Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ESI: Thoughts so far?
Comments
-
Henry Irving said:My understanding was that MS said that they would have a wage structure but would break it for a marquee signing/s.
Shearer at Newcastle was cited as an example of this, presumably because Bowyer was there at the same time and had mentioned it.
No timeframe was given for when such marquee signings would be made. There was no promise of marquee signings this window.
Thats how i remember it - Although i would love two or three marquee signings this week
2 -
Wouldn't we all 😉.billysboots said:Henry Irving said:My understanding was that MS said that they would have a wage structure but would break it for a marquee signing/s.
Shearer at Newcastle was cited as an example of this, presumably because Bowyer was there at the same time and had mentioned it.
No timeframe was given for when such marquee signings would be made. There was no promise of marquee signings this window.
Thats how i remember it - Although i would love two or three marquee signings this week0 -
I'll have to listen back because I thought he said there will be marquee signings and used the Shearer example in regards to keeping Taylor0
-
Depends on what you see as a marque signing. Maddison or the guy from Barnsley could be .
Id settle for the guy from Blackpool and two good loans---- but I feel even that's a stretch .
As per ,prepare to be disappointed0 -
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.1 -
Can we unreasonably assume that that may have since changed?Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.0 -
Things can change - I haven't heard that they have.Fumbluff said:
Can we unreasonably assume that that may have since changed?Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.0 -
Fumbluff said:
Can we unreasonably assume that that may have since changed? Certain ex directors have not been shy, in the past, about making the situation very clear and in the public demain. Either through Airman, other posters on here or thier own twitter etc.Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.
We will know within hours if that changes.0 -
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.
0 -
charltonbob said:
At the time of the takeover I read that he was worth 15 Billion. Where did I read it ? Haven't the faintest idea as I was reading absolutely anything I could find about the takeover.stoneroses19 said:
Where did you read our owner is a multi-billionaire?charltonbob said:
The bright new future doesn't seem so bright anymore. A multi billionaire takes over the club, doesn't buy The Valley or SL, can't/won't give LB a contract that he wants to sign & transfer wise seems to be operating under the Belgians budget. What's going on, no wonder there's been people casting doubt over ESI ever since it was announced.The Prince-e-Paul said:
Starting to get very concerned about the time Bowyer's contact us taking to sort out. They want him, he wants to stay. What's the problem????????Henry Irving said:
Post worthy of its own thread, surely.Brown59 said:Oh dear here we go again. We will end up panic buying on the 31st like we always do with sub standard players. The fact is you have to pay over the odds to get players in now its that simple. Looks like we're still trying to get players on the cheap even with money men behind us. Until LB signs players will not commit.
Whats the problem with his contract. 2 weeks it's been on offer! I have big concerns over ESI.
I haven't got sympathy, if you fell for the email that HE was worth 15 billion and could you sent 5k to help him over his cash flow problems while he waited for EFL approval. Plus he had a five year plan and you would receive a bonus once we were in the Premier League.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I'm not saying everything will be great. I'm saying let's wait for some clarification and the transfer window to close, before making any initial assessments.
We've waited 5/6 years to get rid of RD.
Give the new owners a bit of time.
This is real life, not a PlayStation game.6 -
When it comes to "marquee signings" I'm going over to the "phrases you hate" thread, and sticking it on there.
It's a phrase that is just asking for trouble, whoever uses it.3 -
Ha I'm not falling for that one though as it happens I'm already helping out a lovely old Nigerian Grandmother who's sending me 6 million once she's been able to instruct a solicitor to sort out her husbands business affairs. 10k well spent I think.soapboxsam said:charltonbob said:
At the time of the takeover I read that he was worth 15 Billion. Where did I read it ? Haven't the faintest idea as I was reading absolutely anything I could find about the takeover.stoneroses19 said:
Where did you read our owner is a multi-billionaire?charltonbob said:
The bright new future doesn't seem so bright anymore. A multi billionaire takes over the club, doesn't buy The Valley or SL, can't/won't give LB a contract that he wants to sign & transfer wise seems to be operating under the Belgians budget. What's going on, no wonder there's been people casting doubt over ESI ever since it was announced.The Prince-e-Paul said:
Starting to get very concerned about the time Bowyer's contact us taking to sort out. They want him, he wants to stay. What's the problem????????Henry Irving said:
Post worthy of its own thread, surely.Brown59 said:Oh dear here we go again. We will end up panic buying on the 31st like we always do with sub standard players. The fact is you have to pay over the odds to get players in now its that simple. Looks like we're still trying to get players on the cheap even with money men behind us. Until LB signs players will not commit.
