All for negativity when it’s warranted, but feel going straight for the new owners throats after barely 3 weeks in charge is not something we should be doing.
Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.18 -
I didn't mean you, and I totally accept questions should be asked, but I still think there are people who are not keen on ESI regardlessHenry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.0 -
So they've exchanged but not completed :-)MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.2 -
Which, if true, is their right. No one has to be keen on ESI just as we didn't have to be keen on Duchatelet to be Charlton fans.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I didn't mean you, and I totally accept questions should be asked, but I still think there are people who are not keen on ESI regardlessHenry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.1 -
They did job 1. Replace Roland.i_b_b_o_r_g said:There does seem to be a bit of an undercurrent of dislike of this mob in some quarters, because they haven't done any of about 200 very important things, after just a few working days into ownership
And Job 2. Replace Leko with equal or better.
Job 3. Could be Maddison, Taylor or Bowyer's deals
1 -
Henry Irving said:https://www.castrust.org/2020/01/cast-meets-the-man-in-the-chair/
"While on the subject of the takeover, I ask Southall to clarify the structure of the deal. He confirms that ESI now own Charlton Athletic Football Club Limited and have a “legal obligation” within the next six months to complete the purchase of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, where the freehold of both the training ground and The Valley sit as assets. “Our first conversation with Roland’s representative was in mid to late August – you can’t even buy a house in three months. There is no need at all for fans to get concerned.” He is being true to his stated aims of openness and honesty, though given this club’s history, even a temporary separation of the footballing side from the assets will make some supporters jittery."
According to this interview ESI haven't yet bought the training ground or the Valley.
That might explain why the directors loans, which are secured on the Valley, haven't been paid yet.
Whether people are worried about ESI not yet owning the Valley and Sparrows Lane is another matter but this interview does seem to contradict what was said earlier by ESI that they had bought the Valley but not yet SL.
The interview also proves that Matt reads this thread as he used a house buying analogy.You cam't even get a manager to sign a new contract in 3 months when it was a priority so no chance of buying a football ground in that time.1 -
For me it's not about being keen on ESI however I am being cautious as they have not done anything of real substance to win me over. Yes they have bought Roland out but today's news that they do not own The Valley when they said they did and the old director's loans have not been settled still leaves me with concerns.
I am sure once LB signs his new contract and we get a few decent championship standard players in to fend off relegation I will feel better, and that feeling will be increased when the news does finally break that ESI own The Valley & The Training Ground but until then I will return from my boycott paying on a match by match basis with no monies being paid up front i.e. a season ticket.8 -
Again, I just said it seems to be the case, I never said it weren't their right. Stop twisting thingsHenry Irving said:
Which, if true, is their right. No one has to be keen on ESI just as we didn't have to be keen on Duchatelet to be Charlton fans.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I didn't mean you, and I totally accept questions should be asked, but I still think there are people who are not keen on ESI regardlessHenry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.1 -
ESI have confirmed they own The Valley as part of their takeover and have a commitment to buy the club’s training ground within the next six months.LargeAddick said:from interview with MS by CAST : 'While on the subject of the takeover, I ask Southall to clarify the structure of the deal. He confirms that ESI now own Charlton Athletic Football Club Limited and have a “legal obligation” within the next six months to complete the purchase of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, where the freehold of both the training ground and The Valley sit as assets.'
so don't own The Valley or Training Ground...… yet.
That's from the SLP piece that was mainly about Taylor not signing the contract. Both versions can't be true.0 -
Not twisting anything. I never said you had said that. I made a statement that it was their right, which you agreed with.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Again, I just said it seems to be the case, I never said it weren't their right. Stop twisting thingsHenry Irving said:
Which, if true, is their right. No one has to be keen on ESI just as we didn't have to be keen on Duchatelet to be Charlton fans.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I didn't mean you, and I totally accept questions should be asked, but I still think there are people who are not keen on ESI regardlessHenry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I would believe the Trust interview more than an article in the SLP. The extract above in bold confirms they do not own The Valley or the Training Ground but have a legal obligation to do so within six months.Cafc43v3r said:
ESI have confirmed they own The Valley as part of their takeover and have a commitment to buy the club’s training ground within the next six months.LargeAddick said:from interview with MS by CAST : 'While on the subject of the takeover, I ask Southall to clarify the structure of the deal. He confirms that ESI now own Charlton Athletic Football Club Limited and have a “legal obligation” within the next six months to complete the purchase of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, where the freehold of both the training ground and The Valley sit as assets.'
so don't own The Valley or Training Ground...… yet.
