Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
CAST Meeting with the EFL
Comments
-
Wouldn’t object to Paul Chaisty ....MattF said:What's the betting that Paul Elliott has objected to every possible candidate for sitting on this panel1 -
Would be good to know the agenda and exactly what was asked ... but yes I also feel a little disappointed by this at the moment.Addickted said:The meeting gave CAST the opportunity to ask a number of questions about events at the club during the last nine months
What were the questions?
What was the exact response to each question?
Where CAST members asked if they wanted to ask any specific questions of the EFL or where they decided on by the CAST Board?
Why are the EFL unable to comment about the current ownership, embargo and OADTs?
What is the current position in regards to the statement the EFL put out in May about concerns of in fighting at the Club taking place on Social media?
Don't the EFL think it's a bit ridiculous not to have timescales in their appeals process? Why don't they add them in - it can't be difficult.
Sorry CAST, but this sounds so similar to the Fans Forum meetings that were taking place last year. It's just a box ticking exercise where absolutely sod all gets resolved and the fans are none the wiser as to what the fuck is going on.
Finally, why wait until after todays hearing to release that statement? It must have taken all of 20 minutes to write it up.It’s not a dig at CAST, probably more because I am pissed off that the EFL are allowing two groups of chancers to screw up our club and Bowyers plans, but I would like to believe that hard questions are being asked of the EFL.4 -
Ever get the feeling you're being strung along?1
-
@Cafc43v3r Think its 71 other clubs.
@Addickted Good questions. Who do we get the answers from ?
@killerandflash Agreed. If this meeting on was on Tuesday why didn't @castrust inform people before todays hearing ?
I know it sounds like I am criticising the Trust, I am a member, even though I haven't been to The Valley since March 2016, and do support them in general.
I just want honesty and transparency, something that the crooks have neither of.
Edit;
PE says that that he was refused first time on the OADT's by an administration error. His or @EFL’s ?
Could it be possible he knew about what would happen next (or not happen in the case of @EFL).0 -
Sorry, yes your obviously correct.Miserableoldgit said:@Cafc43v3r Think its 71 other clubs.
@Addickted Good questions. Who do we get the answers from ?
@killerandflash Agreed. If this meeting on was on Tuesday why didn't @castrust inform people before todays hearing ?
I know it sounds like I am criticising the Trust, I am a member, even though I haven't been to The Valley since March 2016, and do support them in general.
I just want honesty and transparency, something that the crooks have neither of.3 -
If PE fails the appeal he can appeal again and it goes to the Arbitration Panel. At that stage the rules say that, if the third member is not appointed within 14 days, the EFL asks the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to appoint the third member.LargeAddick said:
Wouldn’t object to Paul Chaisty ....MattF said:What's the betting that Paul Elliott has objected to every possible candidate for sitting on this panel
Why on earth there is not a similar provision for the first appeals process is beyond belief.
There is a review underway at the moment of EFL rules and no surprise if this will be addressed as a result of PE abusing the system - but too late to help us out of this shit fest.7 -
Will the review be completed before the World ends? I still can't understand why LK didb't make more of this. Ok, we hadn't gone out of business in the last couple of weeks, be we are learning that Elliot(t) is not rushing to get the appeal resolved either, even though he failed on a minor administrative point and resolution would greatly strengthen his position. I just don't get it. Maybe LK could explain to somebody (CAST?) who could then say it makes sense at least!Dippenhall said:
If PE fails the appeal he can appeal again and it goes to the Arbitration Panel. At that stage the rules say that, if the third member is not appointed within 14 days, the EFL asks the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to appoint the third member.LargeAddick said:
Wouldn’t object to Paul Chaisty ....MattF said:What's the betting that Paul Elliott has objected to every possible candidate for sitting on this panel
Why on earth there is not a similar provision for the first appeals process is beyond belief.
There is a review underway at the moment of EFL rules and no surprise if this will be addressed as a result of PE abusing the system - but too late to help us out of this shit fest.0 -
looks like CAST have been fobbed off with more EFL stalling bullshit . The EFL are not fit for purpose . They haven't been for quite some time.1
-
Pathetic really from CAST1
-
What a fucking load of horse-shit. I hope someone from CAST decked David Baldwin. I know I would have done. I am seething.....probably more angry than thus afternoon.ForeverAddickted said:
So, there is an appeals process that doesnt have a time element & the person appealing can have a say on all 3 of the people sitting on it.
Wow.
Just wow.
This needs to be given to the press. No wonder the EFL couldnt say how his appeal was going.
Fucked over twice. Just like my divorces.14 -
Sponsored links:
-
Did no-one from CAST ask them about who they are dealing with. A certain Chris Farnell. Is he not on their radar ?? Errr - Bury chaps ???3
-
They'll probably just remind CAST that they've done their bit by rejecting Farnell through the ODAT toogolfaddick said:Did no-one from CAST ask them about who they are dealing with. A certain Chris Farnell. Is he not on their radar ?? Errr - Bury chaps ???0 -
Absolutely fucking speechless. Beyond parody.
1 -
Each side appoint one allegedly independent person and each side both agree on the third.golfaddick said:ForeverAddickted said:
So, there is an appeals process that doesnt have a time element & the person appealing can have a say on all 3 of the people sitting on it.1 -
I don't think they were going to release it......not until @Large Addick asked.Addickted said:The meeting gave CAST the opportunity to ask a number of questions about events at the club during the last nine months
What were the questions?
What was the exact response to each question?
Where CAST members asked if they wanted to ask any specific questions of the EFL or where they decided on by the CAST Board?
Why are the EFL unable to comment about the current ownership, embargo and OADTs?
What is the current position in regards to the statement the EFL put out in May about concerns of in fighting at the Club taking place on Social media?
