Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
I've heard there's a Charlton fan who owns a bank and he's interested in the takeover. Could be something in it?
#RothkoForCEO7 -
Dodgy as in a total fabrication, possibly to generate traffic.Chizz said:
Dodgy as in a little mischievous? Or dodgy as in deliberately intended to damage?Stu_of_Kunming said:
It was also said on their own website, so like @PragueAddick I find the whole thing pretty dodgy, for all the reasons he stated.lancashire lad said:this aussie source is saying absolutely nothing that others have not said before and was in a newspaper report ,D.Mail?, over year ago3 -
I can’t believe someone’s only just swum the channel...0
-
If you have a theory about something and something is said, or happens, that kind of backs that theory up, then you're gonna feel vindicated in some way, surely. The "Like" button doesn't necessarily mean "Like", it can also mean "I agree", or "That's what I was gonna say", or "Yeah, I didn't see it that way".Chizz said:
I am just surprised that there seems to be a lot of people treating this post as significant or important, despite it just being a precis of various bits of information and conjecture that have been known for months or years; except for the one bit that's demonstrably wrong.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I thinkChizz said:It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
Also, like I said before, people who were posing genuine questions about the Aussies in the early days, were getting largely scoffed at from some quarters quit a bit, with no let up.1 -
Response to De Turck / Duchatelet’s claims on the ex-directors’ loans and the price not changing. It’s a bit dry and technical but I still felt their version needed challenging.
http://www.votvonline.com17 -
Someone even suggested last week that questioning the Aussie bid was bullying JamesSeed!!!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
If you have a theory about something and something is said, or happens, that kind of backs that theory up, then you're gonna feel vindicated in some way, surely. The "Like" button doesn't necessarily mean "Like", it can also mean "I agree", or "That's what I was gonna say", or "Yeah, I didn't see it that way".Chizz said:
I am just surprised that there seems to be a lot of people treating this post as significant or important, despite it just being a precis of various bits of information and conjecture that have been known for months or years; except for the one bit that's demonstrably wrong.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I thinkChizz said:It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
Also, like I said before, people who were posing genuine questions about the Aussies in the early days, were getting largely scoffed at from some quarters quit a bit, with no let up.1 -
The cast ?Cardinal Sin said:
My Old Man was a copper and did duty at Chruchill's lying-in-state. He couldn't believe how many people queued up for hours only to spit in front of his coffin. All Eastenders.soapboxsam said:
My first serious post for years !happyvalley said:1874, one of the greatest ever Britons born, Winston Churchill.
Between 39-45 I concur but lots of working class folk didn't want him in peace time. And many London port Authority workers didn't want to transport his body up the Thames in Feb 65.
I did a school project on him when young and I don't live that far from Chartwell, Westerham and being a NT member enjoy going there a few times a year.
A very interesting strong character who was a man of his times and rich upbringing.
He was flawed in many ways but was the main individual who made sure we didn't go the same way as France, Holland, Poland etc. Oh yes.3 -
The post stacks up though.Chizz said:
I am just surprised that there seems to be a lot of people treating this post as significant or important, despite it just being a precis of various bits of information and conjecture that have been known for months or years; except for the one bit that's demonstrably wrong.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I thinkChizz said:It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
There's been much talk around their lack of funds.
The hanging about bit does also. They've nowhere else to go because nobody else will entertain them.
Of course they can say that Charlton were the only club in their minds that fits the bill and they're hanging in there to somehow come to our rescue.
But I'd take all that with a large pinch of bollox.1 -
I thought Lee’s contract had been resolved / signed?Airman Brown said:Response to De Turck / Duchatelet’s claims on the ex-directors’ loans and the price not changing. It’s a bit dry and technical but I still felt their version needed challenging.
http://www.votvonline.com0 - Sponsored links:
-
They must have a f***ing impressive collect of scarves, that's all I can saycarly burn said:
The post stacks up though.Chizz said:
I am just surprised that there seems to be a lot of people treating this post as significant or important, despite it just being a precis of various bits of information and conjecture that have been known for months or years; except for the one bit that's demonstrably wrong.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I thinkChizz said:It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
There's been much talk around their lack of funds.
The hanging about bit does also. They've nowhere else to go because nobody else will entertain them.
Of course they can say that Charlton were the only club in their minds that fits the bill and they're hanging in there to somehow come to our rescue.
