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.
Improvements in the medical set up will only help and they've mentioned they're looking into it. Things like better travel to games. Maybe take a plane to longer distance games when we've got a bit of a fixture pile up or.stsy in a decent hotel the night before?
I think a lot of fans who have been wetting themselves will hopefully be a tad drier today
Wouldn't hold your breath...could sign 5 class players by lunchtime and it would be straight onto the next episodes of knee knocking, ball shrinking, arse flapping, spleen shitting, pant pissing outpourings by teatime.
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
I think a lot of fans who have been wetting themselves will hopefully be a tad drier today
Wouldn't hold your breath...could sign 5 class players by lunchtime and it would be straight onto the next episodes of knee knocking, ball shrinking, arse flapping, spleen shitting outpourings by teatime.
Repeat ad nauseam.
Bed wetters guide to new signings
Player from the Prem - here for his last pay day
Player from the Championship - if (former club) don’t want him why would we? Planning for League 1 next season
Lower league prospect - players from (league name) won’t keep us up. Planning for League 1 next season
Player from abroad - can’t be a Gallen/Bowyer signing, will need time to settle
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach the ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view along ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one of lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
I've come into this discussion saying I have no idea what the situation is, and have only taken in the answers people have given me. So no need to get shirty.
That's all very vague... Are the loans due or not?
Why wouldn't ESI contact the directors to enquire, isn't that what due diligence is?
Are you saying they DID promise something, or they may 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.
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
The thing is, virtually none of us know what was promised and what was delivered, so we can’t assess the impact on wider issues. As such, we can only go in what we see ... with which I am relatively comfortable but does depend on transfer activity.
Im assuming you have more knowledge via your contacts.
Personally, I really do not understand what the issue is with ESI giving itself time to complete the purchase of the Valley. What else could he do with it? It is an asset with absolutely no value to him.
Personally, I really do not understand what the issue is with ESI giving itself time to complete the purchase of the Valley. What else could he do with it? It is an asset with absolutely no value to him.
Personally, I really do not understand what the issue is with ESI giving itself time to complete the purchase of the Valley. What else could he do with it? It is an asset with absolutely no value to him.
I think you would find the sum paid and the sum outstanding blow that point out of the water. Hence RD was prepared, he said, to sell the club for £1.
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach the ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view along ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one of lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
I've come into this discussion saying I have no idea what the situation is, and have only taken in the answers people have given me. So no need to get shirty.
That's all very vague... Are the loans due or not?
Why wouldn't ESI contact the directors to enquire, isn't that what due diligence is?
Are you saying they DID promise something, or they may have?
You’d need to know what has happened (been purchased by ESI) and what the agreement says, plus legal advice, to know whether they are due. But I do believe expectations were created.
Definitely a tad drier. Three big issues were/are galring and am relieved one has been solved. And that was the first one logically to be solved. Now want to see number two addressed. The third is going to take a few months, but one and two sorted and three looks less of an issue.
Buy the club from Roland ☑️ Provide open communication ☑️ Sign up Bowyer ☑️ Sign up Jackson and Marshall ❓but Bow said he'd sign when they're sorted. Don't sell Taylor ✅ - so far Sign up Taylor ⏳ Sign up Cullen ⏳ Sign some players to improve us ⏳ Complete the purchase of the freeholds ⏳
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach the ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view along ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one of lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
I've come into this discussion saying I have no idea what the situation is, and have only taken in the answers people have given me. So no need to get shirty.
That's all very vague... Are the loans due or not?
Why wouldn't ESI contact the directors to enquire, isn't that what due diligence is?
Are you saying they DID promise something, or they may have?
You’d need to know what has happened (been purchased by ESI) and what the agreement says, plus legal advice, to know whether they are due. But I do believe expectations were created.
Well... I feel slightly better informed, and at the same time, not at all!
I don't think it's something I'll concern myself with further. It's a business transaction and it's between them and ESI.
I do wish them the best of luck. They helped the club out in its time of need. But I struggle to think of a business owner who would pay off loans that weren't his if he could possibly find that he was not liable to pay them. It's business, after all.
