Lauren Kreamer still isn't bovvered
Comments
-
Great article.
She really is wonderful isn’t she? ❤️5 -
So Marian Mihail was a good guy. I thank him and Lauren for all their hard work.19
-
Very reassuring. Thanks Lauren.2
-
"There have been times this year when I have felt desperate and despondent about the future of our football club (and that’s before I even get started on Naby leaving us)"
Nice to see that me and Leuth have company in Sobber's Corner ...11 -
I really appreciate this article because I and maybe all fans are still a bit worried, that there may be a sting in the tail waiting to happen.
This interview hopefully dispels that and 'Tooth' Freeman!'
Thanks Lauren and CAST.4 -
Brilliant article - tidies up practically all of the questions that we supporters have been asking. Eye catching that LK cant work out whether the terms of the injunction were a mistake - really really hope that it was all one big legal cock up on their side.
Anyway reminds me; I need to ring my new dentist again.
4 -
That made fantastic reading.1
-
Interesting Q and A from Lauren.
"Two bald men fighting over a comb"
LOL
If Lauren gives a good reference to Marian Mihail for his work behind the scenes for CAFC then we should accept that endorsement.
After the Wigan owner checked out putting the football club into adminstration BEFORE buying Wigan we may count ourselves very lucky that we not only have the Trust but a very knowledgeable fan base.
We are fortunate to have Laura and her legal experience and the other 5 who were elected to the board recently all bringing their different skill set to the table.
Many thanks to the other two candidates who stood as well.
Weggie as Chair person will lead the Trust into having even more members in the future, 3000 and counting.11 -
From my brief snippets of correspondence with MM on LinkedIn, I had the impression he was one of the good guys and doing his utmost to help us.Very happy this has now been proven.4
-
Service above and beyond, Lauren joins an exceptional few in the story of Charlton Athletic.2
-
Sponsored links:
-
Really good article that. If anything the title slightly underplays the detail provided
All along, I trusted Marian. I'm not saying that everything he did was right, but to me his heart was in the right place which makes a massive difference when you compare him to the likes of Southall and Farnell7 -
Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
0 -
“It’s only through the presence behind the scenes of proper Charlton people, who understand what the club is and what it means, that we still have a club to pay £10 to watch lose away at Burton on a Tuesday night.”
😂24 -
Yes in her opinion if they had worded the injunction to be that ESI can not sell ESI or the asset Charlton then the court would of agreed and as such Charlton would not have been sold to TS without paying off ESI 2.Danny Addick said:Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
4 -
Lauren is (quite rightly) very careful in everything she says. She has also (quite rightly) been very careful about what she has said informally to the rest of us on the CAST board.Danny Addick said:Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
But I read this as:
1. She thinks it was a mistake on their part ("I suspect your speculation is right")
2. She was kept awake worrying that they would notice their mistake in time and amend it.
3. If they had amended it to include CAFC they would have been granted it.3 -
Wasn't there chat in the court that Charlton Athletic were not to be considered part of it , for the case of the injunction Lex Dominus wanted against ESI... I struggle to keep up with this shit0
-
Pico said:
Lauren is (quite rightly) very careful in everything she says. She has also (quite rightly) been very careful about what she has said informally to the rest of us on the CAST board.Danny Addick said:Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
But I read this as:
1. She thinks it was a mistake on their part ("I suspect your speculation is right")
2. She was kept awake worrying that they would notice their mistake in time and amend it.
3. If they had amended it to include CAFC they would have been granted it.
That must be a bigger own goal that a CB hitting a back pass to his keeper who misses the ball and a goal results for the opposition in say a playoff final.
I find it hard to believe that such a basic mistake could be made by a legal team or two defenders.
7 -
Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.
8 -
What a wonderful lady she is! Thank you, Lauren, from all very anxious fans like me. Reassuring us once again.
Also really glad to read that Marian was a good guy in all this, as he came across as one, but with the other dodgy cast around him, I was still very suspicious.
Thanks to all involved behind the scenes, that saved CAFC and brought us Thomas!2 -
That is chilling. So scary that we were that close to being in the hands of Farnell & Co.Pico said:
Lauren is (quite rightly) very careful in everything she says. She has also (quite rightly) been very careful about what she has said informally to the rest of us on the CAST board.Danny Addick said:Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
But I read this as:
1. She thinks it was a mistake on their part ("I suspect your speculation is right")
2. She was kept awake worrying that they would notice their mistake in time and amend it.
3. If they had amended it to include CAFC they would have been granted it.
That was a brilliant article btw and painted in a lot of the background detail. Many thanks.6 -
Sponsored links:
-
Elliott saying things on the radio that are, "categorically untrue" as part of a "strategy". Who'd have thought it?0
-
Impressive imagination, surely that would never happen...soapboxsam said:Pico said:
Lauren is (quite rightly) very careful in everything she says. She has also (quite rightly) been very careful about what she has said informally to the rest of us on the CAST board.Danny Addick said:Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
But I read this as:
1. She thinks it was a mistake on their part ("I suspect your speculation is right")
2. She was kept awake worrying that they would notice their mistake in time and amend it.
3. If they had amended it to include CAFC they would have been granted it.
That must be a bigger own goal that a CB hitting a back pass to his keeper who misses the ball and a goal results for the opposition in say a playoff final.