But I'd take all that with a large pinch of bollox.3 -
That was a joke btw0
-
1878, Cleopatra's Needle is erected on the Victoria Embankment.0
-
That story is a month old.HardyAddick said:
I thought Lee’s contract had been resolved / signed?Airman Brown said:Response to De Turck / Duchatelet’s claims on the ex-directors’ loans and the price not changing. It’s a bit dry and technical but I still felt their version needed challenging.
http://www.votvonline.com2 -
1878.5, Lord Mountbatten's dog gets clobbered by a speeding Benz Motorwagen0
-
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, I know what you meant, but my point was that the only thing I've seen on here regarding anything remotely to do with painting RD in a good light, whether it's believing what him or his lackies say, or commenting on them taking the club in the right direction etc etc, was the post I mentioned from a couple of days ago, and I definitely don't think there's a contingent of people who believe them. After every statement, radio interview, or fan's forum, they seem to be getting pelters from all angles and picked apart within hours.SouthLincsAddick said:
Sorry mate, you've must've misread what I wrote. I said there's a contingent who believe the spin Roland and lackies say is true, especially when it suits their unfounded argument. I said nothing about anyone believing RD is going in right direction.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, completely missed them. I know there was someone post a oneliner on this thread a couple of days ago about RD now going in the right direction 're. Bowyer and a couple of singing, or something, but other than that I get the feeling that the dislike and distrust in RD and everyone associated with him was pretty much 100%SouthLincsAddick said:
Er. yeah.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Is there?SouthLincsAddick said:
We can discuss pros and cons of potential owners for eternity but we as fans have no say in who buys the club and only limited say in how a club is run. Bring on the Bundesliga model where the clubs members still hold a majority of voting rights.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..SouthLincsAddick said:Wow, all this Aussie bashing. Astonishing!
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
As an occasional reader on this forum, the outsider impression is there's a contingent who consistently bash the Aussie bid with sweeping statements based on no evidence what so ever, or taking the word of Roland and his lackies as gospel.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.1 -
happyvalley said:1878, Cleopatra's Needle is erected on the Victoria Embankment.
Cant beat a good erection2 -
Too much time spent with their hands in their pockets sandpapering their balls.Bilko said:Can we start a protest against the Aussie’s.2 -
Yup. Repetitively dealt with anyway. Doesn’t mean there’s been any resolution though.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
So this faultless Group, have no question marks hanging over them whatsoever, and any questions that have been asked have been sufficiently dealt with?JamesSeed said:
Its not people ‘not wanting’ to discuss it, it’s the fact that the whole thing has been covered over and over again, but the same questions keep being asked because, I can only assume, people to read the replies.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..SouthLincsAddick said:Wow, all this Aussie bashing. Astonishing!
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.0 -
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.blackpool72 said:I've believed all along that the Aussies don't have the cash.
Muir could obviously afford to buy Charlton on his own but he has stated he only wants to invest a small amount.
Without Muir putting up a substantial amount the rest of the consortium just don't have the fund.
All the Aussies are achieving I'm my opinion is confusing the whole situation.
I would rather they walk and let someone else have a go at buying us.
4 - Sponsored links:
-
I don't think I misread it at all. You said the Aussie bashing is astonishing - I said that, in my opinion, people are just asking question and perfectly in their right to do do.SouthLincsAddick said:
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, I know what you meant, but my point was that the only thing I've seen on here regarding anything remotely to do with painting RD in a good light, whether it's believing what him or his lackies say, or commenting on them taking the club in the right direction etc etc, was the post I mentioned from a couple of days ago, and I definitely don't think there's a contingent of people who believe them. After every statement, radio interview, or fan's forum, they seem to be getting pelters from all angles and picked apart within hours.SouthLincsAddick said:
Sorry mate, you've must've misread what I wrote. I said there's a contingent who believe the spin Roland and lackies say is true, especially when it suits their unfounded argument. I said nothing about anyone believing RD is going in right direction.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, completely missed them. I know there was someone post a oneliner on this thread a couple of days ago about RD now going in the right direction 're. Bowyer and a couple of singing, or something, but other than that I get the feeling that the dislike and distrust in RD and everyone associated with him was pretty much 100%SouthLincsAddick said:
Er. yeah.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Is there?SouthLincsAddick said:
We can discuss pros and cons of potential owners for eternity but we as fans have no say in who buys the club and only limited say in how a club is run. Bring on the Bundesliga model where the clubs members still hold a majority of voting rights.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..SouthLincsAddick said:Wow, all this Aussie bashing. Astonishing!
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
As an occasional reader on this forum, the outsider impression is there's a contingent who consistently bash the Aussie bid with sweeping statements based on no evidence what so ever, or taking the word of Roland and his lackies as gospel.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.
Then you said that there's a contingent on here who still believe the spin that RD and his lackies come out with and I said that I don't believe there is.2 -
According to my impeccable, reliable source .. ‘At the moment Aussies and Dalman are behind another group’ ... that’s it, really
1 -
Good I hope he does.JamesSeed said:
The Aussies didn’t stop Dalman buying the club. He still might.blackpool72 said:I've believed all along that the Aussies don't have the cash.