I think a lot of fans who have been wetting themselves will hopefully be a tad drier today
You are right with some of the hysterics, and I hope HE gets a fantastic reception at the Barnsley game(or which ever game he can get to) and Lyle Taylor is still here, because if Lyle can weave his magic in front of a near capacity home support then Matt Southall can try to convince the owner that Football isn't an egalitarian work place and your main scorer, assists and talismanic scorer must get his contract which reflects his importance to Cafc over the past 18 months and the next two years. A creative package must be possible for Lyle, can you imagine if Leicester didn't give Jamie Vardy a cracking pay rise when they were in the Championship ? Goal bonus and assists can be included in the package. I'm fed up with Charlton being a selling club or letting quality leave so be dynamic Matt Southall, and plead with HE that for any 5 year plan which includes Premier football coming to fruition, then the first year to get the big calls right is paramount. Bowyer signed first, which after the initial misunderstanding has been achieved. I can't believe that ESI have paid 50 to 60 million at completion of the Valley and Sparrows lane which will finally make RD history, to carry on with Charlton being a mediocre football team where we celebrate finishing 21st in the Championship.
The " Marquee signings" would be Taylor and Cullen, if the rest are players from League 1 then no problem if they fit the profile that Bowyer and Gallen have identified. Bonne have taken his chance and would love ESI to be pro active because Macaulay is on a modest contract.
In every business you must know your star turns and the warm up acts( still important but easier to replace) for Cafc to have momentum and takes the forward steps on this journey then solutions must be found.
This could be a fantastic time to be a Cafc fan and 24k Charlton supporting fans would ( I know some will be football tourists) create a buoyant atmosphere. How great would it be to watch our young players become Charlton premier stars of the future, Now that would be different !
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.
Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club?
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach the ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view along ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one of lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
I've come into this discussion saying I have no idea what the situation is, and have only taken in the answers people have given me. So no need to get shirty.
That's all very vague... Are the loans due or not?
Why wouldn't ESI contact the directors to enquire, isn't that what due diligence is?
Are you saying they DID promise something, or they may have?
You’d need to know what has happened (been purchased by ESI) and what the agreement says, plus legal advice, to know whether they are due. But I do believe expectations were created.
Any idea why ESI or their members are still not listed in companies house on any of the companies directly associated with us?
Charlton athletic football company ltd. Charlton athletic holdings ltd. Baton 2010 ltd.
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach the ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view along ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one of lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
I've come into this discussion saying I have no idea what the situation is, and have only taken in the answers people have given me. So no need to get shirty.
That's all very vague... Are the loans due or not?
Why wouldn't ESI contact the directors to enquire, isn't that what due diligence is?
Are you saying they DID promise something, or they may have?
I think those questions are (almost) answered in Airman's post right above yours?
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.
Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club?
As opposed to an electronics manufacturer and a lawyer..?
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach the ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view along ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one of lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
I've come into this discussion saying I have no idea what the situation is, and have only taken in the answers people have given me. So no need to get shirty.
That's all very vague... Are the loans due or not?
Why wouldn't ESI contact the directors to enquire, isn't that what due diligence is?
Are you saying they DID promise something, or they may have?
You’d need to know what has happened (been purchased by ESI) and what the agreement says, plus legal advice, to know whether they are due. But I do believe expectations were created.
Any idea why ESI or their members are still not listed in companies house on any of the companies directly associated with us?
Charlton athletic football company ltd. Charlton athletic holdings ltd. Baton 2010 ltd.
It could be significant but may not be. The Staprix takeover appears to have taken a month to appear online. This may have had to do with Slater having to settle with and pay off Steve Kavanagh before the deal was finalised, however.
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.
Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club?
What clubs these days are bought by pure footballing people or local fans?
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.
Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club?
What clubs these days are bought by pure footballing people or local fans?
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.
Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club?
What clubs these days are bought by pure footballing people or local fans?
None or as near to none as makes no diffrence.
