Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
I need Carol Vorderman, to work this out for me
0 -
#WouldYa?
OF BLOODY COURSE YOU WOULD.2 -
Needs a bit of colour of them chapped hands, but yes from me1
-
No, not presenting as facts.JamesSeed said:Covered End said:
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?Pedro45 said:
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue).
Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club.
A house analogy if I may.
They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they?
Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).0 -
Given Aribo’s age isn’t the process a bit different?0
-
I reckon she's had her eyes done.Dazzler21 said:
#WouldYa?
OF BLOODY COURSE YOU WOULD.4 -
Just skim read 200+ new posts from yesterday. Just checking, so no new substantive sale info. then?
0 -
1 -
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed.Covered End said:
No, not presenting as facts.JamesSeed said:Covered End said:
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?Pedro45 said:
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue).
Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club.
A house analogy if I may.
They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they?
Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit.
PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
1 -
No mate, just may happen by end of this month, but there's also apparently two quit large stumbling blocks that'll probably put pay to thatValleyMick said:Just skim read 200+ new posts from yesterday. Just checking, so no new substantive sale info. then?1 - Sponsored links:
-
I like to spread it about a bit but Im not buying a football club.0
-
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?JamesSeed said:
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed.Covered End said:
No, not presenting as facts.JamesSeed said:Covered End said:
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?Pedro45 said:
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue).
Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club.
A house analogy if I may.
They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they?
Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit.
PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.0 -
They obviously ain't minted and in my honest opinion they ain't gonna buy us.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?JamesSeed said:
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed.Covered End said:
No, not presenting as facts.JamesSeed said:Covered End said:
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?Pedro45 said:
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue).
Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club.
A house analogy if I may.
They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they?
Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit.
PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.2 -
It don't add up, and never has imo.
Even allowing for a year of the delay on chief mentalist RD's demands, the fact they were going out tbeir way to advertise for investors, of any sort, only 6 weeks ago is strange and rings alarm bells to me...1 -
I suspect because it is being put together like a project. It’s Murphy’s project and he is looking for investors the same way a company goes to market with a share issue / crowdfund. You could have very wealthy investors / other companies buy into that share issue / crowdfund who would have the wrath to take out the lot, but that’s not their objective.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?JamesSeed said:
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed.Covered End said:
No, not presenting as facts.JamesSeed said:Covered End said:
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?Pedro45 said:
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue).
Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club.
A house analogy if I may.
They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they?
Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit.
PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
why it’s Murphy’s project in the first place is a completely different question. What would be his driver? Has he a desire to be involved in UK football and Is he looking to create a Chairman / CEO position for himself? Is he passionate about Aus sports and sees this as a viable vehicle to progress that? Is it not that but on a financial basis there’s a very chunky arrangers fee to be had if successful? Is it a combo of all three? Is it not Murph project at all. Who knows.5 -
I've just seen that HSBC are advertising for investors. It's ridiculous.
What they're doing asking people to give them money in return for a "share" in their business. It can only mean they don't have enough money to run the company for the next few years. They obviously "ain't minted".
And what happens if all these people that "own" "shares" in the company want to have their say about how it's run? It will be chaos. You can't run a company like that.21 -
We have had two nightmare owners in a row. It would be inconceivable for Charlton to go for the hattrick... wouldn't it? Come on, someone reassure me... please! Come on, it ain't gonna happen is it? Please... someone?1
-
Okay, that could explain why they're looking for investors. But, is that a good model to run a football club which are apparenrly known financial black holes.
This time next year the club could still owe £7m to the original mob, £65m to RD and £???m to this new mob if it all goes wrong0 -
There's plenty of football clubs that the owners would love to sell.
Why persist in trying to buy Charlton for the last two years knowing that the owner is a deluded old fool.
Why not just buy another club instead.
Something just doesn't add up to me8 -
Just because you're minted, it doesn't mean you'll be lavishing your millions on Charlton.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
If they're very minted, why are they advertising and holding out for investors for later down the line?JamesSeed said:
This was why I said the website looks bad, but they say it’s only for long term extra fundraising and referred me to the key investors profile (Muir, the Indian cricket guy, and the yank, I’m guessing). Between them I believe they’re very minted indeed.Covered End said:
No, not presenting as facts.JamesSeed said:Covered End said:
So nearly everyone has been outraged that RD wants too much for the club, but this was never the case and we've nearly all been wrong ?Pedro45 said:
You answered your own question - the price was allegedly £65m. In fact it never was. The Aussies may have agreed £33m at some stage (mind, we don't actually know this for a fact), but a new interest buyer was quoted £65m (according to AB).Covered End said:
If the Aussies recently agreed, pre Wembley to pay £33M for clean title.Covered End said:Can anyone explain the following?