Muir could obviously afford to buy Charlton on his own but he has stated he only wants to invest a small amount.
Without Muir putting up a substantial amount the rest of the consortium just don't have the fund.
All the Aussies are achieving I'm my opinion is confusing the whole situation.
I would rather they walk and let someone else have a go at buying us.
Because the Aussies certainly won't.
Feel free to correct me if they do.0 -
I think he’s mixing it up with the post sale model.Uboat said:
Right, but what he says is:blackpool72 said:
Not really as Muir has stated he only wants to put in about 10 % of the money.Uboat said:The bloke says none of the Aussies involved has enough money to buy the club. If Muir is involved then that's obviously wrong and casts doubt on the rest of his post.
Unless he changes his mind the rest don't have the money.
The investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club.
That is clearly not the case.0 -
It is. I’m in therapy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Someone even suggested last week that questioning the Aussie bid was bullying JamesSeed!!!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
If you have a theory about something and something is said, or happens, that kind of backs that theory up, then you're gonna feel vindicated in some way, surely. The "Like" button doesn't necessarily mean "Like", it can also mean "I agree", or "That's what I was gonna say", or "Yeah, I didn't see it that way".Chizz said:
I am just surprised that there seems to be a lot of people treating this post as significant or important, despite it just being a precis of various bits of information and conjecture that have been known for months or years; except for the one bit that's demonstrably wrong.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I've only seen one post appearing to take that quote as gospel, but at the end of the day, most of us don't even know each other's real names, let alone if they're good to their word. So by the same logic, why take any of the 'itk' posters as reliable sources? Gut feelings of the other users and track records of the 'itkers' I spose but, because one person believes that one buyer wont be as safe bet as another, their opinion is still coming from a good place I thinkChizz said:It's interesting to see how much reliability is being assumed of one, unnamed source, giving a view on an unnamed site, about a conversation with another unnamed person. Especially one that includes the line "the investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club".
Maybe the poster is ignoring the fact that is literally the point of having multiple shareholders; and is the model behind just about every public company in the world. And the fact that one of the shareholders is significantly more wealthy than Roland Duchatelet.
As a post that sheds more heat than light on the issue, I would score it about a nine on the internationally-adopted Doucher Scale.
Some people share sourced information - that tends to be both more reliable and more interesting than other posts which are unsourced, add no unknown information and contain information that's wrong.
My guess - and, of course, it's only a guess - is that there are people that want to dislike the Aussies (presumably because Roland has failed to sell to them) and therefore enjoy a post that seems to criticise them.
Also, like I said before, people who were posing genuine questions about the Aussies in the early days, were getting largely scoffed at from some quarters quit a bit, with no let up.1 -
We will have to agree to disagree. I saw a few people quote the papers with the EFL line just a few pages ago. Perhaps you didn't see them.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I don't think I misread it at all. You said the Aussie bashing is astonishing - I said that, in my opinion, people are just asking question and perfectly in their right to do do.SouthLincsAddick said:
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, I know what you meant, but my point was that the only thing I've seen on here regarding anything remotely to do with painting RD in a good light, whether it's believing what him or his lackies say, or commenting on them taking the club in the right direction etc etc, was the post I mentioned from a couple of days ago, and I definitely don't think there's a contingent of people who believe them. After every statement, radio interview, or fan's forum, they seem to be getting pelters from all angles and picked apart within hours.SouthLincsAddick said:
Sorry mate, you've must've misread what I wrote. I said there's a contingent who believe the spin Roland and lackies say is true, especially when it suits their unfounded argument. I said nothing about anyone believing RD is going in right direction.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, completely missed them. I know there was someone post a oneliner on this thread a couple of days ago about RD now going in the right direction 're. Bowyer and a couple of singing, or something, but other than that I get the feeling that the dislike and distrust in RD and everyone associated with him was pretty much 100%SouthLincsAddick said:
Er. yeah.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Is there?SouthLincsAddick said:
We can discuss pros and cons of potential owners for eternity but we as fans have no say in who buys the club and only limited say in how a club is run. Bring on the Bundesliga model where the clubs members still hold a majority of voting rights.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..SouthLincsAddick said:Wow, all this Aussie bashing. Astonishing!
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
As an occasional reader on this forum, the outsider impression is there's a contingent who consistently bash the Aussie bid with sweeping statements based on no evidence what so ever, or taking the word of Roland and his lackies as gospel.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.