That's from the SLP piece that was mainly about Taylor not signing the contract. Both versions can't be true.
0 -
What a waste of your time that wasHenry Irving said:
Not twisting anything. I never said you had said that. I made a statement that it was their right, which you agreed with.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Again, I just said it seems to be the case, I never said it weren't their right. Stop twisting thingsHenry Irving said:
Which, if true, is their right. No one has to be keen on ESI just as we didn't have to be keen on Duchatelet to be Charlton fans.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I didn't mean you, and I totally accept questions should be asked, but I still think there are people who are not keen on ESI regardlessHenry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.0 -
Can someone point me to the argument thread please?5
-
I know that, and agree the trust interview is more believable, but Cawley wouldn't say "ESI have confirmed" if ESI hadn't confirmed.eaststandmike said:
I would believe the Trust interview more than an article in the SLP. The extract above in bold confirms they do not own The Valley or the Training Ground but have a legal obligation to do so within six months.Cafc43v3r said:
ESI have confirmed they own The Valley as part of their takeover and have a commitment to buy the club’s training ground within the next six months.LargeAddick said:from interview with MS by CAST : 'While on the subject of the takeover, I ask Southall to clarify the structure of the deal. He confirms that ESI now own Charlton Athletic Football Club Limited and have a “legal obligation” within the next six months to complete the purchase of Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, where the freehold of both the training ground and The Valley sit as assets.'
so don't own The Valley or Training Ground...… yet.
That's from the SLP piece that was mainly about Taylor not signing the contract. Both versions can't be true.1 -
MS explained why already though didn't he? Because they wanted to be in control of the footballing side in time for January, rather than waiting until they own everything, as if they'd done that, we'd probably be in League One after another January with RD.Henry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.2 -
Do you really think that posting a status about the ownership of Charlton's most important non-playing assets is "going straight for the new owners' throats" @Laddick01? I think @airmanbrown has highlighted a very pertinent issue. He's not going for anyone's throats.Laddick01 said:11 -
No, he said quite clearly they hadn't bought the training ground for those reasons. That's the first record of him saying they don't own the Valley. ESI confirmed via the SLP that they owned the Valley.The Red Robin said:
MS explained why already though didn't he? Because they wanted to be in control of the footballing side in time for January, rather than waiting until they own everything, as if they'd done that, we'd probably be in League One after another January with RD.Henry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.4 -
But he said it was the training ground that hadn't been bought. He didn't mention the Valley.The Red Robin said:
MS explained why already though didn't he? Because they wanted to be in control of the footballing side in time for January, rather than waiting until they own everything, as if they'd done that, we'd probably be in League One after another January with RD.Henry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.1 -
There needs to be more focus on the fact that MS made a comparison to buying a house. The man is clearly sound.5
-
Dislike or distrust so far ? The priority when they came in so we were told was to get get LB signed up on a long term deal & discussions had been held as far back as October. We are now halfway through January, transfer targets are asking questions as to how long LB will be here. As an ex agent MS should be aware that players would be asking this question & still we're waiting for LB to sign.i_b_b_o_r_g said:There does seem to be a bit of an undercurrent of dislike of this mob in some quarters, because they haven't done any of about 200 very important things, after just a few working days into ownership
We were told that ESI had bought the club & The Valley with a commitment to purchase SL within 6 months. It now turns out that we haven't bought The Valley after all. So he's lied about the Valley. What other lies will we be told ?
Mr Chairman, give me a ring when the things that you have promised have actually been completed. See you in league one.1 - Sponsored links:
-
'..two staged transaction where we've purchased the club and the stadium..'
That was Matt Southall's words in the 'Meet Matt Southall..' video put out by the club.0 -
Unless I am mistaken, around 10 days ago Southall had said that ESI now own The Valley.Now he is being quoted as saying that there is a legal obligation to purchase The Valley in the next 6 months.What story is correct?7
-
Cafc43v3r said:
No, he said quite clearly they hadn't bought the training ground for those reasons. That's the first record of him saying they don't own the Valley. ESI confirmed via the SLP that they owned the Valley.The Red Robin said:
MS explained why already though didn't he? Because they wanted to be in control of the footballing side in time for January, rather than waiting until they own everything, as if they'd done that, we'd probably be in League One after another January with RD.Henry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.
