One of the Trust who was at the meeting with the EFL has spoken to the standard. I don’t know if they (ES) has spoken to anyone else as well.
Maybe not the greatest idea, tactically or in PR terms. Would have seemed better to wait for the full report on the website rather than let the Standard run only part of the story and in quite a misleading way IMHO. But, before someone reminds me, I'm not a member so up to the Trust to decide.
I don’t agree. I have some sympathy with the trust in terms of the logistics of yesterday and they want to produce a detailed report that respects the discussions in the meeting. There is also an appetite for headline information that needs to be satisfied or they will be attacked for holding out. It’s quite a balancing act. Also a lot of the details are pretty indigestible, mainly around EFL process, and they are a group of people who have to reach a consensus around what they say because they are accountable to each other and the members.
Having now read the notes from the meeting I stand by my point. Yes, the logistics are difficult and what the Standard chooses to use or not use can't be controlled but I felt that the CAST notes gives a significantly different take on the comments of Harvey and Duchatelet than that given by the Standard but as the Standard report came out first and has a wider readership it will be seen by some as the report and has already weakened the impact of the meeting notes.
Waiting a few hours for the very interesting and informative notes from the meeting might have resulted in a better story in the Standard and more publicity for what CAST have achieved, which I feel is a lot.
Thank you for posting these Rob7Lee. So the interesting thing reading into this is that the sale price has definetly been agreed according to RD which he is going to honour. It is completly out of the EFL and RD's hands the moment. Weird that SH has said that a) It is not unusual for this length of time for a takeover to happen b) The Lawyers acting on behalf of the Australians are in contact with the EFL. Just q query or thought? Would other people in the consortium would have wanted to do their own DD first? Or is only one done?
One of the Trust who was at the meeting with the EFL has spoken to the standard. I don’t know if they (ES) has spoken to anyone else as well.
Maybe not the greatest idea, tactically or in PR terms. Would have seemed better to wait for the full report on the website rather than let the Standard run only part of the story and in quite a misleading way IMHO. But, before someone reminds me, I'm not a member so up to the Trust to decide.
I don’t agree. I have some sympathy with the trust in terms of the logistics of yesterday and they want to produce a detailed report that respects the discussions in the meeting. There is also an appetite for headline information that needs to be satisfied or they will be attacked for holding out. It’s quite a balancing act. Also a lot of the details are pretty indigestible, mainly around EFL process, and they are a group of people who have to reach a consensus around what they say because they are accountable to each other and the members.
...........what CAST have achieved, which I feel is a lot.
Thank you for posting these Rob7Lee. So the interesting thing reading into this is that the sale price has definetly been agreed according to RD which he is going to honour. It is completly out of the EFL and RD's hands the moment. Weird that SH has said that a) It is not unusual for this length of time for a takeover to happen b) The Lawyers acting on behalf of the Australians are in contact with the EFL. Just q query or thought? Would other people in the consortium would have wanted to do their own DD first? Or is only one done?
If only there was someone on here who had a contact in the Australian consortium who could maybe get some more info....
One of the Trust who was at the meeting with the EFL has spoken to the standard. I don’t know if they (ES) has spoken to anyone else as well.
Maybe not the greatest idea, tactically or in PR terms. Would have seemed better to wait for the full report on the website rather than let the Standard run only part of the story and in quite a misleading way IMHO. But, before someone reminds me, I'm not a member so up to the Trust to decide.
I don’t agree. I have some sympathy with the trust in terms of the logistics of yesterday and they want to produce a detailed report that respects the discussions in the meeting. There is also an appetite for headline information that needs to be satisfied or they will be attacked for holding out. It’s quite a balancing act. Also a lot of the details are pretty indigestible, mainly around EFL process, and they are a group of people who have to reach a consensus around what they say because they are accountable to each other and the members.
...........what CAST have achieved, which I feel is a lot.
Thank you for posting these Rob7Lee. So the interesting thing reading into this is that the sale price has definetly been agreed according to RD which he is going to honour. It is completly out of the EFL and RD's hands the moment. Weird that SH has said that a) It is not unusual for this length of time for a takeover to happen b) The Lawyers acting on behalf of the Australians are in contact with the EFL. Just q query or thought? Would other people in the consortium would have wanted to do their own DD first? Or is only one done?
If only there was someone on here who had a contact in the Australian consortium who could maybe get some more info....
One of the Trust who was at the meeting with the EFL has spoken to the standard. I don’t know if they (ES) has spoken to anyone else as well.
