Obviously after they've suspended talks in January to create stability & to aid the Manager in bringing in his transfer targets.
For those who missed it, this is what I wrote, which is nothing to do with what OLM, GLP or Mr Shoes are blathering about. Can someone explain to me where I said that buyers should share Due Diligence? Or do 'shared' and [pretty much] 'mirrored' have the same meaning; I think not. There was a quick cleverdick response that was poorly considered. FACT.
Because I'm not, as I did not say what you are criticising me for saying. You are simply using a mistake, you have now turned into a lie for your own usual childish vindictiveness.
A good point swamped by all the **** about how many computers the club has and are they owned or leased. Most of the info will be easily found in the company accounts and annual statements, prospective income and goodwill are the hard bits to value. A much bigger effect on the sale is the overall value of the club, before the season starts a figure can be found not easy but doable. Due to the huge difference in income between being in the premier league or the championship agreeing a value once the season is underway is much more difficult and may change many times over the season. My own view is that we are stuck with the Allams for another season.
You've made you point. Distinguished it from the argument of accounts. Not essentially wrong... But it's still about as irrelevant as a fish in a record store. Time to move on.
Are either of you aware of Reverse Due Diligence and its benefits if applied? One of them is speeding up the transaction "If reverse due diligence is thorough enough, it can help minimize the exclusivity period. The buyer need only roll forward the data required to validate their investment thesis." If this mechanism, or a part of it is used proactively, or by virtue of repetition of enquiry, then that difficult window of opportunity (thst PLT and Balkan mention) just might be reduced. Going back to the beginning, this was my only point, not the number of ****ing computors (or desks, chairs mobiles or x-ray machines) they may have; although I think you might be surprised how some companies learn from a robust asset audit. Sorry it's bored some off you, but I'll be ****ed if somebody not reading my post properly is acceptable when it opens the doir for the moronic GLP and his insults. DONE, FACT.
You are right, you have bored most if not all people. Now go and Google your next topic, so you can come back on here to make yourself look daft - again. You really shouldn't post when drunk, there are a number of shoddy typos creeping into your posts. No doubt whilst your clumsy, fat fingers smash away at the key board in anger at being wrong again. You know no shame, clinging onto words other posters make in a vain attempt to validate your incoherent ramblings. Reverse due diligence Google is your friend.
Why do people have to get so personal? People clearly have different opinions, and some might even be *gasp* wrong, but the amount of personal abuse on here gets ridiculous sometimes.
You said the fact that due diligence had already been done would reduce the time it would take a new party to do his due diligence. I don't this is correct, I don't think it will significantly reduce the time required for any new party to complete his due diligence. I misunderstood nothing.
Not to be one to back Fez up as this wasn't his actual point I think but surely it will be slightly quicker? As things like the mortgages being cleared or at least mortgage paperwork being corrected have now been highlighted and fixed. That must have been a slight hold up on the last due diligence which should this time be a quick check and tick. Not Massive difference but still if it's was flagged last time then you would assume it would be flagged this time, now it won't be as it's been cleared. I assume there are other legal ducks that are in a row now due to them needing to be for the last group that maybe we're not before?
