Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Who owns the Valley? - The Ownership Thread

13468913

Comments

  • There’s no questions need answering


    this is the biggest problem people poking their noses where it’s not needed 

    If people stop looking for negative news stories to break to feel important you will all feel better in the long run 


    disagree. this is a fundamental question. first he says they bought The Valley with Sparrows Lane to follow. now he says that currently they have bought neither. if that doesn't bother you then fine but it sure as hell bothers me. 


    Finding all that out in the first 2 months is important why 

    There’s bitterness and trouble making a foot 

    fall for it at your peril 
    Well shall we just believe everything our new owners say without question even when we find they are not telling us the truth?

    When we have a new chairman and one of the first things he does is paint chairman in a parking space when to my mind their are more important matters(like sorting the pot holes) seems very “weird” to me.

  • Brown to match our trousers!
  • What colour scarves should we wear to the Fulham game?
    Good job I've still got a choice 😉.
  • The level of cynicism in all aspects of life is off the charts at the moment, because the previous ownerships were shambolic, doesn’t instantly mean that this ownership are as bad, cynical or problematic. At present there is nothing to worry about for me, if in June there is a no sign of a change in then ownership of the club/ground then worry. But it seems people are addicted to the fight, and are acting like Japanese soldiers in the jungle 
  • There’s no questions need answering


    this is the biggest problem people poking their noses where it’s not needed 

    If people stop looking for negative news stories to break to feel important you will all feel better in the long run 


    disagree. this is a fundamental question. first he says they bought The Valley with Sparrows Lane to follow. now he says that currently they have bought neither. if that doesn't bother you then fine but it sure as hell bothers me. 


    Finding all that out in the first 2 months is important why 

    There’s bitterness and trouble making a foot 

    fall for it at your peril 
    Well shall we just believe everything our new owners say without question even when we find they are not telling us the truth?

    When we have a new chairman and one of the first things he does is paint chairman in a parking space when to my mind their are more important matters(like sorting the pot holes) seems very “weird” to me.



    he Didn’t paint it though did he 

    and did you see how busy it was Saturday 

    good job it was painted he’d have had nowhere to Park 

    you can all worry if it makes you feel better but you have nothing to worry about 
  • edited January 2020
    Lets all agree that ESI are still likely to be the real deal, but we should still be concerned about recent developments. For starters we thought we were rid of that yellow toothed piece of scum and it seems we are not yet. If say ESI don't meet their obligation to buy the assets, shouldn't the rest return to him. Otherwise it makes it too easy for dodgy people like Roland to shift the bit of the business they want to get rid of. If it has been purchased for a lot of money fair enough, but the bit ESI own is the bit Roland has been saying is free!  
  • There’s no questions need answering


    this is the biggest problem people poking their noses where it’s not needed 

    If people stop looking for negative news stories to break to feel important you will all feel better in the long run 


    disagree. this is a fundamental question. first he says they bought The Valley with Sparrows Lane to follow. now he says that currently they have bought neither. if that doesn't bother you then fine but it sure as hell bothers me. 


    Finding all that out in the first 2 months is important why 

    There’s bitterness and trouble making a foot 

    fall for it at your peril 
    Well shall we just believe everything our new owners say without question even when we find they are not telling us the truth?

    When we have a new chairman and one of the first things he does is paint chairman in a parking space when to my mind their are more important matters(like sorting the pot holes) seems very “weird” to me.



    he Didn’t paint it though did he 

    and did you see how busy it was Saturday 

    good job it was painted he’d have had nowhere to Park 

    you can all worry if it makes you feel better but you have nothing to worry about 
    Didn’t realise he is on Katrien time.
  • - EFL are satisfied
    - ESI own the Valley leasehold
    - MS is talking about commencing building works at the training ground
  • Sponsored links:


  • So we lose Gallagher to another team in our own division, the transfer of Maddison is on hold or falling apart, Roland still owns the soul of the club.... anything else to make the day worse?
  • edited January 2020
    Filings made at CH have a lot of people flummoxed I guess, me included. Interesting that first Confirmation Statement of the 3 existing entities, FC, Baton and Holdings is the latter in February. Let's see if any changes are filed there. 
  • What's the worst case scenario we're facing?
  • edited January 2020
    Yes this a loop hole scenario for ACV because the freehold hasn’t changed hands, as you state it would only work if the ground were sold away from the company that owns it because it applies to property law I assume.