Maybe not the greatest idea, tactically or in PR terms. Would have seemed better to wait for the full report on the website rather than let the Standard run only part of the story and in quite a misleading way IMHO. But, before someone reminds me, I'm not a member so up to the Trust to decide.
I don’t agree. I have some sympathy with the trust in terms of the logistics of yesterday and they want to produce a detailed report that respects the discussions in the meeting. There is also an appetite for headline information that needs to be satisfied or they will be attacked for holding out. It’s quite a balancing act. Also a lot of the details are pretty indigestible, mainly around EFL process, and they are a group of people who have to reach a consensus around what they say because they are accountable to each other and the members.
Having now read the notes from the meeting I stand by my point. Yes, the logistics are difficult and what the Standard chooses to use or not use can't be controlled but I felt that the CAST notes gives a significantly different take on the comments of Harvey and Duchatelet than that given by the Standard but as the Standard report came out first and has a wider readership it will be seen by some as the report and has already weakened the impact of the meeting notes.
Waiting a few hours for the very interesting and informative notes from the meeting might have resulted in a better story in the Standard and more publicity for what CAST have achieved, which I feel is a lot.
The vast majority of people are only ever going to see the Standard of the two, so it’s pretty irrelevant that some of those who will read the Trust report will see it first.
So I am assuming Airman Brown that there is a lot of stuff that the Trust can't talk about what they discussed with EFL earlier due to legal/NDA type issues?? I query as to why Sir Ronald Duchatelet met with Harvey but the Trust met with someone else?? Why would they not meet with Harvey as well? Ie to counter act what Duchatelet has said?
If CAST can't share info with the supporters it represents then what's the point?
Give it a rest. They were out all day yesterday meeting the EFL in the day & the Trust AGM in the evening. The report will be on the trust website as soon as possible and may not be for a couple of days according to the person producing the report. NB There isn't much more to tell from what we were told last night, so just show a little patience please.
Not what I was saying. I wasn't being impatient, I was clearly referring to an earlier post from someone who suggested they may not share minutes at all. I apologise if that's incorrect.
One of the Trust who was at the meeting with the EFL has spoken to the standard. I don’t know if they (ES) has spoken to anyone else as well.
Maybe not the greatest idea, tactically or in PR terms. Would have seemed better to wait for the full report on the website rather than let the Standard run only part of the story and in quite a misleading way IMHO. But, before someone reminds me, I'm not a member so up to the Trust to decide.
I don’t agree. I have some sympathy with the trust in terms of the logistics of yesterday and they want to produce a detailed report that respects the discussions in the meeting. There is also an appetite for headline information that needs to be satisfied or they will be attacked for holding out. It’s quite a balancing act. Also a lot of the details are pretty indigestible, mainly around EFL process, and they are a group of people who have to reach a consensus around what they say because they are accountable to each other and the members.
Having now read the notes from the meeting I stand by my point. Yes, the logistics are difficult and what the Standard chooses to use or not use can't be controlled but I felt that the CAST notes gives a significantly different take on the comments of Harvey and Duchatelet than that given by the Standard but as the Standard report came out first and has a wider readership it will be seen by some as the report and has already weakened the impact of the meeting notes.
Waiting a few hours for the very interesting and informative notes from the meeting might have resulted in a better story in the Standard and more publicity for what CAST have achieved, which I feel is a lot.
The vast majority of people are only ever going to see the Standard of the two, so it’s pretty irrelevant that some of those who will read the Trust report will see it first.
I agree on the first point which is why waiting and giving the full notes to the Standard might, or might not, have had a better outcome. But it is done and as the Leader say "it is what it is".
So I am assuming Airman Brown that there is a lot of stuff that the Trust can't talk about what they discussed with EFL earlier due to legal/NDA type issues?? I query as to why Sir Ronald Duchatelet met with Harvey but the Trust met with someone else?? Why would they not meet with Harvey as well? Ie to counter act what Duchatelet has said?
If CAST can't share info with the supporters it represents then what's the point?
Give it a rest. They were out all day yesterday meeting the EFL in the day & the Trust AGM in the evening. The report will be on the trust website as soon as possible and may not be for a couple of days according to the person producing the report. NB There isn't much more to tell from what we were told last night, so just show a little patience please.
Not what I was saying. I wasn't being impatient, I was clearly referring to an earlier post from someone who suggested they may not share minutes at all. I apologise if that's incorrect.
It is incorrect - the report is now on Trust website as per links above.
Trust peeps, did the run of ridiculous Tuesday statements emanating from the Club get raised when the subject of miscommunication / protest was discussed?
