Presumably as part of due diligence TS’ representatives would have seen all company bank statements and accounts for the period in question and would have seen any money being put in and questioned where it came from. I would also think as part of the sale Southal would have had to sign some kind of agreement along the lines of everything related to financial matters had been disclosed. I am no corporate lawyer, but that would just seem like basic common sense in these matters. If so presumably TS will know of the validity of the claim and either be expecting it or will be able to tell him to fuck off and that he will claim for any legal expenses he occurs in dealing with the matter.
Also why has this taken a year or more to reach this point? If you are owed a sizeable sum wouldn't this be pursued expediently and you would seek a winding up order much sooner.
Unless of course there has been 'to & fro' between all parties throughout this period and this is the final action to conclude it once and for all.
I've now had a telcon with the author of the article Paul Harris, and having overcome our initial mutual suspicion, I've sent him the link to the Dossier website and expressed the hope of a more "nuanced" follow-up. He said that he attends Manchester area football regularly and that he covered Bassini's previous antics at Bolton.
Let's see. But this is what the Dossier website was built for.
I've now had a telcon with the author of the article Paul Harris, and having overcome our initial mutual suspicion, I've sent him the link to the Dossier website and expressed the hope of a more "nuanced" follow-up. He said that he attends Manchester area football regularly and that he covered Bassini's previous antics at Bolton.
Let's see. But this is what the Dossier website was built for.
It despairs me there is not one decent journalist, paper or TV programme prepared to do something in exposing these absolute parasites for what they are
Indeed. That is why we created the Dossier, and we will take the opportunity to deploy it on this matter.
However it would seem some people on this thread can't be arsed to actually read in detail what we know about Bassini and this claim, even when it is suggested to them. For those who really,really can't be arsed, here is a cut and paste of the pop-up summary. It basically tells you all you need to know
Bassini’s name was familiar to fans mainly thanks to his controversial ownership of Watford. He was briefly reported by the media to be interested in a bid for Charlton in May 2020. However documents subsequently emerged which showed that Bassini was claiming to be owed £1.25m by Charlton as a “finder’s fee” for his supposed involvement in assisting ESI’s purchase. This claim appears to have been dismissed by the club. Lee Amis has asserted that he (Amis) was the person who introduced ESI to Richard Murray, so he says Bassini’s supposed role is a bogus claim. Certainly such an amount for a finder’s fee would be highly excessive, and Bassini’s lawyers produced no contract to support the claim.
Is there really the need to act so combative?
I know what’s in the dossier, I’ve been following Charlton’s ownership saga for some time now. He wants a settlement and it wouldn’t surprise me if he got one just to shut him up.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if this is a non-story that won’t see past the weekend.
LB might be a toxic fat oxygen thief but he is succeeding in winding up those of us who actually care about Charlton. He's like that summer night mosquito that buzzes close to your ear just as you're nodding off, bugging the heck out of you but ultimately harmless/pointless. My money's on TS having the legal equivalent of a massive fly swat and huge aerosol of Raid.
I imagine it will resolve in a settlement, which is all he wants.
You have to be joking. The “invoice” and surrounding nonsense is all available to inspect on the Dossier website. Just go to the map and click on his ugly mug.
Why do I have to be joking?
This resolving in a settlement doesn’t sound pie in the sky to me. I hope it doesn’t, I hope Thomas takes them all to court but I don’t see that happening.
He'll be looking for exactly this though. I hope we do settle with him, and TS goes "I've looked into it buddy, here's a fiver, now fuck off"
The best form of reply would be along the lines of the famous case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971)
Solicitors' letter to Private Eye:
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.
His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.
We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
The reply that the Eye sent back was:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
LB might be a toxic fat oxygen thief but he is succeeding in winding up those of us who actually care about Charlton. He's like that summer night mosquito that buzzes close to your ear just as you're nodding off, bugging the heck out of you but ultimately harmless/pointless. My money's on TS having the legal equivalent of a massive fly swat and huge aerosol of Raid.
I’m not fan of Lee Bowyer either, but he did get us promoted.
