier League.
Not blaming anyone here btw. I’d certainly want 100% back, despite the fact that I could pass away before we return to the Premier League. 
Does anyone know if they all have be settled at the same rate (i.e. 100% or 50% or whatever). Or can some agree to take a hit, while others are repaid in full?

This situation has been ongoing for sometime by the sounds of it. 

I hate then “it’s like buying a house...” analogies but the directors loans are like buying a house with existing loans/charges secured against it that are only redeemable if you win the jackpot on the lottery. In that scenario I’m not sure you’d be hugely fussed and it might be better to put your (finite) resources to better use.

Could the strategy be for new owners to take out huge loans to fund a gamble for a push for promotion to the premier league?

Loans being secured against the assets ie valley and sparrows lane.

If it pays off and they hit the premier league jackpot they're heroes without spending any/ little of their own dough,  and no one is any the wiser at the risk taken.

If it doesn't then they up sticks, sell up, go into administration, sell the valley and training ground to a private equity firm and bugger off into the night with minimal personal loss and zilch consequence whilst we all sit round scratching our heads.

Perhaps hugely overly simplistic but it could be why there is an insistence on clean title when as pointed out we've been sold twice previous without it seemingly  being such an obstacle.

In the murky world of modern football ownership with an impotent and incompetent football league ruling body it wouldn't surprise me if such schemes formulate as there is no logical or commercial reason why any business people would buy a football club beyond the ego boost or high odds gamble of one day making a profit through conventional above board means.

Sunderland's leveraging of their takeover and use of the parachutes to fund the purchase speaks to this yet was approved by the authorities (if they even knew or understood it).

Would be good to understand why these loan repayments  are so key to avoid such concerning speculation.

But Airman stated concerted effort to get the 3 not named to take a financial effort. I just don't equate concerted effort with ignored. No doubt others have information not overtly and clearly published which would clarify. We are left to speculate. 

Mr Seed i will be blunt,the loans tumour /spin is utter bollox ! They are to be paid back IF that's IF we ever get to the Prem. Again IF we ever get there then the amount to be repaid is tiny against the revenue that the Prem brings in. 

It's a lie by RD to DEFLECT from his own utter incompetent ownership and more so his totally unrealistic asking price.

At the moment I'm wondering if RD and the Aussies are just using you in their negotiations to spin their version of BOLLOX.

If the Aussies don't want to pay the loans ---then don't---fall back on the "Prem agreement". If it's a negotiating tool to get RD to lower the price by £5 million it ISN'T working.

RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

Could the strategy be for new owners to take out huge loans to fund a gamble for a push for promotion to the premier league?

Loans being secured against the assets ie valley and sparrows lane.

If it pays off and they hit the premier league jackpot they're heroes without spending any/ little of their own dough,  and no one is any the wiser at the risk taken.

If it doesn't then they up sticks, sell up, go into administration, sell the valley and training ground to a private equity firm and bugger off into the night with minimal personal loss and zilch consequence whilst we all sit round scratching our heads.

Perhaps hugely overly simplistic but it could be why there is an insistence on clean title when as pointed out we've been sold twice previous without it seemingly  being such an obstacle.

In the murky world of modern football ownership with an impotent and incompetent football league ruling body it wouldn't surprise me if such schemes formulate as there is no logical or commercial reason why any business people would buy a football club beyond the ego boost or high odds gamble of one day making a profit through conventional above board means.

Sunderland's leveraging of their takeover and use of the parachutes to fund the purchase speaks to this yet was approved by the authorities (if they even knew or understood it).

Would be good to understand why these loan repayments  are so key to avoid such concerning speculation.

As I understand it the EFL raised concerns about the Sunderland take over but were told by Short that if they didn't let it go through he would wind the club up.  Say what you like about the EFL but if you look at it like that they didn't have much choice. 

cfgs said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

JamesSeed said:

cafcfan1990 said:

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

Todds_right_hook said:

clb74 said:

seth plum said:

If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.

Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years 
Frying pan into the fire

Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up

Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.

You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?

Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?

No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.

if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?

So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with. 

Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal. 

I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.  

Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. 
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. 
And yes, it’s frustrating. 

And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.

There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.

Confused.  David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does  that square?

I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored. 

These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.

That’s the distinction, but it’s less to do with the individual amounts and more to do with the fact that they stick together as a group. There may be a good reason the Murphy group need clean title - for example individual investors insisting on it - but it’s equally likely to be a device to give Duchatelet more money from the sale and that he is being stubborn about that.