The Aussies arrived on the scene in April 2017.
Some time later RD & the Aussies made a joint statement on the O/S saying a price had been agreed & the price agreement has been repeated numerous times.
The price was alleged to have been around £65M and other offers in excess of £33M have been turned away.
The Aussies filed papers with the EFL and turned up at last seasons play offs wearing scarves.
Yet another year later it is suggested they had & still have the funds to proceed, but the price has mysteriously halved to what was agreed and yet they still haven't done the deal at half the agreed price and are possibly arguing over a £7M figure.
Can no one explain my post from yesterday ?
Why did they originally agree to pay £65M ?
My only explanation could be that the upfront cash sum would have been something like £20M, with the remainder paid in stages.
Plus, if they had and still have adequate funds of willing investors, (not saying this is untrue).
Why have they been advertising for additional investors and are still advertising for additional investors ?
I repeat, I have never known a business trying to raise funds for over 2 years, that they don't need.
PS Lots of business raise money over very long periods, and according to James Seed, any funds they are trying to raise are to cover future running costs, not the purchase price.
Yes, the Aussies may have/had the purchase funds, but they don't have the funds to run the club.
A house analogy if I may.
They can afford to buy a property with a mortgage, but they can't pay the mortgage. Brilliant !
You’re presenting these as facts. Are they?
Respectfully I’d ask where these facts came from.
I've been asking questions, looking for plausible explanations, which is why I placed a ? at the end of the question.
But only Poplcon has replied, suggesting the Aussies could be still attempting to raise funds to cover future running costs.
I responded that if this is true, then they can't have the funds to cover future running costs.
You wouldn't be raising funds if you didn't need them (ignoring scams, fraud and the like).
I think they’re underwriting the whole thing, but seem to want to spread it about a bit.
PS One ‘fact’ seemed to be wrapped up in a question. The second wasn’t a question at all. I was just interested to know where the info came from, that’s all. No probs if it was just a rhetorical device.
I think a chap called Roland Duchatelet is a good example of this.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Who knows, what is a good model for running a football club?i_b_b_o_r_g said:Okay, that could explain why they're looking for investors. But, is that a good model to run a football club which are apparenrly known financial black holes.
This time next year the club could still owe £7m to the original mob, £65m to RD and £???m to this new mob if it all goes wrong
It’s all unknowns and I’m personally not going to dismiss anyone without having the benefit of hindsight3 -
HSBC published net profit at $12.6B last yearChizz said:I've just seen that HSBC are advertising for investors. It's ridiculous.
What they're doing asking people to give them money in return for a "share" in their business. It can only mean they don't have enough money to run the company for the next few years. They obviously "ain't minted".
And what happens if all these people that "own" "shares" in the company want to have their say about how it's run? It will be chaos. You can't run a company like that.2 -
Unless Murphy is on such a huge bonus if he can get this deal done.blackpool72 said:There's plenty of football clubs that the owners would love to sell.
Why persist in trying to buy Charlton for the last two years knowing that the owner is a deluded old fool.
Why not just buy another club instead.
Something just doesn't add up to me
If that's true Murphy is part of the problem.1 -
1807, The Racecourse Ground, Wrexham is opened it is the oldest ground to host international matches.2
-
I may be suffering from a pre takeover stress disorder but in all honesty and apologies to JS... this Aussie "takeover" smells dodgier than a dingos ball sack the longer in lingers on...3
-
What are the facts you base that on?soapy_jones said:I may be suffering from a pre takeover stress disorder but in all honesty and apologies to JS... this Aussie "takeover" smells dodgier than a dingos ball sack the longer in lingers on...1 -
Oh come on mate.0
-
A bit like their dough......blackpool72 said:There's plenty of football clubs that the owners would love to sell.
Why persist in trying to buy Charlton for the last two years knowing that the owner is a deluded old fool.
Why not just buy another club instead.
Something just doesn't add up to me1 -
What facts are you using to make your conclusion? If there's stuff you know that others don't, it would be a great time to share them. And if you have a different interpretation on the facts that are known openly, it would also be interesting to see what that is.soapy_jones said:Oh come on mate.2 -
In fairness he isn't the only one on here that thinks the Aussie deal is flawed.Chizz said:
What facts are you using to make your conclusion? If there's stuff you know that others don't, it would be a great time to share them. And if you have a different interpretation on the facts that are known openly, it would also be interesting to see what that is.soapy_jones said:Oh come on mate.
No facts just a gut feeling after two years of bollox2
This discussion has been closed.