It despairs me there is not one decent journalist, paper or TV programme prepared to do something in exposing these absolute parasites for what they are
Indeed. That is why we created the Dossier, and we will take the opportunity to deploy it on this matter.
However it would seem some people on this thread can't be arsed to actually read in detail what we know about Bassini and this claim, even when it is suggested to them. For those who really,really can't be arsed, here is a cut and paste of the pop-up summary. It basically tells you all you need to know
Bassini’s name was familiar to fans mainly thanks to his controversial ownership of Watford. He was briefly reported by the media to be interested in a bid for Charlton in May 2020. However documents subsequently emerged which showed that Bassini was claiming to be owed £1.25m by Charlton as a “finder’s fee” for his supposed involvement in assisting ESI’s purchase. This claim appears to have been dismissed by the club. Lee Amis has asserted that he (Amis) was the person who introduced ESI to Richard Murray, so he says Bassini’s supposed role is a bogus claim. Certainly such an amount for a finder’s fee would be highly excessive, and Bassini’s lawyers produced no contract to support the claim.
Is there really the need to act so combative?
I know what’s in the dossier, I’ve been following Charlton’s ownership saga for some time now. He wants a settlement and it wouldn’t surprise me if he got one just to shut him up.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if this is a non-story that won’t see past the weekend.
Sweet Jesus. If you've read the file on him, then please explain to me, please explain to all of us, settlement for what exactly?
Will we ever be free from these parasite scumbags ? not that I think there is a chance in hell of anything coming of this but why on earth do they keep thinking they can come back and have a go ????
I posted the full correspondence and papers relating to this bogus claim on CL some time ago but admin closed it and then stole my promote so I can't be arsed to find it and post a link
The usual nonsense from Bassini and his ilk. In addition to the extract from the dossier quoted by Prague, I'm struggling to see how Southall could retrospectively "transfer on to the club" a finder's fee.
It's noteworthy that Bassini didn't take his sabre-rattling story to a more mainstream publication or, if he did, that they declined to cover it. He's doubtless hoping for some coverage from parasitical, clickbait websites.
Any winding up petition that he issues at the expiration of the statutory 21 day period would undoubtedly be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court. The alleged debt is clearly disputed and, at the risk of understatement, there would be no difficulty whatsoever in satisfying the relatively low threshold for a strike out, namely, that there is a triable issue - in fact, there are probably more triable issues than you can shake a stick at.
Owing to the fact that spurious winding up petitions can give rise to problems for companies, it is possible to apply to the court for an injunction to restrain the would-be or actual petitioner from presenting, pursuing and/or advertising it under the Insolvency Rules. I suspect that Thomas may instruct Freshfields to threaten injunctive relief or, alternatively, to simply warn Bassini that an immediate strike out will be sought if a petition is issued.
It's a minor, unnecessary distraction but I give this story about as much credence as the famous Welsh accountant and specialist in dental practices, who acquired the ESI shell and then demanded that Thomas hand over the club.
I suspect if his claim was going that well or was indeed even that valid I very much doubt he’d been pushing it so hard in the press - especially begging Richard Cawley to post something about it
I suspect if his claim was going that well or was indeed even that valid I very much doubt he’d been pushing it so hard in the press - especially begging Richard Cawley to post something about it
No reputable publication would run it so he found some vanity project run by an associate in Manchester to put it out there.
At least it drags Southall's dirty tricks back into the limelight when he's trying to rob Rochdale.
It despairs me there is not one decent journalist, paper or TV programme prepared to do something in exposing these absolute parasites for what they are
Indeed. That is why we created the Dossier, and we will take the opportunity to deploy it on this matter.
