Although the meeting comments do clearly say the documents required are not a resubmission..
If they've come via Chris Parkes, could they have been smudged, for instance, with some prawn marie rose sauce as they were being put into the envelope by a family member and making them partially unreadable?
It is not unusual for credit card companies to delay release of funds until the proximity of the delivery of service by the merchant. In the case of goods particularly mail order or internet purchases for example it is a requirement for there to be proof of despatch written into the merchant agreement before funds are released.
Where merchants discount their product via advance sales, airlines being the obvious example then the bank is carrying the risk until the service is delivered. Where there is doubt over the financial standing of the merchant funds will be withheld.
Whatever M.Duchatelets' failings his financial standing is not in question.
The situation here is quite simply the bank is on notice of a change of ownership and as a consequence will not release funds to the current owners on the basis such owners may not be in situ when the service has to be delivered.
They will take a view when the financial standing of the new owners, with whom they currently have no relationship, is known.
They are protecting themselves from any cardholder disputes under consumer credit law in the event there is a dispute arising from the sale of the club.
It is an entirely prudent measure.
It casts no aspersions on the financial standing of either M.Duchatelet or the Australians.
So does this mean if I decide to purchase a ST BEFORE the takeover, that money will not be released to the Club as a lump sum from the start of the season, rather drip feed throughout the season?
Yes......they have been alerted to any application made in your name and will deal with it as an individual case.
"Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding."
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
The club will look into its own management decision, brought to its attention by fans...
You’d rather they didn’t? Not sure what else you would expect them to say publicly.
I don’t know any details on what breakfast actually amounts to and how used / liked / needed but concern raised and acknowledged is at least something that can be followed up on at next meeting. Even if no decision is reversed.
I do wonder if the footballing management team involved with those directly impacted forcefully gave feedback on this as I’d have thought that opinion is the one that matters. That’s more interesting to appreciate.
You don’t think that the guy who is nominally in charge of the business and has a brief to cut costs ought to be aware of a cost-cutting decision that has led to internal disquiet circulating in public?
I didn’t read that he wasn’t aware of the cost cutting itself just not the debate on here!
Question remains do we know if the football management team supported this or otherwise voiced concerns. I just don’t know if it’s a big deal or not.
Sounds poor but if it’s not really used by those impacted maybe a non issue.
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
The club will look into its own management decision, brought to its attention by fans...
You’d rather they didn’t? Not sure what else you would expect them to say publicly.
I don’t know any details on what breakfast actually amounts to and how used / liked / needed but concern raised and acknowledged is at least something that can be followed up on at next meeting. Even if no decision is reversed.
I do wonder if the footballing management team involved with those directly impacted forcefully gave feedback on this as I’d have thought that opinion is the one that matters. That’s more interesting to appreciate.
You don’t think that the guy who is nominally in charge of the business and has a brief to cut costs ought to be aware of a cost-cutting decision that has led to internal disquiet circulating in public?
I didn’t read that he wasn’t aware of the cost cutting itself just not the debate on here!
Question remains do we know if the football management team supported this or otherwise voiced concerns. I just don’t know if it’s a big deal or not.
Sounds poor but if it’s not really used by those impacted maybe a non issue.
an interesting read but poses as many questions as it answers. Mystery Consortium have NDA, Aussies do not, Club confirm Aussies have funds but do not do likewise for Mystery Consortium, Club confirms Aussies buying lock, stock and barrel but don't confirm similarly for Mystery Consortium.
I heard on the 6th June, the EFL had rejected it. My source was told a week before me. So the EFL rejected the Aussie bid at the end of May!
