Since the failed Zabeel deal was first broadcast to the nation in October 2008, takeover speculation off the pitch has remained a bubbling undercurrent to the overall disappointing performance of our football team. Talks have been ‘on-going’ for so long now, it has got to the stage where it has become a running joke on our Forum.
But while Takeover Threat Levels have haplessly drifted between Low and Moderate over the majority of the past two years, the recent upturn in form on the pitch appears to have masked the change in the threat level to somewhere between Severe and Critical.
It really is a great tragedy that genuine supporters, who have been through the mill so much in recent years, have to rely on BBC journalists not even writing articles on the subject, but posting speculative, unsubstantiated, seductive teasers on social networking sites for suggested updates. “I know some1 who fancies U, but i’m not tellin’” was frustrating enough in the school playgrounds, let alone being applied to the potential future of the club we love so much.
Its often been discussed how Richard Murray’s legacy with Charlton will be remembered. There is no doubting the huge rise and rebirth in the club during the 1990s has been offset slightly in the downturn that has followed, but it is still worth highlighting that to the majority of fans it is still very much in credit. Where the fallback in recent years has provided a leveller, it has become more and more clear that his legacy will largely be determined not just on the state of the club when he passes the Baton on, but who it is passed on to. Richard himself has admitted as much in public.
The recent return to takeover speculation points clearly to a ramp-up in interest by the Sebastian Sainsbury ‘consortium’ who registered the ‘CHARLTON ATHLETIC 2010 LTD’ company during the summer. A lot of mystique surrounds Sainsbury, with the positive view built on the fact that he is the great grandson of the founder of J Sainsbury.
But we equally know of Sainsbury that he is a socialite whose dablings in politics, restaurant management, nightclub management, hedge fund management, and attempted football club owner, with extremely mixed results, suggest that he is a jack of all trades yet master of none, with no clear indication of wealth to back up his intentions.
His bid for Leeds United as the front man of the Nova Financial Group consortium in 2004 failed as the group were unable to provide clear proof of funds. Along the way it included Sainsbury engaging in a very public spat on live radio with the Leeds finance director, and was brokered by what emerged to be a convicted fraudster, who was sentenced to two and half years for conning his next-door neighbour out of £164k.
There has been nothing to suggest that Sainsbury, or any of his people, have the access to funds that would be required to take our club forward. Having worked so hard to free the club of the huge debt, the likelihood of a successful Sainsbury bid would be to land the club straight back into the financial mire. In the Independent in 2004, he made his intentions very clear in relation to bidding for Leeds “Don't play with your own money”.
So how would his consortium’s bid be financed ? Through loans that the club would have to pay hefty repayment interest on ? Throw loans using The Valley or Sparrows Lane as collateral to finance the club ?
With no clear knowledge in the public domain, the above is all reasoned speculation. It does not take a genius either to work out that the instantly denied reports of a Peter Risdale bid yesterday were put around to make other bids appear more attractive. Nothing suggests to me that a Sainsbury consortium would be in the best interests of our club going forward, and in my opinion is something that everyone should equally carefully consider.
By streamlining the boardroom in the summer, Richard Murray made it much more simplified on how the Club’s future is decided.
Every one of us knows just how important it is that club finds fresh injections of finance in the near future. But it is desperately hoped that the maxim of ‘what is best for the club going forward’ is never forgotten, because it could ultimately determine how Mr Murray is remembered.
Comments
There are many things to concern us about Sebastian Sainsbury, and people around him, but we don't need to make it personal at this stage.
For me, the main issue, which applies to any potential buyer, is this: if you think that the right way forward for Charlton is to borrow more, either to fund your own purchase, or to provide funds for players, why do you think Richard Murray and his main cohorts, experienced and successful businessmen, did not think of and go down that route themselves? If you believe that Murray and co. have been too cautious, where is the evidence that your more 'expansionist' approach has worked for other clubs?
The fact that fans are relying one 'journalists not even writing articles on the subject, but posting speculative, unsubstantiated, seductive teasers on social networking sites ' suggests that the reason we have heard nothing yet is because there is nothing to hear. We would not speculate on player rumours this much (although I accept the consiquences of one player purchase is not the same) so why are we continually pouring over this tiny scrap of information to get ourselves totally worked-up. When there is something to hear, hear we will. And then we can all march on The Valley and demand th return out our club.
Until then, Don't panic Mr Mainwaring.