However it would seem some people on this thread can't be arsed to actually read in detail what we know about Bassini and this claim, even when it is suggested to them. For those who really,really can't be arsed, here is a cut and paste of the pop-up summary. It basically tells you all you need to know
Bassini’s name was familiar to fans mainly thanks to his controversial ownership of Watford. He was briefly reported by the media to be interested in a bid for Charlton in May 2020. However documents subsequently emerged which showed that Bassini was claiming to be owed £1.25m by Charlton as a “finder’s fee” for his supposed involvement in assisting ESI’s purchase. This claim appears to have been dismissed by the club. Lee Amis has asserted that he (Amis) was the person who introduced ESI to Richard Murray, so he says Bassini’s supposed role is a bogus claim. Certainly such an amount for a finder’s fee would be highly excessive, and Bassini’s lawyers produced no contract to support the claim.
Is there really the need to act so combative?
I know what’s in the dossier, I’ve been following Charlton’s ownership saga for some time now. He wants a settlement and it wouldn’t surprise me if he got one just to shut him up.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if this is a non-story that won’t see past the weekend.
Sweet Jesus. If you've read the file on him, then please explain to me, please explain to all of us, settlement for what exactly?
Spare me the patronising tone, it doesn’t make it easy to communicate with you.
It seems to me that’s the game these chancers play, threaten a bunch of legal action with flimsy evidence in the hope of a small pay-off outside of the courtroom. I’m not saying he deserves a settlement or has any legal precedent - just that TS may pay him a nominal fee to crawl back into his hole.
I don’t see that being unfathomable, happy to be informed otherwise.
It despairs me there is not one decent journalist, paper or TV programme prepared to do something in exposing these absolute parasites for what they are
Indeed. That is why we created the Dossier, and we will take the opportunity to deploy it on this matter.
However it would seem some people on this thread can't be arsed to actually read in detail what we know about Bassini and this claim, even when it is suggested to them. For those who really,really can't be arsed, here is a cut and paste of the pop-up summary. It basically tells you all you need to know
Bassini’s name was familiar to fans mainly thanks to his controversial ownership of Watford. He was briefly reported by the media to be interested in a bid for Charlton in May 2020. However documents subsequently emerged which showed that Bassini was claiming to be owed £1.25m by Charlton as a “finder’s fee” for his supposed involvement in assisting ESI’s purchase. This claim appears to have been dismissed by the club. Lee Amis has asserted that he (Amis) was the person who introduced ESI to Richard Murray, so he says Bassini’s supposed role is a bogus claim. Certainly such an amount for a finder’s fee would be highly excessive, and Bassini’s lawyers produced no contract to support the claim.
Is there really the need to act so combative?
I know what’s in the dossier, I’ve been following Charlton’s ownership saga for some time now. He wants a settlement and it wouldn’t surprise me if he got one just to shut him up.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if this is a non-story that won’t see past the weekend.
Sweet Jesus. If you've read the file on him, then please explain to me, please explain to all of us, settlement for what exactly?
Spare me the patronising tone, it doesn’t make it easy to communicate with you.
It seems to me that’s the game these chancers play, threaten a bunch of legal action with flimsy evidence in the hope of a small pay-off outside of the courtroom. I’m not saying he deserves a settlement or has any legal precedent - just that TS may pay him a nominal fee to crawl back into his hole.
I don’t see that being unfathomable, happy to be informed otherwise.
Well I'm sorry if you feel patronised but it's a bit exasperating that if you've read the file you still think there is any basis at all for a "settlement". In the file you can see the letter from Bassini's lawyers. £1.2m is a huge amount of money for a "finders fee". Is there a contract between Bassini and CAFC? Nope. A scope of work document outlining what Bassini would do in order to earn a fee? Nope. Any evidence of any contact at all between Bassini and CAFC in the process of "introducing" Southall to CAFC. Nope, for the good reason that Southall had already been "introduced". Lee Amis is "on the record" (on our website) as having introduced Southall to CAFC. Amis says that this was one reason for the fee he was paid by CAFC - and that was £60k. Whatever you think of that figure, or Amis, as a fee it is a lot more real-world than £1.2m, and the evidence that he made this introduction there for all to see. So if he did it, quite patently Bassini did not, and his lawyers have nothing to prove otherwise. So why give this no-mark a penny? If he succeeds it encourages him to do it again and for others to do the same at other clubs.