I find it hard to believe that such a basic mistake could be made by a legal team or two defenders.2 -
I know!soapboxsam said:Interesting Q and A from Lauren.
"Two bald men fighting over a comb"
LOL
If Lauren gives a good reference to Marian Mihail for his work behind the scenes for CAFC then we should accept that endorsement.
After the Wigan owner checked out putting the football club into adminstration BEFORE buying Wigan we may count ourselves very lucky that we not only have the Trust but a very knowledgeable fan base.
We are fortunate to have Laura and her legal experience and the other 5 who were elected to the board recently all bringing their different skill set to the table.
Many thanks to the other two candidates who stood as well.
Weggie as Chair person will lead the Trust into having even more members in the future, 3000 and counting.
I’ve resisted for years.
I’m struggling to justify my non conformity now.
All it would take is for the great Lady Tracey to ask me to do it and my willpower will be gone 😜3 -
Absolutely brilliant interview.
An immensely complicated issue explained in simple English that even I can understand!5 -
That’s how I remember it too.MattF said:Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.The early moments of the court case with Chaisty’s introduction was increasingly anxious for us following along, as he kept making it clear this was not about the club and community, and we were all tearing our hair out screaming that that’s all this is about.7 -
Probably where their screwup came from ... they thought it helped their case to keep us out if it ... how wrong they were ... although if it had been about the club and the community, they may have lost anyway.stoneroses19 said:
That’s how I remember it too.MattF said:Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.The early moments of the court case with Chaisty’s introduction was increasingly anxious for us following along, as he kept making it clear this was not about the club and community, and we were all tearing our hair out screaming that that’s all this is about.Thankfully, we don’t have to worry about it.2 -
Great article. I read the whole thing with a feeling almost of disbelief. Disbelief that we really did escape from the clutches of conmen and were safely gathered up by a rich, wise and benevolent protector. It puts me in mind of the famous scene in Planet Earth 2 where the iguana has to run the gauntlet of the snakes to make it to the water’s edge.9
-
soapboxsam said:Pico said:
Lauren is (quite rightly) very careful in everything she says. She has also (quite rightly) been very careful about what she has said informally to the rest of us on the CAST board.Danny Addick said:Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
But I read this as:
1. She thinks it was a mistake on their part ("I suspect your speculation is right")
2. She was kept awake worrying that they would notice their mistake in time and amend it.
3. If they had amended it to include CAFC they would have been granted it.
That must be a bigger own goal that a CB hitting a back pass to his keeper who misses the ball and a goal results for the opposition in say a playoff final.
I find it hard to believe that such a basic mistake could be made by a legal team or two defenders.
I think it speaks loudly to the amateurish chances that make up Lex Dominus.
0 -
Maybe he (Chaisty) screwed up then, in choosing how he would conduct his case?stoneroses19 said:
That’s how I remember it too.MattF said:Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.The early moments of the court case with Chaisty’s introduction was increasingly anxious for us following along, as he kept making it clear this was not about the club and community, and we were all tearing our hair out screaming that that’s all this is about.0 -
Can you imagine what the air would have been like once Farnell, Elliot and anyone else involved in their little syndicate realised their rudimentary mistake? Blimey, it must have turned blue as the various parties screamed at each other for their stupidity in getting things wrong!roseandcrown said:
Yes in her opinion if they had worded the injunction to be that ESI can not sell ESI or the asset Charlton then the court would of agreed and as such Charlton would not have been sold to TS without paying off ESI 2.Danny Addick said:Q: Why do you think Lex Dominus didn’t specifically reference the sale of the football club in the injunction? Was it just a basic mistake?
LK: It’s a great question and its one that kept me awake for weeks and months on end. Obviously, I wasn’t instructed in relation to the sale as that would have been improper because I was instructed in relation to the injunction proceedings. It is a question I still don’t know the answer to and I suspect that your speculation is right.
What I can say is that, if they had asked the court to grant an injunction restraining the sale of the shares in ESI and CAFC, I have absolutely no doubt that the court would have granted that injunction.
I’m a bit confused by all this, could someone please explain this is terms that a jam donut could understand? Does it mean Thomas was only able to buy the club because Paul Elliot forgot to write in the injunction that he wanted to prevent CAFC from being sold?
How wonderful!14