Whats the problem with his contract. 2 weeks it's been on offer! I have big concerns over ESI.
I haven't got sympathy, if you fell for the email that HE was worth 15 billion and could you sent 5k to help him over his cash flow problems while he waited for EFL approval. Plus he had a five year plan and you would receive a bonus once we were in the Premier League.4 -
You were saying?charltonbob said:
Negative ? Me ?Covered End said:
Probably why you're so negative, if your views are based on wrong information.charltonbob said:
At the time of the takeover I read that he was worth 15 Billion. Where did I read it ? Haven't the faintest idea as I was reading absolutely anything I could find about the takeover.stoneroses19 said:
Where did you read our owner is a multi-billionaire?charltonbob said:
The bright new future doesn't seem so bright anymore. A multi billionaire takes over the club, doesn't buy The Valley or SL, can't/won't give LB a contract that he wants to sign & transfer wise seems to be operating under the Belgians budget. What's going on, no wonder there's been people casting doubt over ESI ever since it was announced.The Prince-e-Paul said:
Starting to get very concerned about the time Bowyer's contact us taking to sort out. They want him, he wants to stay. What's the problem????????Henry Irving said:
Post worthy of its own thread, surely.Brown59 said:Oh dear here we go again. We will end up panic buying on the 31st like we always do with sub standard players. The fact is you have to pay over the odds to get players in now its that simple. Looks like we're still trying to get players on the cheap even with money men behind us. Until LB signs players will not commit.
Whats the problem with his contract. 2 weeks it's been on offer! I have big concerns over ESI.
Takeover announced & the Chairman is quoted the No.1 priority is to get LB & LT signed up to long term contracts.
Chairman quoted that LB contract will be dealt with after the Transfer window. LT rejects contract offer & one well connected person on here describes the offer as very low.
After LB comments in the press about wanting contract sorted by the weekend the Chairman announces during interview that a 5 year deal has been sent to LB that morning. What that 5 year deal amounts to we don't know but it's still sitting there unsigned with various reasons given.
In interview the chairman states that there will be marquee signings to ensure that we remain in the Championship, time & games are slipping by & we have 1 win in 16. It's unlikely that quality championship players will join a club heading for relegation. So we're looking at decent League one players but can't/won't offer the wages so where next L2 ? National league south ?
In interview the chairman states that ESI own the club & the Valley with an obligation to purchase SL within 6 months. A week down the line we're hearing that we don't own the Valley at all but there is the obligation to buy within the next 6 months.
Negative ? Certainly very concerned, something doesn't sit right as far as I can see.1 -
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.Chunes said:
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.0 -
BR7_addick said:Incomings: Green, looks okay,
Outgoings: Gallagher, class act.
So not good so far.Incomings: Green, looks okay, Bowyer new contract.
Outgoings: Gallagher, class act.
Finally some action.1 -
signing Bowyer is a great start .. keep it up chaps1
-
Now sign up Lyle and we'll definitely know you're a world away from Roland (ref Yann).3
-
Bows has nicely put the pressure on chairman now to do something. Chairman appears to want to please people, so let's see!0
-
they're quality, was never in doubt.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Or ever other owner that sold a star player, oh that would be all of them then.Weegie Addick said:Now sign up Lyle and we'll definitely know you're a world away from Roland (ref Yann).
