Lauren, from the bottom of my Charlton heart, THANK YOU for your help and expertise in keeping this club/community from extinction. Keep safe, have a wonderful christmas.
However close CAFC came to falling into the hands of ne'erdowells or charlatans, I still fail to see what they thought they'd get out of it. Unless they had yet another, even richer fucktard lined up to flog it on to immediately, all that CAFC represented at the time was a mountain of liabilities with negligible revenue. The ESI(1) version of the business was saddled with the ultra moronic commitments to the rat as well. The cash cow that mouthall thought he'd secured had already been drained to beef jerky.
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.
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
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.
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
I think this is right. I was thinking the same.
If that matter was presented in the injunction case, they risked failing due to the case that LK/PM were making about how limited the time was for club to survive.
I am sure that LK was worried but I doubt it was a mistake as simple as they just didn't spot the ability for ESI to sell its asset.
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.
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
I think this is right. I was thinking the same.
If that matter was presented in the injunction case, they risked failing due to the case that LK/PM were making about how limited the time was for club to survive.
I am sure that LK was worried but I doubt it was a mistake as simple as they just didn't spot the ability for ESI to sell its asset.
That makes it sound like it was a calculated risk, which it couldn't have been, since the injunction didn't stop the sale of the club, and what they actually applied for meant they lost everything.
I think both Hanlon's and Occam's razors might apply here.
Think also TS may have been underestimated in his ability to re-negotiate the various deals with Roland needed to take on the club, might be they felt that no-one would want to try and take CAFC off ESI and cop it for the agreements that Southall had made
I am so impressed by the commitment of you guys..exiled in Belfast, Leeds and Edinburgh for the past 30 years, I miss the Valley and you are keeping it alive for me . Thanks.
good interview, very informative plus the bit at the bottom from the Benjy guy - maybe i'm doing the trust a disservice but it certainly seems to have gone up a few gears in the last few weeks - slicker and more bullish and sure of itself and prepared to say it how it is - i like that
However close CAFC came to falling into the hands of ne'erdowells or charlatans, I still fail to see what they thought they'd get out of it. Unless they had yet another, even richer fucktard lined up to flog it on to immediately, all that CAFC represented at the time was a mountain of liabilities with negligible revenue. The ESI(1) version of the business was saddled with the ultra moronic commitments to the rat as well. The cash cow that mouthall thought he'd secured had already been drained to beef jerky.
All in the past. Onwards and upwards COYR
I also struggle to understand their medium/long game, and given the cash would have run out. I can only conclude that administration was the objective in order to realise cash from the most valuable asset i.e players.
It could explain why friends and family became debtors of such ridiculous amounts if these third party debts would have made the club non-viable as a going concern and resulted in the administrator having to wind-up the club and sell players rather than a sale of the whole club to a new owner.
On a wind-up, after meeting debts, the balance goes back to the shareholders. Is this why TN fell out with MS? - TN was being shafted out of a full share of the winding-up assets through MS and his mates creaming off the top.
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.
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
I think this is right. I was thinking the same.
If that matter was presented in the injunction case, they risked failing due to the case that LK/PM were making about how limited the time was for club to survive.
I am sure that LK was worried but I doubt it was a mistake as simple as they just didn't spot the ability for ESI to sell its asset.
The AGM was a great event, my fist one, and Lauren's session was particularly informative, candid and clear. She offered even more detail than covered in the excellent write up.
I was the person who asked this question at the meeting, and I still can't really understand why LD didn't attempt to prevent the sale of ESI's assets as well as ESI itself and its shares - maybe because I am not so familiar with detail of the previous Southall, Companies House case.
The whole discussion at the injunction hearing was about CAFC and the risk to its future, and the LD side didn't really hide that. Chaisty's main point at the first hearing was that media talk of a sale was just rumour, the club had started the season, wasn't in financial danger and that there was no tangible evidence of an imminent sale before a trial could be heard. He is smart and was able to make almost the total opposite argument the day after, but it was still about the club.
Maybe their position was intentional and they made the early call they could focus arguments in court solely on ESI and not its only asset. Or maybe it was just a massive oversight, an open goal miss of Ronny Rosenthal proportions. Whatever the case, it was a huge mistake.