Are the rumours he is a Charlton fan true? If so that would put a lot of minds at ease
Are the rumours of AEG being involved true? If so that could indicate there is a lot of financial backing to any bid
Are the rumours of Ridsdale just put out there by Sainsbury's people to highlight that "It could be worse"
Are there Qatari's involved?
It does certainly seem as though we are nearing a defining point in the fortunes of this club - I suggest we all strap in because it could be about to get a little bumpy
A senior source at the club said the offer had not provided proof of funds.
Sainsbury, a member of the supermarket dynasty, fronted a failed attempt to buy Leeds United in 2004.
Former Leeds United and Cardiff City chairman Peter Ridsdale has denied recent press speculation he is involved in a rival US bid for the Addicks.
these punters want a free bet , leverage us up against our own assets and make 20-30m if it goes right if it goes wrong we're sold down the swanny
we haven't got a steve gibson or jack walker ready to piss millions of quid away on our club or some russian or middle eastern ego tripper who has to spunk dough for whatever reason
we're not a charity(although murray is supporting us rather charitably atm) but we're gonna need someone very charitable or lucky soon if we're to survive this
Some of us said "never again". Collectively we have experience, including business experience, and have or can collect knowledge and information. Football club directors are only human, and the better ones care about the perceptions of the fanbase. Nobody has anything to be ashamed of regarding the threads of the past 24 hours. And as soon as another possible bidder emerges I will be starting another "what do we know about..." thread.
Indeed the correct saying is all that GLISTERS is not gold - from Merchant of Venice
The Merchant of Venice (II, vii)
Portia is a beautiful, virtuous, wealthy woman who is being wooed by numerous suitors. She is not free to decide on her own whom she will marry because her late father stipulated in his will that she must marry the man who correctly picks the one casket (out of three) that contains her picture. One casket is gold, another is silver, and the third is made of lead. The Prince of Morocco is one in a long line of suitors who tries to win Portia's hand, and he decides that it would demean Portia to have her picture in anything other than a gold casket, and so he chooses that one. As he unlocks it, he is dismayed to find a picture, not of Portia but of Death, with a message written in its hollow eye: "All that glisters is not gold; / Often have you heard that told. / Many a man his life hath sold / But my outside to behold. / Gilded tombs do worms enfold." With a grieving heart the Prince takes hasty leave of Portia, who is happy to see him go, saying, "A gentle riddance."
We said never again, and thanks to the internet and mass media, we will never again be so in the dark, for so long, or take so long to organise and react.
And to state 'the past 24 hours' is pushing it a bit. People have been getting hysterical about takeover rumors for more than a week. At least.
I always read your posts with interest because of the situation back 1985 and your knowledge of all things in and around that time.
As someone who doesnt pay that much attention to what is going on around him and regularly has to ask the brainey clique on here what things actually mean see the General election thread.
I am wise enough to understand that when someone who posts on here in the manor in which you do (please keep it up) has an undertone of caution if not genuine concern can i ask.
What is your main concern with Seb Sainsbury
Do you think we have a lot to fear and what should we be doing about it, your questoning to find out who this guy is and what he is about is a really good idea but are we doing enough?
Just my opinion (i actually think there are 3-4 concerns regarding Sainsbury), but the main one is summed up neatly by oohaah:
"these punters want a free bet , leverage us up against our own assets and make 20-30m if it goes right if it goes wrong we're sold down the swanny"
The type of business model i would suspect SS would impose to finance the deal and short-term running of the club would be one that if it went wrong would leave the club in the most perilous state you could possibly imagine, and it probably wouldn't take too much to go wrong for that to happen.
However, i do believe following the statement this morning and the bits leaking through the Beeb that we should not focus too much on the SS angle going forward, because i suspect it is pretty much dead in the water now as a viable option now.
Thats a bloody scary thought
First I should make clear that I have never met SS nor anyone who knows him. Everything I know about him is second - hand, and most of it from press reports.
The main problem I have is one which might pop up with other potential buyers too. That they will not put money in, but just borrow money to put in. Thats also Ridsdale's game and you can see what chaos that brings. If it was a good idea, Richard Murray would have done it himself.
The second one, is that I can't yet see much evidence that SS is actually a good businessman. I am looking around for evidence of a company that he's built, and can't find one.
The third one is that he seems to be associated with some odd characters (Scientologists) and downright nasty ones (Paul Garland)
As to what we can do about it; Richard Murray and the other directors genuinely care about the club and want to be remembered as such. If they pick up that we are worried, and for good reasons, it might stiffen their resolve to seek out the best buyers. Whereas if we just stay quiet (as DRF seems to recommend) then they may conclude that we dont care so long as we can sign someone in the January window. If the worst came to the worst, a bad buyer might actually be scared off if they see that we are a particularly well-organised and troublesome crew.