I am still pissed off with Roland for selling Hales and Walsh as well.0 -
Still cautious, because I don't trust Roland as far as he could throw me, and until he has absolutely no control over any aspect of the club I'm not going to be happy. I could have lived with the delay in purchasing the training ground, but the miscommunication/deliberate misleading over the ownership of the Valley is more concerning, particularly given the circumstances that led to us moving to Selhurst in the first place. If Matt Southall doesn't understand why a section of our fanbase are so twitchy about the separation of ownership of the freehold of the Valley and the club, then perhaps the Museum crew could educate him about that when His Excellency finally gets to do the tour.On the plus side, finally getting Bowyer's contract sorted out is a good sign, and hopefully Jacko and Marshall will be following swiftly on behind. Getting Taylor to sign a new contract would be a big plus, but I'm not holding my breath on that one so it'd be a bit unfair to judge them negatively if it doesn't happen. We do definitely need to strengthen the squad before the window ends though, as we can't rely on all the walking wounded, and failure to do that with players of reasonable quality will be a bad sign, even if I'm not daft enough to expect marquee signings.In summary, to misquote the late great Terry Jones, he's not the Messiah, but he's not just a naughty boy either. So far at least.9
-
So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.bobmunro said:
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.Chunes said:
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.1 -
I've chilled out a lot, I think the damage Roland did has also psychologically scarred a lot of us and wanted something fast to feel safe this wasn't another false dawn.
Bowyer is signed, we are working on the current players we have and some externals.
All very good news, I think , think, we could be ok.5 -
I don't see how theyve ever been an issue, just great cover for the aussie consortium being skint, surely we're beyond that now?Chunes said:
So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.bobmunro said:
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.Chunes said:
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.0 -
It's just people keep bringing it up like they are an issue... @airman_brown just said "the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not."Stu_of_Kunming said:
I don't see how theyve ever been an issue, just great cover for the aussie consortium being skint, surely we're beyond that now?Chunes said:
So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.bobmunro said:
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.Chunes said:
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?Airman Brown said:
I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement.Chunes said:
I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal actionHenry Irving said:
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.Chunes said:Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?
At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.
They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.
Well... Because they're not due?1 -
But wheres the fun in that? There's a reason people were digging up skeletons before ESi even had their feet under the table and something tells me it's not driven purely by a love for the club.3
-
My personal view (and hope) is that they are looking to do just enough to keep us up this season, as this season (as far as pushing for promotion goes) is over already.
As long as we can get better with injuries etc, we already have a good enough squad to stay up comfortably, and I think they know this.
I'm going to be judging them a lot more on the summer than the winter. This season is already over.2 -
Totally agree about the situation with The Valley. ESI's reluctance/oversight to be 'upfront' about it initially, sits uneasy with me.aliwibble said:Still cautious, because I don't trust Roland as far as he could throw me, and until he has absolutely no control over any aspect of the club I'm not going to be happy. I could have lived with the delay in purchasing the training ground, but the miscommunication/deliberate misleading over the ownership of the Valley is more concerning, particularly given the circumstances that led to us moving to Selhurst in the first place. If Matt Southall doesn't understand why a section of our fanbase are so twitchy about the separation of ownership of the freehold of the Valley and the club, then perhaps the Museum crew could educate him about that when His Excellency finally gets to do the tour.On the plus side, finally getting Bowyer's contract sorted out is a good sign, and hopefully Jacko and Marshall will be following swiftly on behind. Getting Taylor to sign a new contract would be a big plus, but I'm not holding my breath on that one so it'd be a bit unfair to judge them negatively if it doesn't happen. We do definitely need to strengthen the squad before the window ends though, as we can't rely on all the walking wounded, and failure to do that with players of reasonable quality will be a bad sign, even if I'm not daft enough to expect marquee signings.In summary, to misquote the late great Terry Jones, he's not the Messiah, but he's not just a naughty boy either. So far at least.
As long as Duchatelet retains an 'interest' in our club, I'll not be comfortable. I've said it all along, he'd get great pleasure out of having the 'last laugh'!6 -
I think a lot of fans who have been wetting themselves will hopefully be a tad drier today
7