Heard EFL have rejected it in Sale of Charlton - (Pg 946 - Statement from Club "expecting a takeover of the club to be completed") Comment by Redhenry June 8
I think we knew that. On May 18th the matter was with the EFL, and the Aussies were expecting completion the week after, so by 25th May. That didn't happen. It was assumed by the end of the week ending 25th May that it was because of the EFL.
an interesting read but poses as many questions as it answers. Mystery Consortium have NDA, Aussies do not, Club confirm Aussies have funds but do not do likewise for Mystery Consortium, Club confirms Aussies buying lock, stock and barrel but don't confirm similarly for Mystery Consortium.
I think Aussies have signed NDA
if so why can he talk about the Aussies but not the Mystery Bidders?
an interesting read but poses as many questions as it answers. Mystery Consortium have NDA, Aussies do not, Club confirm Aussies have funds but do not do likewise for Mystery Consortium, Club confirms Aussies buying lock, stock and barrel but don't confirm similarly for Mystery Consortium.
I think Aussies have signed NDA
if so why can he talk about the Aussies but not the Mystery Bidders?
Because they issued a joint statement confirming negotiations. Both parties have agreed a form of words and therefore not in conflict with any NDA if it exists which presumably it would. The NDA is there to protect them both and if they want to go public on items and both agree no issue. .
It is not unusual for credit card companies to delay release of funds until the proximity of the delivery of service by the merchant. In the case of goods particularly mail order or internet purchases for example it is a requirement for there to be proof of despatch written into the merchant agreement before funds are released.
Where merchants discount their product via advance sales, airlines being the obvious example then the bank is carrying the risk until the service is delivered. Where there is doubt over the financial standing of the merchant funds will be withheld.
Whatever M.Duchatelets' failings his financial standing is not in question.
The situation here is quite simply the bank is on notice of a change of ownership and as a consequence will not release funds to the current owners on the basis such owners may not be in situ when the service has to be delivered.
They will take a view when the financial standing of the new owners, with whom they currently have no relationship, is known.
They are protecting themselves from any cardholder disputes under consumer credit law in the event there is a dispute arising from the sale of the club.
It is an entirely prudent measure.
It casts no aspersions on the financial standing of either M.Duchatelet or the Australians.
So does this mean if I decide to purchase a ST BEFORE the takeover, that money will not be released to the Club as a lump sum from the start of the season, rather drip feed throughout the season?
AS long as you buy it on credit card it would appear so
I still think mentioning the 'other party" smell fishy. Easy to hide behind "there is an NDA in place" so can't say anymore. If they want to be serious about buying us & are vying with the Aussies (who like miles ahead) then why don't they go public ?
Also "LB has met the potential new owners". We know the Aussies agreed to him being caretaker manager so has he met the other lot too & have they agreed to him being cm ?? No, doubt it as they don't exist.
I share your doubts that there are currently alternative interested parties.
Still wouldn't be surprised if the quisling murray was trying to pull together a consortium
an interesting read but poses as many questions as it answers. Mystery Consortium have NDA, Aussies do not, Club confirm Aussies have funds but do not do likewise for Mystery Consortium, Club confirms Aussies buying lock, stock and barrel but don't confirm similarly for Mystery Consortium.
I think Aussies have signed NDA
if so why can he talk about the Aussies but not the Mystery Bidders?
There is an agreement with the Aussies as to what can and can't be said, The mystery bid however only exists in a few peoples minds so consequently not much can be disclosed.
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
The club will look into its own management decision, brought to its attention by fans...
You’d rather they didn’t? Not sure what else you would expect them to say publicly.
I don’t know any details on what breakfast actually amounts to and how used / liked / needed but concern raised and acknowledged is at least something that can be followed up on at next meeting. Even if no decision is reversed.
I do wonder if the footballing management team involved with those directly impacted forcefully gave feedback on this as I’d have thought that opinion is the one that matters. That’s more interesting to appreciate.
You don’t think that the guy who is nominally in charge of the business and has a brief to cut costs ought to be aware of a cost-cutting decision that has led to internal disquiet circulating in public?
I didn’t read that he wasn’t aware of the cost cutting itself just not the debate on here!