Have you posted about Garland elsewhere if not what is Paul Garland guilty of?
I think that aslong as you and AFKA and people like yourselves who have no agenda behind it keep the posts coming in the tone that are in more people like me will sit up and take note.
I must admit at first i thought SS could be good but seeing what you guys have said it sounds like we need to really keep the wolves from the door.
Keep up the good work
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Football-finance-conman-is-jailed.1331423.jp
1. the motive
2. the business acumen
3. the sanity
of anyone wanting to buy us. Unless, or course, they are completely loaded and just want something to do with the huge stash of money they have lying around (although then item 3 comes into play).
The only takeover I would support is where the buyer says all they want to do is get the club back on an even keel and keep it that way for the forseeable future, they can say they would love us to be back in the top flight but any overly ambitious statements will immediately make me worry about the three points I previously mentioned.
Here is the report about Garland.
I put it in the first entry of my thread about SS. There is a fair bit of stuff there. Some suggestion that he somehow supports Charlton , but later a bit of confusion about that. A Lifer called Muttley seems to be pro him, but so far didn't respond to my invitation to tell us more about why we should be pro him.
"The alarm bells started ringing because he had just gone out of the country and was really messing us about."
The couple said they had lost their retirement savings, would have to sell their house to stay afloat financially, and could not afford to support their children through university.
"He is just the lowest of the low," Mr Manley said. "He just does not care about anybody but himself."
I tell you what if this Joker has anything to do with anything involved in Charltons future i think we should serious voice up.
Cheers PA
1. The Club can be viable in the Championship and could possibly be sold at a profit in the Premier League
2. There is still a degree of kudos in owning any football club and some people with money may enjoy that kudos as well as the challenge of turning around a Club that has fallen on hard times.
In house terms we are certainly not a mansion in Blackheath, more a "doer upper" in Bexley but hence better value and to some more enjoyment/profit.
What we certainly need is someone with a long term plan ie 5 years or more not just a one season or bust merchant or people like Sainsbury who can't raise the money to buy either of two ex-prem clubs in league one.
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
I hope muttley you bring to the attention of your friend that Mr garland is a unscrupulous individual
Takeover done xxxx
OK, this is where I am with Sebastian Sainsbury after a day spending far more time on it than I really should.
I don't see anything good about a new owner who can only take over if he gets a loan. That is not a conclusion exclusive to SS. Maybe I am too cautious in business terms. But the recent history of English clubs suggests my caution is well-placed
Then we have the fact that the same thing happened when he tried to take over at Leeds. Needed to borrow, couldn't prove he had the money, went away.
Then we have the fact that after a day of searching I can't find any evidence that he has built up and run any significant successful business, ever. We have learnt that he isnt even a hedge fund manager. He's just been a kind of salesman for one or two, it seems. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
And finally - and for now this is the least important concern - he seems to have around him in this bid some people who don't inspire any kind of confidence.
Is that 'jumping to conclusions"? Maybe. But I've spent the day looking before jumping. If I were Sebastian Sainsbury, I'd probably take these conclusions on board and then find a way to feed info back on here about his plan. Tell us why his leveraged buyout would be a success when all around us are high profile failures; tell us why Charlton should say Yes when Leeds said No. And tell us, why Charlton?
Any buyer of a football club, especially this one, should realise that we are stakeholders. We are not going to sit meekly around until someone deigns to tell us what changes are going to take place. As I said elsewhere, thats what we did in 1985. Never again. You want to buy CAFC, then good to get all stakeholders onside.
You are passionate about a football club, so you invest several millions and it becomes fairly successful as a result.
You are then responsible for a string of poor judgements and failure follows failure until your investment is pretty worthless.
One day a guy turns up and offers you (all/nearly all/some) of your money back, and the offer is a serious one backed by real cash.
DO YOU:
A) Check into the intentions and motives of the bidder ensuring that the club is left in the best possible hands going forward
B) Follow the advice from a 1976 hit for the Steve Miller Band
Discuss...............
This could be the one thing that unites club and fans towards a common goal.
I don't think in terms of on the pitch football things we will all agree but I certainly think that stopping people without honourable intentions be it
seb sainsbury or any other johnny come lately
Anyone who presents a viable plan needs to be putting in their own cash (as our previous shareholders have) and be wealthy enough to be able to write it off if we don't get promoted.