True, but it's obviously for the same reason if both sit under Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited.Henry Irving said:
But he said it was the training ground that hadn't been bought. He didn't mention the Valley.The Red Robin said:
MS explained why already though didn't he? Because they wanted to be in control of the footballing side in time for January, rather than waiting until they own everything, as if they'd done that, we'd probably be in League One after another January with RD.Henry Irving said:
Separating ownership of the club and ground hasn't gone too well previously at Charlton. See 1985 to 1992.DoctorCharlton said:MartinCAFC said:I'm fine with the fact the wording says they have a legal obligation to buy The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
Concern would only have been if had been said as an option to buy both.
I see no issue here.This is how I took it.
But I'm genuinely intrigued to see why others are concerned? Maybe I've missed something.
But there is a legal obligation to purchase in six months which could be in the club's next tax year ie 2 July 2020.
It does beg the questions "why?" and "Why did MS say that we'd bought the Valley?"
NB asking questions is NOT the same as hating the new owners, wetting the bed or having a "meltdown". It's a question.0 -
So nothing has changed. Nothing new.charlton_hero said:'..two staged transaction where we've purchased the club and the stadium..'
That was Matt Southall's words in the 'Meet Matt Southall..' video put out by the club.1 -
They've done a Simon Jordan and bought the name of the club and the playing and management assets , a few of their contracts run out soon .
He was selling that stuff for £1, so fair play they've forked out for that
4 -
Hate this shit.
So they don't own The Valley and they don't own The training ground but they are the new owners!
Only at this club could we go in 5 days from giving the manager a long term contract and two big money signings to the managers contract not being agreed,no signings at all,loosing a top player and the owners not actually owning the two biggest assets !
16 -
You have just quoted him saying they have bought the stadium, under a later quote saying they haven't. I would suggest that something has changedThe Red Robin said:
So nothing has changed. Nothing new.charlton_hero said:'..two staged transaction where we've purchased the club and the stadium..'
That was Matt Southall's words in the 'Meet Matt Southall..' video put out by the club.2 -
14 days after the takeover completed and the Takeover thread is still going on
Viva la Takeover Thread!4 -
1) There is obviously some kind of problem with LB & the contract being offered & probably has been since LBs "strange" comment.eaststandmike said:For me it's not about being keen on ESI however I am being cautious as they have not done anything of real substance to win me over. Yes they have bought Roland out but today's news that they do not own The Valley when they said they did and the old director's loans have not been settled still leaves me with concerns.
1) I am sure once LB signs his new contract and 2)we get a few decent championship standard players in to fend off relegation I will feel better, and that feeling will be increased when the news does finally break that ESI own The Valley & The Training Ground but until then I will return from my boycott paying on a match by match basis with no monies being paid up front i.e. a season ticket.
2) That's assuming that we can sign a few decent championship standard players. Wages appear to be a problem with this lot. The club & Maddison are, according to reports miles apart. Red Henry has also commented to the same effect re the offer to Lyle Taylor.
Early days yes but talk is cheap.6 -
In all honestly, I dont think MS was 100% sure of everything he spoke about either in the first interview, or the first press conference. In both I thought there was a lot of repetition of the same thing or cliche. He spent more time talking about "reconnecting with the community", than he did talking about the nuts and bolts of the deal. But this is the alternative to RD and I don't think we've not got a lot of choice but to sit and trust them for the moment.charltonbob said:
Dislike or distrust so far ? The priority when they came in so we were told was to get get LB signed up on a long term deal & discussions had been held as far back as October. We are now halfway through January, transfer targets are asking questions as to how long LB will be here. As an ex agent MS should be aware that players would be asking this question & still we're waiting for LB to sign.i_b_b_o_r_g said:There does seem to be a bit of an undercurrent of dislike of this mob in some quarters, because they haven't done any of about 200 very important things, after just a few working days into ownership
We were told that ESI had bought the club & The Valley with a commitment to purchase SL within 6 months. It now turns out that we haven't bought The Valley after all. So he's lied about the Valley. What other lies will we be told ?
Mr Chairman, give me a ring when the things that you have promised have actually been completed. See you in league one.
4
This discussion has been closed.