I'm undecided whether I'm happier they missed what was right in front of them (perhaps because in their eyes it was only ever about ESI and flipping it on, never about the club), or that they attempted a clever strategic play and totally ballsed it up!
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 know! 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 😜
2819 as we stand, member 2820 wins........... a badge!
It makes you wonder if Marian Mihail had on purpose "messed" up a little in court to ensure they thought they would get away with it and not wonder about the "asset".
LK is class though! She's going to be treated like royalty in the covered end!
It makes you wonder if Marian Mihail had on purpose "messed" up a little in court to ensure they thought they would get away with it and not wonder about the "asset".
LK is class though! She's going to be treated like royalty in the covered end!
I wonder. I do seem to remember him talking about "smokescreens".
It makes you wonder if Marian Mihail had on purpose "messed" up a little in court to ensure they thought they would get away with it and not wonder about the "asset".
LK is class though! She's going to be treated like royalty in the covered end!
I wonder. I do seem to remember him talking about "smokescreens".
Pretty sure it was exactly that - his twitter feed mentioned smokescreens a couple of times.
Get the plaintiff to spot some minor error or inconsistency and they will focus on that in an attempt to win the case and miss out on the bigger picture.
Once this has all blown over with us in the dreamland, CF & co. behind bars and TS worshipped like a God in a packed out Valley - I hope Lauren releases a book on this madness with as much depth as legally safe to delve into.
I'm sure between us lot we can think of an apt book name....
Once this has all blown over with us in the dreamland, CF & co. behind bars and TS worshipped like a God in a packed out Valley - I hope Lauren releases a book on this madness with as much depth as legally safe to delve into.
I'm sure between us lot we can think of an apt book name....
Probably safer and more professional for Lauren to have somebody else write a book on the subject and perhaps maybe be a resource for the research. If only CAFC had such a person !
Comments
Oh one last thing, COME ON YOU REDS!!!
Unless they had yet another, even richer fucktard lined up to flog it on to immediately, all that CAFC represented at the time was a mountain of liabilities with negligible revenue. The ESI(1) version of the business was saddled with the ultra moronic commitments to the rat as well.
The cash cow that mouthall thought he'd secured had already been drained to beef jerky.
All in the past.
Onwards and upwards
COYR
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
If that matter was presented in the injunction case, they risked failing due to the case that LK/PM were making about how limited the time was for club to survive.
I am sure that LK was worried but I doubt it was a mistake as simple as they just didn't spot the ability for ESI to sell its asset.
But, of course, all they need is to hide their involvement - and find a 'stooge' to front a takeover.
I think both Hanlon's and Occam's razors might apply here.
Sod it ❤
It could explain why friends and family became debtors of such ridiculous amounts if these third party debts would have made the club non-viable as a going concern and resulted in the administrator having to wind-up the club and sell players rather than a sale of the whole club to a new owner.
On a wind-up, after meeting debts, the balance goes back to the shareholders. Is this why TN fell out with MS? - TN was being shafted out of a full share of the winding-up assets through MS and his mates creaming off the top.
I was the person who asked this question at the meeting, and I still can't really understand why LD didn't attempt to prevent the sale of ESI's assets as well as ESI itself and its shares - maybe because I am not so familiar with detail of the previous Southall, Companies House case.
The whole discussion at the injunction hearing was about CAFC and the risk to its future, and the LD side didn't really hide that. Chaisty's main point at the first hearing was that media talk of a sale was just rumour, the club had started the season, wasn't in financial danger and that there was no tangible evidence of an imminent sale before a trial could be heard. He is smart and was able to make almost the total opposite argument the day after, but it was still about the club.
Maybe their position was intentional and they made the early call they could focus arguments in court solely on ESI and not its only asset. Or maybe it was just a massive oversight, an open goal miss of Ronny Rosenthal proportions. Whatever the case, it was a huge mistake.
I'm undecided whether I'm happier they missed what was right in front of them (perhaps because in their eyes it was only ever about ESI and flipping it on, never about the club), or that they attempted a clever strategic play and totally ballsed it up!
Suppose you being around half a century younger than me could help you! 🤣
LK is class though! She's going to be treated like royalty in the covered end!
Get the plaintiff to spot some minor error or inconsistency and they will focus on that in an attempt to win the case and miss out on the bigger picture.
I'm sure between us lot we can think of an apt book name....