Then you said that there's a contingent on here who still believe the spin that RD and his lackies come out with and I said that I don't believe there is.1 -
In what context?SouthLincsAddick said:
We will have to agree to disagree. I saw a few people quote the papers with the EFL line just a few pages ago. Perhaps you didn't see them.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I don't think I misread it at all. You said the Aussie bashing is astonishing - I said that, in my opinion, people are just asking question and perfectly in their right to do do.SouthLincsAddick said:
Blimey, still mis-reading my post. Well I tried.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, I know what you meant, but my point was that the only thing I've seen on here regarding anything remotely to do with painting RD in a good light, whether it's believing what him or his lackies say, or commenting on them taking the club in the right direction etc etc, was the post I mentioned from a couple of days ago, and I definitely don't think there's a contingent of people who believe them. After every statement, radio interview, or fan's forum, they seem to be getting pelters from all angles and picked apart within hours.SouthLincsAddick said:
Sorry mate, you've must've misread what I wrote. I said there's a contingent who believe the spin Roland and lackies say is true, especially when it suits their unfounded argument. I said nothing about anyone believing RD is going in right direction.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Sorry mate, completely missed them. I know there was someone post a oneliner on this thread a couple of days ago about RD now going in the right direction 're. Bowyer and a couple of singing, or something, but other than that I get the feeling that the dislike and distrust in RD and everyone associated with him was pretty much 100%SouthLincsAddick said:
Er. yeah.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Is there?SouthLincsAddick said:
We can discuss pros and cons of potential owners for eternity but we as fans have no say in who buys the club and only limited say in how a club is run. Bring on the Bundesliga model where the clubs members still hold a majority of voting rights.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..SouthLincsAddick said:Wow, all this Aussie bashing. Astonishing!
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
As an occasional reader on this forum, the outsider impression is there's a contingent who consistently bash the Aussie bid with sweeping statements based on no evidence what so ever, or taking the word of Roland and his lackies as gospel.
Here's one example. The Cloob has said the Aussie's just need to submit paperwork with the EFL. Some people believe that, some don't (some believe the EFL, some don't).
I don't trust what this regime says.
Then you said that there's a contingent on here who still believe the spin that RD and his lackies come out with and I said that I don't believe there is.0 -
Sale of Charlton is not panto,
Oh yes it is
Because Roland lies when he opens his mouth doesn't mean Aussies, Dalman, Murray, haven't told a few porkies as well.
Roland's Behind you.
Even the apathetic Michael Gliksten tenure ended eventually.
Boo
Some day our Prince will come.
If the shoe fits
Carry on counting the pages until then.
was Sid James in that one ?
0 -
You may think that, many people don't.JamesSe%ed said:
I think he’s mixing it up with the post sale model.Uboat said:
Right, but what he says is:blackpool72 said:
Not really as Muir has stated he only wants to put in about 10 % of the money.Uboat said:The bloke says none of the Aussies involved has enough money to buy the club. If Muir is involved then that's obviously wrong and casts doubt on the rest of his post.
Unless he changes his mind the rest don't have the money.
The investment model is multiple shareholders, of which non are independently wealthy enough to purchase the club.
That is clearly not the case.
0 -
Yes, but I’ve said that myself in the past, quite a few times. I suspect (guessing) that they lost a major investor, possibly when lawyers unearthed some info, or because that investor learned how much money the club loses, or for any number of other reasons, and pulled out, meaning NLA was quite right when he said they haven’t got the dough, because they hadn’t. This scenario may have happened more than once. I’ve never claimed that they’ve always had the dough, ready to go.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Not totally falling in line with the version of events you present, is not the same thing as not reading replies though, is it?JamesSeed said:
Its not people ‘not wanting’ to discuss it, it’s the fact that the whole thing has been covered over and over again, but the same questions keep being asked because, I can only assume, people to read the replies.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
It's not "Aussie bashing", and what I find astonishing is people not wanting to discuss the pros end cons of any potential new owner, but just being content on the present one going. Especialy after the last two..SouthLincsAddick said:Wow, all this Aussie bashing. Astonishing!
Roland is the problem, as Dalman and every other bid is finding.
As an example, you keep telling us the sale price is totally covered and they are only looking for investors for ongoing costs, whereas others dispute that and have been told from other sources that the Aussies were still seeking investors for the sale price whilst papers were being lodged with the EFL.
In fact technically NLA is always right because I don’t think they have a bank account with dough in it, because these investors don’t operate like that. I suspect when the £33m was agreed they all got ready to transfer the dough, but then the price went up, meaning they’re back to square one. This may also affect paperwork for the EFL @AFKABartram but just guessing.
Have also said a couple of time’s that I had a slight preference for Dalman over the Aussies, in that it might be more simple with one owner, and because of his reputation in football.
Have passed on Henry’s desire for Aussies to be more open.4
This discussion has been closed.
