Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

1186718681870187218732262

Comments

  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    I was reffering to the most visual, impactful ones, pigs, stress balls etc.  Or are you going all RD on us and changing history to suit 🤔🤔

    The last sentence was a joke before the pile on starts. 
  • KBslittlesis
    KBslittlesis Posts: 8,602
    Chizz said:
    Question two was a short question, which referenced the directors' loans

    Six hundred and sixty six words were used by LdT to explain, in forensic detail, the vital importance of being utterly and completely unambiguous with dates. 

    Here's what the title of the document is.   


    I can’t believe you’re the only one who has picked up on this. 
    I refused to read it because of this. 
    Explains everything to me. 
    Fecking jokers. 
    He’s going nowhere. 
    :-(
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    Chizz said:
    Question two was a short question, which referenced the directors' loans

    Six hundred and sixty six words were used by LdT to explain, in forensic detail, the vital importance of being utterly and completely unambiguous with dates. 

    Here's what the title of the document is.   


    Well, someone's lurking on CL. Because the file's been changed now.
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,126
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though. 
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,219
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though. 
    I don't think LDT wrote that without help.
  • Lewis Coaches
    Lewis Coaches Posts: 5,408
    It was the genius of the black and white scarves and branding that gave everyone an easy way to show their unhappiness and indicated visually just how much support the protests had.
    Came in very handy that cold Febuary evening in Sint Truiden back in 2016.
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,126
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though. 
    I don't think LDT wrote that without help.
    Of course not, but my point still stands. 
  • vff
    vff Posts: 6,881
    edited July 2019
    Apologies but there’s no actual takeover news then today ? 

    There appears to be a lot about Fans Forum on the 26th June, which I am not really following (Something about LDT making stuff about loans owed to former directors & some other rubbish aimed to divide & distract ? )
  • Hartleypete
    Hartleypete Posts: 4,699
    Let's face it they can't even sign off the minutes without a major cock up, what chance did they ever have of doing proper due diligence?

    They really are a bunch of bungling Belgians.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    vff said:
    Apologies but there’s no actual takeover news then today ? 
    That's what they want you to think
  • Sponsored links:



  • cabbles
    cabbles Posts: 15,254
    Markg2004 said:
    Why are Footscray RFC sueing?
    i will ask my contact
    Survey the members 
  • KiwiValley
    KiwiValley Posts: 3,379
    Rudders22 said:
    so the wanker has increased the price to buy Charlton. in other words. Roland won't pay the £7 million loans so upped his price... (and then some). How the hell did we end up with Roland as our owner? What did we do in a previous life to end up with him??   
    In our previous life We were all Milwall fans 
  • happyvalley
    happyvalley Posts: 8,996
    1873, Sydney Barnes born. He took 49 wickets in a Test Series against South Africa in 1913/14 which is a record that I believe still stands today.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    1873, Sydney Barnes born. He took 49 wickets in a Test Series against South Africa in 1913/14 which is a record that I believe still stands today.
    Yes.  I can confirm that, since then, no-one has ever taken that many wickets in a Test Series against South Africa in 1913/14. 
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,824
    Chizz said:
    Question two was a short question, which referenced the directors' loans

    Six hundred and sixty six words were used by LdT to explain, in forensic detail, the vital importance of being utterly and completely unambiguous with dates. 

    Here's what the title of the document is.   


    Ha, brilliant @Chizz
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,824
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though. 
    I don't think LDT wrote that without help.
    Has it been considered that LDT could be even more bonkers that Roland, that it is he infact the pen behind all of Roland’s ridiculous website rants over the last year? And poor old Roly has been copping the full blame for it?
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    1873, Sydney Barnes born. He took 49 wickets in a Test Series against South Africa in 1913/14 which is a record that I believe still stands today.
    Slightly less sarcastic answer: Yes, Sydney Barnes's 49 series wickets is the most wickets ever taken by a bowler, from any nation, in a Test series.  Only six other people have taken 40 or more wickets in a series (one, Terry Alderman, did it twice).  All of those came in five- or six-match series.  Barnes took his 49 wickets in just four Tests.  