Don't the EFL think it's a bit ridiculous not to have timescales in their appeals process? Why don't they add them in - it can't be difficult.
Sorry CAST, but this sounds so similar to the Fans Forum meetings that were taking place last year. It's just a box ticking exercise where absolutely sod all gets resolved and the fans are none the wiser as to what the fuck is going on.
Finally, why wait until after todays hearing to release that statement? It must have taken all of 20 minutes to write it up.
Plenty glad I haven't joined.
1 -
Kreamer was on the board of CAST until very recently so I'm surprised if she didnt know what happened at that meeting.killerandflash said:
Agreed, the rules are farcical when you have someone who'd sole purpose is to not be disqualified, rather than wanting to be qualifiedrandy andy said:The EFL simply aren't set up to cope with a bad faith actor. Their rules assume that an owner (or potential owner) wants to pass the tests and operate the club. If you make that assumption then everything else makes sense. You assume the tested wants a quick resolution and will quickly agree a fair panel to hear their appeal.
It's the same with the courts. The judges today, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, had to assume that PE wants to buy us and wants to keep us trading. We all know differently, but the system is being exploited by these cockroaches.
The EFLs failure is to a)anticipate bad faith actors and b)to protect the integrity of their own rules
Even then, you'd expect a time limit
AND did Panorama/Kreamer know why Elliott's appeal hasn't happened yet, surely that information would have been relevant today?1 -
Given we didn't even convince the judges that there was any prejudice from a delay it would not have made a jot of difference.golfaddick said:
Kreamer was on the board of CAST until very recently so I'm surprised if she didnt know what happened at that meeting.killerandflash said:
Agreed, the rules are farcical when you have someone who'd sole purpose is to not be disqualified, rather than wanting to be qualifiedrandy andy said:The EFL simply aren't set up to cope with a bad faith actor. Their rules assume that an owner (or potential owner) wants to pass the tests and operate the club. If you make that assumption then everything else makes sense. You assume the tested wants a quick resolution and will quickly agree a fair panel to hear their appeal.
It's the same with the courts. The judges today, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, had to assume that PE wants to buy us and wants to keep us trading. We all know differently, but the system is being exploited by these cockroaches.
The EFLs failure is to a)anticipate bad faith actors and b)to protect the integrity of their own rules
Even then, you'd expect a time limit
AND did Panorama/Kreamer know why Elliott's appeal hasn't happened yet, surely that information would have been relevant today?0 -
Anyone betting against the third member nominated by LD was Mr Farnell - celebrated solicitor of serial wronguns.1 -
Either that or a Mr ChaistyDippenhall said:
Anyone betting against the third member nominated by LD was Mr Farnell - celebrated solicitor of serial wronguns.1 -
You would HOPE that the EFL would be able to object on gorunds of non-independence based on current proceedings, but I doubt itForeverAddickted said:
Either that or a Mr ChaistyDippenhall said:
Anyone betting against the third member nominated by LD was Mr Farnell - celebrated solicitor of serial wronguns.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Don’t really understand each side nominating one person and then agreeing to an independent third. Why not just one independent person in that case?8
-
I doubt he has any intention of ever nominating anyone.Dippenhall said:
Anyone betting against the third member nominated by LD was Mr Farnell - celebrated solicitor of serial wronguns.He doesn’t want to take the test, he doesn’t want to run the club.2 -
Which to me would have been pretty damning in courtLeeds_Addick said:
I doubt he has any intention of ever nominating anyone.Dippenhall said:
Anyone betting against the third member nominated by LD was Mr Farnell - celebrated solicitor of serial wronguns.He doesn’t want to take the test, he doesn’t want to run the club.
"Several weeks after he was rejected, PE has yet to arrange his appeal meeting with the EFL; indeed ones wonders whether he actually wants to be approved to own a football club"4 -
Well done the EFL, a comment that basically says "we've done nothing and we don't know when we will do anything".
Great job lads.6 -
So the CEO David Baldwin, whose face looks like a giant thumb said "he had taken an interest in Charlton's situation since his first day in the job and that he was determined to do all he could to bring about a positive outcome."
He's been in charge since June. 3 fucking months and he's done nothing.
The first question would surely be, how can you as CEO claim to be doing all you can, yet can't even give a date for when an appeal will be heard by.11 -
.1
-
Think this oadt test, or whatever it's called, needs to go back to basics. You fail it, go away for 6 months2
-
Well the first reform surely has to include a time frame that any appeal gets dealt withini_b_b_o_r_g said:Think this oadt test, or whatever it's called, needs to go back to basics. You fail it, go away for 6 months
Its madness to think that Elliott failed the ODAT 41-days (?) ago
We've had THREE court cases since then, had his appeal over the ODAT been rejected would we still be under an injunction?
Its highly doubtful!!!1 -
Many different disappointing things with this :-(5
-
Excellent point. He's been in the job three months and he's interested in Charlton? Sorry fella, I've never even heard of you before. If you care about Charlton, start shouting from the rooftop that it is unacceptable for rogues, chancers and outright criminals to be getting their claws into our clubs. Make it public, make uncomfortable and drive these fuckers out.Chris_from_Sidcup said:So the CEO David Baldwin, whose face looks like a giant thumb said "he had taken an interest in Charlton's situation since his first day in the job and that he was determined to do all he could to bring about a positive outcome."
He's been in charge since June. 3 fucking months and he's done nothing.
The first question would surely be, how can you as CEO claim to be doing all you can, yet can't even give a date for when an appeal will be heard by.
Or perhaps you'd rather not take that risk. Perhaps you'd prefer to keep quiet, do nothing and keep collecting a nice fat paycheck for doing bugger all. I won't be holding my breath.6