    You could even argue now that ACV cannot apply as it is no longer technically owned by the entity that is the CAFC football club, although if that sale was part of it being detached from the purpose of being CAFCs stadium it might still apply. I would probably argue that if at any point it’s put up for sale in a way that separates it from cafc which is where it’s community value originated it would invoke ACV while the status remains in place. In theory that would mean the separation that exists couldn’t happen again.

    The legislation is recent but I’m struggling to see how you could get around this loophole  without special law applying to football clubs, and this act is generic for any community asset, even a pub. I did argue for a new special listed status for stadia way back but Clive Efford didn’t get to become sports minister at any stage..
  • Sponsored links:


  • What's the worst case scenario we're facing?
    AFKA has gained 2lbs rather than lost anything?
  • edited January 2020
    Confirmation Statement will confirm quite a bit for all 3 entities in terms of ownership of them all and any possible food chain. It's due quite soon. 
    It will but doesn't have to be filed for ESI until 12 months after incorporation which was 13  November just gone I thought.
  • Think I'm gonna take the pragmatic aproach to all this and have an evaluation on the 1st of Feb and again at the end of June. I'm sure in that time a lot more will become clear
  • I’m (almost) with @AFKABartram on this. It’s not an issue until it’s time to conclude that part of the deal. 

    I’m just slightly concerned that after supposedly looking at how the fanbase has been “misled” by prior owners, and stating they want to fix that, they start out by once again misleading the fans. Deliberately or not, it just reminds us of what we thought we’d just got rid of.   

    If we keep schtum until it becomes an issue it may be too late, I don’t know, maybe it won’t but I can’t see the harm in asking for clarification. 
    If we get clarification and it's not what people want to hear then what? 
  • RedChaser said:
    I’m (almost) with @AFKABartram on this. It’s not an issue until it’s time to conclude that part of the deal. 

    I’m just slightly concerned that after supposedly looking at how the fanbase has been “misled” by prior owners, and stating they want to fix that, they start out by once again misleading the fans. Deliberately or not, it just reminds us of what we thought we’d just got rid of.   

    If we keep schtum until it becomes an issue it may be too late, I don’t know, maybe it won’t but I can’t see the harm in asking for clarification. 
    If we get clarification and it's not what people want to hear then what? 

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time"


  • RedChaser said:
    I’m (almost) with @AFKABartram on this. It’s not an issue until it’s time to conclude that part of the deal. 

    I’m just slightly concerned that after supposedly looking at how the fanbase has been “misled” by prior owners, and stating they want to fix that, they start out by once again misleading the fans. Deliberately or not, it just reminds us of what we thought we’d just got rid of.   

    If we keep schtum until it becomes an issue it may be too late, I don’t know, maybe it won’t but I can’t see the harm in asking for clarification. 
    If we get clarification and it's not what people want to hear then what? 

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time"


    I’m not pleased 
  • edited January 2020
    RedChaser said:
    I’m (almost) with @AFKABartram on this. It’s not an issue until it’s time to conclude that part of the deal. 

    I’m just slightly concerned that after supposedly looking at how the fanbase has been “misled” by prior owners, and stating they want to fix that, they start out by once again misleading the fans. Deliberately or not, it just reminds us of what we thought we’d just got rid of.   

    If we keep schtum until it becomes an issue it may be too late, I don’t know, maybe it won’t but I can’t see the harm in asking for clarification. 
    If we get clarification and it's not what people want to hear then what? 
    Get some plastic pigs and beach balls in. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!