  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    105 posts since my last sortie into this thread, I take it it's all done and dusted??
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,805
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though. 
    I don't think LDT wrote that without help.
    Has it been considered that LDT could be even more bonkers that Roland, that it is he infact the pen behind all of Roland’s ridiculous website rants over the last year? And poor old Roly has been copping the full blame for it?
    Not by me. Deffo Duchâtelet in my book (nothing to do with me the circumflex btw, just always comes up in the phone like that, I blame Irving)
  • Sponsored links:



  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though. 
    I don't think LDT wrote that without help.
    Has it been considered that LDT could be even more bonkers that Roland, that it is he infact the pen behind all of Roland’s ridiculous website rants over the last year? And poor old Roly has been copping the full blame for it?
    Not by me. Deffo Duchâtelet in my book (nothing to do with me the circumflex btw, just always comes up in the phone like that, I blame Irving)
    Interesting use of the accent there.  You don't happen to have been in Belgium over the last couple of days do you?  Or have used an unusually large amount of spray paint recently? 
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,824
    edited July 2019
    Anyhow, before this threads gets in danger of serious discourse, let’s not fail to pay tribute to an emphatic victory a few pages ago

    DOUCHER 1 CHIZZ 0

    The man with the inquisitive questions and eye for detail gave it his best shot but the hugely popular people’s champion didn’t even wobble off his inflatable pink flamingo in the Turkish sun, swotting the challenge away with a backhand Federer would be proud of. And didn’t spill a drop of his Raki cocktail in the process.

    Dont lick your wounds for too long Chizz, it was a good challenge and none of us think any the worse of you. Dare I say it, an admiring respect for your bravery.  But you join a great list of ITKs, pedants, outright wannabes and forum heavyweights to trail in the great man’s wake. 

    Viva La Douche, baby. Viva La Douche :-)
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,805
    😂 if only. 
  • Ferryman
    Ferryman Posts: 2,921
    I thought the director loans had to be paid up on return to the prem, turns out 20% per season up to 5?
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,219
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Interesting response, admits RD did not “pay attention to the loans” and argues inconclusively that they may have expired. A competent buyer would have spotted any ambiguity and addressed that in 2014.

    However the claim that they are only a problem based on the identity of the buyer ignores the fact that according to LDT the buyers haven’t changed since he said they weren’t a problem.

    Another wholly gratuitous and spurious point about me and 2015/16, which 1) contradicts their own previous claim that I was advocating the owner of Ebbsfleet and 2) ignores the fact that PV was representing a specific buyer and the likelihood that I would have confidence in PV.

    I will leave others to decide if they were in fact “mobilised” by me or formed their own judgement of Duchatelet and what needed to happen based on the evidence in front of them. 
    I don't think you could argue the last paragraph is liable.  The coordination of the protests was done by CARD, you were happy to be a public spokes man for CARD. 

    The insinuating that people wanted to protest because of you is fanciful at best. 
    The protests predated CARD.
    True. But technically LDT isn't saying you started the protests, simply that you mobilised protests, which, as part of CARD, he can argue you did. I don't like the bloke but he's been very careful with his wording there. Unnecessary of him though. 
    I don't think LDT wrote that without help.
    Has it been considered that LDT could be even more bonkers that Roland, that it is he infact the pen behind all of Roland’s ridiculous website rants over the last year? And poor old Roly has been copping the full blame for it?
    Blame the organ grinder not the monkey
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    Just waiting for the inevitable posts denying ever being in Turkey, tbh. 
  • JamesSeed
    JamesSeed Posts: 17,380
    JamesSeed said:
    Has any other club sale been as complicated and drawn out as this one? Even I was beginning to blame the Aussies, but now the evidence points in another direction. If Dalman walks away you have to think this could literally go on for years.
    So even you have lost faith in the Aussies then?
    No, but they refuse to pay more than they think the club is worth.
    Roland reduced the price and then upped it again. He's playing games.
    But I guess I might prefer someone who was so rich they wouldn't care what the price was, but that's not realistic.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    Ferryman said:
    I thought the director loans had to be paid up on return to the prem, turns out 20% per season up to 5?
    I think that would come as quite a surprise to a lot of people.  Most importantly, the directors themselves. 
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,842
    edited July 2019
    1871, Henry Morton Stanley finds missing explorer David Livingstone near Lake Tanganyika.
    And he uttered those immortal words:

    ”where the f*ck have you been”
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,458
    JamesSeed said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Has any other club sale been as complicated and drawn out as this one? Even I was beginning to blame the Aussies, but now the evidence points in another direction. If Dalman walks away you have to think this could literally go on for years.
    So even you have lost faith in the Aussies then?
    No, but they refuse to pay more than they think the club is worth.
    Roland reduced the price and then upped it again. He's playing games.
    But I guess I might prefer someone who was so rich they wouldn't care what the price was, but that's not realistic.
       Why don't they just walk away then?

    How much more time can they afford to waste? There are other clubs for sale.
This discussion has been closed.