Thank you for posting these Rob7Lee. So the interesting thing reading into this is that the sale price has definetly been agreed according to RD which he is going to honour. It is completly out of the EFL and RD's hands the moment. Weird that SH has said that a) It is not unusual for this length of time for a takeover to happen b) The Lawyers acting on behalf of the Australians are in contact with the EFL. Just q query or thought? Would other people in the consortium would have wanted to do their own DD first? Or is only one done?
If only there was someone on here who had a contact in the Australian consortium who could maybe get some more info....
So I am assuming Airman Brown that there is a lot of stuff that the Trust can't talk about what they discussed with EFL earlier due to legal/NDA type issues?? I query as to why Sir Ronald Duchatelet met with Harvey but the Trust met with someone else?? Why would they not meet with Harvey as well? Ie to counter act what Duchatelet has said?
If CAST can't share info with the supporters it represents then what's the point?
Give it a rest. They were out all day yesterday meeting the EFL in the day & the Trust AGM in the evening. The report will be on the trust website as soon as possible and may not be for a couple of days according to the person producing the report. NB There isn't much more to tell from what we were told last night, so just show a little patience please.
Not what I was saying. I wasn't being impatient, I was clearly referring to an earlier post from someone who suggested they may not share minutes at all. I apologise if that's incorrect.
Trust peeps, did the run of ridiculous Tuesday statements emanating from the Club get raised when the subject of miscommunication / protest was discussed?
Trust peeps, did the run of ridiculous Tuesday statements emanating from the Club get raised when the subject of miscommunication / protest was discussed?
What was the EFL view / response?
Nothing guys?
Not sure, I’ll find out (2 of the three at the meeting don’t post on here)
So the Standard interpretation is correct, this so called Aussie group have not submitted the any owners or directors forms so that the EFL can do the fit and proper persons checks and this is what 18 months since all this started. Also they have not shown that they can raise the money to buy the club and run it for one season only, the last would worry me, if they only had money for one season the club would be in trouble with them as owners, but of course this is only hypothetical for now.
Trust peeps, did the run of ridiculous Tuesday statements emanating from the Club get raised when the subject of miscommunication / protest was discussed?
What was the EFL view / response?
Nothing guys?
Morning. Had another busy day yesterday, so apologies.
We figured they would give us max an hour, there would be three of us and at least two of them ( in the end three, as Harvey came). So we realised we needed to prioritize what we wanted to find out. We decided that raking over the details of his behaviour might get us bogged down. So we had a blow by blow timeline of all his misdemeanors with us, in case they tackled us on the extent of it. But they didn't. I think we were right to do that, because there wasn't a wasted minute of waffle in the 80 minutes, from either side to be fair.
The Aussies are just stringing this out in the hope the price will drop. That won't necessarily leave them at the front of the queue when it eventually does imo.
Most frustrating thing about the Aussies is that they have gazumped the Saudi's who walked and now can't even raise the funds themselves
It's just my personal opinion but I simply don't believe this version of events re "the Saudis". It's way too simplistic, assumes that a football club is sold like a house at auction. I think we know enough to be clear it does not work like that.
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
So I am assuming Airman Brown that there is a lot of stuff that the Trust can't talk about what they discussed with EFL earlier due to legal/NDA type issues?? I query as to why Sir Ronald Duchatelet met with Harvey but the Trust met with someone else?? Why would they not meet with Harvey as well? Ie to counter act what Duchatelet has said?
No, the CAST guys met Harvey as well. They will be reporting on it on the CAST website soon (though are tired from the number of meetings they had to do yesterday with the AGM).
Trust peeps, did the run of ridiculous Tuesday statements emanating from the Club get raised when the subject of miscommunication / protest was discussed?
What was the EFL view / response?
Nothing guys?
Not sure, I’ll find out (2 of the three at the meeting don’t post on here)
Really? Not posting is fine but I’d have thought they read Charlton Life to gauge the mood of the fans and for a laugh.
Comments
Waiting a few hours for the very interesting and informative notes from the meeting might have resulted in a better story in the Standard and more publicity for what CAST have achieved, which I feel is a lot.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
What was the EFL view / response?
We figured they would give us max an hour, there would be three of us and at least two of them ( in the end three, as Harvey came). So we realised we needed to prioritize what we wanted to find out. We decided that raking over the details of his behaviour might get us bogged down. So we had a blow by blow timeline of all his misdemeanors with us, in case they tackled us on the extent of it. But they didn't. I think we were right to do that, because there wasn't a wasted minute of waffle in the 80 minutes, from either side to be fair.
That won't necessarily leave them at the front of the queue when it eventually does imo.
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.