Question remains do we know if the football management team supported this or otherwise voiced concerns. I just don’t know if it’s a big deal or not.
Sounds poor but if it’s not really used by those impacted maybe a non issue.
It would be compulsory, I should think.
Sorry don’t follow. Are you suggesting it’s compulsory to provide breakfast they cut it anyway and no one on the football side was able to persuade them not to ?
Can you remember when we aimed for promotion with a top three budget, remember those amazing swash buckling days, now it’s just a budget. But they still have the same expectation and they will get probably the same result zzzzzZzzzz
an interesting read but poses as many questions as it answers. Mystery Consortium have NDA, Aussies do not, Club confirm Aussies have funds but do not do likewise for Mystery Consortium, Club confirms Aussies buying lock, stock and barrel but don't confirm similarly for Mystery Consortium.
I think Aussies have signed NDA
if so why can he talk about the Aussies but not the Mystery Bidders?
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
To summarise, fuck off shooters Hill guru. We got it covered.
Well done @Pico , your efforts, which some people seem to forget are done for love and no financial gain, are much appreciated. You can't please all of the people all of the time but don't let the others get you down .
So the breakfast thing is true. The club will 'look in to it'. Maybe the 11% saved in energy costs comes from not boiling a kettle for a breakfast cuppa. Maybe we get the press and TV to the gates of Sparrows Lane early in the morning as we fans offer the players cornflakes and bananas as they roll in in their Range Rovers, or as the younger ones walk in to work.
The club will look into its own management decision, brought to its attention by fans...
You’d rather they didn’t? Not sure what else you would expect them to say publicly.
I don’t know any details on what breakfast actually amounts to and how used / liked / needed but concern raised and acknowledged is at least something that can be followed up on at next meeting. Even if no decision is reversed.
I do wonder if the footballing management team involved with those directly impacted forcefully gave feedback on this as I’d have thought that opinion is the one that matters. That’s more interesting to appreciate.
You don’t think that the guy who is nominally in charge of the business and has a brief to cut costs ought to be aware of a cost-cutting decision that has led to internal disquiet circulating in public?
I didn’t read that he wasn’t aware of the cost cutting itself just not the debate on here!
Question remains do we know if the football management team supported this or otherwise voiced concerns. I just don’t know if it’s a big deal or not.
Sounds poor but if it’s not really used by those impacted maybe a non issue.
It would be compulsory, I should think.
Sorry don’t follow. Are you suggesting it’s compulsory to provide breakfast they cut it anyway and no one on the football side was able to persuade them not to ?
I'm suggesting that these young players have been required to attend for breakfast, so the argument that "it's not really used" makes no sense. If it's "not used", what's the saving anyway? We know it is still being provided for senior players.
There seems to be an idea on this that it's some kind of perk - I'm suggesting that getting the young players in early to eat together is more likely to be a dietary priority and part of the discipline of being in at a certain time in the morning and being part of the group.
The sums involved in this will be trivial in a professional football context even over a full year and even if money has been wasted in this area in the past then presumably that is the previous chief executive's fault?
Comments
No rush guys, take your time.
Question remains do we know if the football management team supported this or otherwise voiced concerns. I just don’t know if it’s a big deal or not.
Sounds poor but if it’s not really used by those impacted maybe a non issue.
Not using a main dealer but doing their own maintenance I expect.
I hope I don't get in trouble for revealing this
Complete nonsense. How can it in its current state?
This whole saga looks like it still has a fair few f*** ups in it yet.
But they still have the same expectation and they will get probably the same result zzzzzZzzzz
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records.
( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
There seems to be an idea on this that it's some kind of perk - I'm suggesting that getting the young players in early to eat together is more likely to be a dietary priority and part of the discipline of being in at a certain time in the morning and being part of the group.
The sums involved in this will be trivial in a professional football context even over a full year and even if money has been wasted in this area in the past then presumably that is the previous chief executive's fault?