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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
Can we unreasonably assume that that may have since changed?
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
Can we unreasonably assume that that may have since changed?
Things can change - I haven't heard that they have.
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
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.
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?
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.
Post worthy of its own thread, surely.
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????????
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.
Where did you read our owner is a multi-billionaire?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post worthy of its own thread, surely.
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????????
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.
Where did you read our owner is a multi-billionaire?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post worthy of its own thread, surely.
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????????
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.
Where did you read our owner is a multi-billionaire?
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.
Probably why you're so negative, if your views are based on wrong information.
Negative ? Me ?
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.
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.
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.
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.
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.
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.
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.
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.
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?
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?
Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.
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.
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 action
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.
What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?
Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
Totally agree about the situation with The Valley. ESI's reluctance/oversight to be 'upfront' about it initially, sits uneasy with me.
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'!
Comments
Thats how i remember it - Although i would love two or three marquee signings this week
Id settle for the guy from Blackpool and two good loans---- but I feel even that's a stretch .
As per ,prepare to be disappointed
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.
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.
It's a phrase that is just asking for trouble, whoever uses it.
Outgoings: Gallagher, class act.
Finally some action.
I am still pissed off with Roland for selling Hales and Walsh as well.
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.
Well... Because they're not due?
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.
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'!