But property people never see a property angle and football agents always have the reputation for putting thier clients interests above there own don't they?
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."
Well... Because they're not due?
I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.
Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club?
As opposed to an electronics manufacturer and a lawyer..?
I know a club not far from the valley that have a Dildo dealer, porn provider and a woman who was made a CEO at 24 because the porn provider had a soft ? Spot for her. Owners, Chairmen, and CEO's come from an eclectic mix of backgrounds. In the above case, batteries and tissues may be provided.
I think a lot of fans who have been wetting themselves will hopefully be a tad drier today
Wouldn't hold your breath...could sign 5 class players by lunchtime and it would be straight onto the next episodes of knee knocking, ball shrinking, arse flapping, spleen shitting, pant pissing outpourings by teatime.
Repeat ad nauseam.
I don't believe there is rap dedicated to Charlton yet, but with the addition of gut wrenching at the end we could have an opening line.
Comments
Things like better travel to games. Maybe take a plane to longer distance games when we've got a bit of a fixture pile up or.stsy in a decent hotel the night before?
Better quality food, drink etc.
Marginal gains as Dave Brailsford would say.
Repeat ad nauseam.
Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?
it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.
We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.
De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.
The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.
Player from the Championship - if (former club) don’t want him why would we? Planning for League 1 next season
Lower league prospect - players from (league name) won’t keep us up. Planning for League 1 next season
Player from abroad - can’t be a Gallen/Bowyer signing, will need time to settle
That's all very vague... Are the loans due or not?
Why wouldn't ESI contact the directors to enquire, isn't that what due diligence is?
Are you saying they DID promise something, or they may have?
Im assuming you have more knowledge via your contacts.
It could be argued that it is business critical.
Provide open communication ☑️
Sign up Bowyer ☑️
Sign up Jackson and Marshall ❓but Bow said he'd sign when they're sorted.
Don't sell Taylor ✅ - so far
Sign up Taylor ⏳
Sign up Cullen ⏳
Sign some players to improve us ⏳
Complete the purchase of the freeholds ⏳
I don't think it's something I'll concern myself with further. It's a business transaction and it's between them and ESI.
I do wish them the best of luck. They helped the club out in its time of need. But I struggle to think of a business owner who would pay off loans that weren't his if he could possibly find that he was not liable to pay them. It's business, after all.
A creative package must be possible for Lyle, can you imagine if Leicester didn't give Jamie Vardy a cracking pay rise when they were in the Championship ?
Goal bonus and assists can be included in the package. I'm fed up with Charlton being a selling club or letting quality leave so be dynamic Matt Southall, and plead with HE that for any 5 year plan which includes Premier football coming to fruition, then the first year to get the big calls right is paramount. Bowyer signed first, which after the initial misunderstanding has been achieved.
I can't believe that ESI have paid 50 to 60 million at completion of the Valley and Sparrows lane which will finally make RD history, to carry on with Charlton being a mediocre football team where we celebrate finishing 21st in the Championship.
The " Marquee signings" would be Taylor and Cullen, if the rest are players from League 1 then no problem if they fit the profile that Bowyer and Gallen have identified. Bonne have taken his chance and would love ESI to be pro active because Macaulay is on a modest contract.
In every business you must know your star turns and the warm up acts( still important but easier to replace) for Cafc to have momentum and takes the forward steps on this journey then solutions must be found.
This could be a fantastic time to be a Cafc fan and 24k Charlton supporting fans would ( I know some will be football tourists) create a buoyant atmosphere.
How great would it be to watch our young players become Charlton premier stars of the future, Now that would be different !
Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club?
If we're not careful we are going to be banned from the 2030 Champions League!
Charlton athletic football company ltd.
Charlton athletic holdings ltd.
Baton 2010 ltd.
What clubs these days are bought by pure footballing people or local fans?
But property people never see a property angle and football agents always have the reputation for putting thier clients interests above there own don't they?
Owners, Chairmen, and CEO's come from an eclectic mix of backgrounds.
In the above case, batteries and tissues may be provided.