All of this nonsense costs TS time and money. Time and money that we want him to spend on our football club. And that's why we should all do our bit to help make Bassini feck right off, right now, with not a penny.
It despairs me there is not one decent journalist, paper or TV programme prepared to do something in exposing these absolute parasites for what they are
Indeed. That is why we created the Dossier, and we will take the opportunity to deploy it on this matter.
However it would seem some people on this thread can't be arsed to actually read in detail what we know about Bassini and this claim, even when it is suggested to them. For those who really,really can't be arsed, here is a cut and paste of the pop-up summary. It basically tells you all you need to know
Bassini’s name was familiar to fans mainly thanks to his controversial ownership of Watford. He was briefly reported by the media to be interested in a bid for Charlton in May 2020. However documents subsequently emerged which showed that Bassini was claiming to be owed £1.25m by Charlton as a “finder’s fee” for his supposed involvement in assisting ESI’s purchase. This claim appears to have been dismissed by the club. Lee Amis has asserted that he (Amis) was the person who introduced ESI to Richard Murray, so he says Bassini’s supposed role is a bogus claim. Certainly such an amount for a finder’s fee would be highly excessive, and Bassini’s lawyers produced no contract to support the claim.
So he disappeared for well over a year and returned after adding on an extra 450k, excellent stuff.
If he had a legitimate claim why the fuck would he wait all this time?
The guys got no chance of seeing a single penny, Sandgaard's lawyers will laugh at him.
Comments
Unless of course there has been 'to & fro' between all parties throughout this period and this is the final action to conclude it once and for all.
Let's see. But this is what the Dossier website was built for.
I know what’s in the dossier, I’ve been following Charlton’s ownership saga for some time now. He wants a settlement and it wouldn’t surprise me if he got one just to shut him up.
He's like that summer night mosquito that buzzes close to your ear just as you're nodding off, bugging the heck out of you but ultimately harmless/pointless.
My money's on TS having the legal equivalent of a massive fly swat and huge aerosol of Raid.
Solicitors' letter to Private Eye:
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.
His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.
We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
The reply that the Eye sent back was:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
It's noteworthy that Bassini didn't take his sabre-rattling story to a more mainstream publication or, if he did, that they declined to cover it. He's doubtless hoping for some coverage from parasitical, clickbait websites.
Any winding up petition that he issues at the expiration of the statutory 21 day period would undoubtedly be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court. The alleged debt is clearly disputed and, at the risk of understatement, there would be no difficulty whatsoever in satisfying the relatively low threshold for a strike out, namely, that there is a triable issue - in fact, there are probably more triable issues than you can shake a stick at.
Owing to the fact that spurious winding up petitions can give rise to problems for companies, it is possible to apply to the court for an injunction to restrain the would-be or actual petitioner from presenting, pursuing and/or advertising it under the Insolvency Rules. I suspect that Thomas may instruct Freshfields to threaten injunctive relief or, alternatively, to simply warn Bassini that an immediate strike out will be sought if a petition is issued.
It's a minor, unnecessary distraction but I give this story about as much credence as the famous Welsh accountant and specialist in dental practices, who acquired the ESI shell and then demanded that Thomas hand over the club.
At least it drags Southall's dirty tricks back into the limelight when he's trying to rob Rochdale.
It seems to me that’s the game these chancers play, threaten a bunch of legal action with flimsy evidence in the hope of a small pay-off outside of the courtroom. I’m not saying he deserves a settlement or has any legal precedent - just that TS may pay him a nominal fee to crawl back into his hole.
I don’t see that being unfathomable, happy to be informed otherwise.
I'm desperate for karma to pay the likes of Southall and Bassini a really horrible visit but life doesn't seem to work that way.
All of this nonsense costs TS time and money. Time and money that we want him to spend on our football club. And that's why we should all do our bit to help make Bassini feck right off, right now, with not a penny.
Shall we invite them to the next fans meeting?
If he had a legitimate claim why the fuck would he wait all this time?
The guys got no chance of seeing a single penny, Sandgaard's lawyers will laugh at him.