“The former directors are holding up the sale”, which has been propagated this week by multiple routes, is a way of presenting the situation publicly in order to exert pressure on the individuals. Although it’s also a bit feeble, given the individuals concerned, and likely to be counter-productive.

Either way, the issue goes back to price, which is not being set by the ex-directors. Duchatelet, Muir or even Murray could all take this issue off the table if they chose, because it is well within their own resources.

The loans are secured on the Valley no? Could this not all be about seperating Team and ground for individual ownerships? 

kentred2 said:

The loans are secured on the Valley no? Could this not all be about seperating Team and ground for individual ownerships? 

Has it not been insinuated before on the seperating of the club from the land?

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

cfgs said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

JamesSeed said:

cafcfan1990 said:

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

JamesSeed said:

Airman Brown said:

Todds_right_hook said:

clb74 said:

seth plum said:

If the Australians take over I will be first in line for buying season tickets.

Do we really want the Aussies after 2 years 
Frying pan into the fire

Yes. Because 1) it means Roland has gone 2) is there any evidence that they are the cause of the hold up

Agree with 1) but I think all the evidence on 2) is that they put the paperwork in to the EFL last May and then couldn’t follow through.

You know, at this stage it’s best to concentrate on what we know for sure.
Do you know it they couldn’t or wouldn’t? So much of the info we’ve received over the last two years about paperwork and the EFL has been sketchy. If the Directors’ loans haven’t been addressed, for example, could that affect the paperwork, or their willingness to submit it?

Either way, we can agree the Directors’ loans are holding things up. Roland says it’s the Directors’ fault. The Directors say it’s Roland’s. If it is Roland (which most think likely) then why is he doing it? And what can be done about it?

No, we don’t agree on that. And neither do the ex-directors.

if you wanted to lever them into cutting a deal on the loans, isn’t this exactly what you’d tell them?

So you’re saying the Directors’ loans aren’t holding things up? Surely, if the Directors haven’t been approached, then the loans can’t have been dealt with. 

Doesn’t mean it’s the thing holding up the deal. 

I know this whole thing is frustrating but pretty sure we have been through this hundreds of times.  

Sorry to be banging on about this, but the sale can’t happen without the loans being sorted. 
And as the loans haven’t been sorted they are, at very least, contributing to the sale not been completed. 
And yes, it’s frustrating. 

And yet the club has been sold twice already, in 2010 and 2014, without them being sorted.

There is a concerted effort going on involving Gerard Murphy, Richard Murray and Roland Duchatelet to try to get the three ex-directors not named to take a financial hit. That’s what the statement is about.

Confused.  David White said effectively no contact. You are now saying “concerted effort”. How does  that square?

I think Airman is implying that effort is being made on the ones with serious money involved and those that might be problematic, the others have been relatively ignored. 

These investors gave CAFC money and left it in the club, when it really needed it. They never expected interest or a financial bonus, yet now years later they are expected to write off part of their money? That is disgusting whatever you think about the people involved.

That’s the distinction, but it’s less to do with the individual amounts and more to do with the fact that they stick together as a group. There may be a good reason the Murphy group need clean title - for example individual investors insisting on it - but it’s equally likely to be a device to give Duchatelet more money from the sale and that he is being stubborn about that.

“The former directors are holding up the sale”, which has been propagated this week by multiple routes, is a way of presenting the situation publicly in order to exert pressure on the individuals. Although it’s also a bit feeble, given the individuals concerned, and likely to be counter-productive.

Either way, the issue goes back to price, which is not being set by the ex-directors. Duchatelet, Muir or even Murray could all take this issue off the table if they chose, because it is well within their own resources.

So are you suggesting the 3 have been engaged or not ? David White said not beyond an initial approach about a possible conversation. You say concerted effort on the 3. 

Not sure it’s that difficult to understand. Concerted effort on the three, involving direct contact, briefing of third parties against them and ultimately the Duchatelet statement, all in the last week.

One reason the statement is so clumsy is that RD is warning the three that they will be publicly criticised for stopping the deal and the fans that he is only staying because of them in order to try to ramp pressure on them to settle. 

To be honest it's fairly simple one, party has agreed a price for the club with clean title.

One party wants to sell the club but the price is not enough for him to get what he wants and repay former directors loans.

Will somebody give, doubtful if the past is anything to go by.

Answer nothing's really changed.