I imagine that one solicitor's letter will do the trick and force Bassini to back down, rather than incurring all the costs of an injunction.
In the unlikely event that he or his company did issue a winding up petition- which would inevitably be struck out - there is, as @Athletico Charlton says, little or no chance of enforcing the costs order against Bassini or his alter ego. Any solicitors acting on their behalf would, however, be seriously exposed to a wasted costs order on the grounds that they had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently in issuing a petition which (1) had zero prospects of success and (2) constituted a serious abuse of the process of the court. Such a costs order would certainly be enforceable against the lawyers, so at least Thomas would see some money back. Leaving aside reputational considerations, why would any competent firm issue a petition at Bassini's behest and expose themselves to such a costs liability ?
Bassini's threats are totally risible and, despite his attempts to stir things up, we'll all probably have forgotten about it in a week or two.
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
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
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.
I think the twaddle you’ve written deserves all of
You know, in the cold light of day, I feel I should apologise to @ElliotCAFC. When you are close to something for whatever reason, you get impatient with those who haven't spent that time, or got that experience. It's not a qualification to be on Charlton Life to have that experience, so please accept my apologies @ElliottCAFC.
What gets my goat (not the comment so much, but Bassini's claim) is not just the lack of paperwork evidence but the ridiculous size of the claim. But I only know its ridiculous because I've done M&A work myself - and that basically the front end only, "finding" the right match, not the due diligence work which is for financial and legal teams. To give you an idea, the first time I found the right local ad agency for my client, a WPP agency, to successfully buy, I got £25k. Even then, he felt I got an easy ride because there really was only ever one candidate big enough in the market. So when he asked me to repeat the trick in Warsaw, a market I didn't know, I only got £8k ; but I didn't mind because I loved the work and the thrill of seeing it succeed. So, you know, £1.2m for what was only ever going to be a phone call to Richard Murray or de Turck is just off-the-scale ridiculous. (before we factor in that there's no evidence he made the call). But only very few Lifers would know that aspect.
But now we know, we should therefore all be able to agree that these naked try-ons should be firmly and "combatively" resisted by every fan. They are part of the pollutant of our modern world where wrong'uns (including global politicians) argue black is white and, deliberately, leave everybody confused. Which brings me, in a separate comment, to the lawyers who promulgate this shit....
Fair play @PragueAddick on your post and apology. Current comments from Lauren Kreamer looks LB gets the short shrift that the chancer deserves.
It does appear to be a legal threat to extort a pay off - as the original plan with Southall failed. Court process is expensive and I am sure that the courts are not impressed with a claim such as Bassini's that is used to extort money. Also with wasting court time, which is backed up due to Covid 19.
Bassini low life parasitic pond feeder. Should never be near any football club ever again.
Thomas Sandgaard is excellent on dealing with this kind of BS. Hearing Lauren Kreamer's comments is hugely reassuring too.
This was a question posed by @Blucher yesterday. Why do solicitors take on stuff like this? We have the benefit of Lauren's tweet which suggests the entire case does not even deserve to get to a courtroom. Does Bassini's lawyer, who appears to be this bloke, not know what Lauren has written, which seems to be legal basics? And here is another interesting thing. This appears to be a repeat effort of a previous claim by Bassini, which is reproduced in the file in the Dossier's website, but which was submitted by a different mob of solicitors, and was brushed aside by Thomas and his people. From what we read so far in the press, it's the same old nonsense. So why does Mr Osmond think he will succeed when Brandsmiths failed? Did Brandsmith's get paid by Bassini for their failure? Has Mr Osmond asked that question, and more generally has Mr Osmond not looked at Bassini's general standing and asked himself, am I going to get paid? Since I have no legal experience beyond my 2 years of studies as part of my biz degree, I have no clue how the "business' of lawyers work, but we have some on here, so it would be interesting to hear from them. Then finally the most open question....
A lawyer will represent their client to the best of their ability. Some lawyers might advise a client not to take a particular course of action and some might refuse to act, but if a client is hell bent on wanting to do something a lawyer will represent them.
Just because one lawyers view is that an issue is without foundation it doesnt mean they're always right or that another lawyer might not reasonably adopt a different view. That's what the courts are for.
Some claims might be spurious. Some might just be a try on hoping for a payout. But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties. You and I may think it's all bollocks, but ultimately that's for a court to decide, if it gets that far.
You also cant really question the "value" provided in determining whether there is a case as everyone has their own ideas about what anything is worth. In my experience if a deal is being put together that could potentially cost £60 million plus then you are going to expect some hefty fees as part of that. The man in the street ultimately has no say in what price is put on a transaction if the parties have agreed to it. Whether the parties actually did agree is the ultimate issue.
This is what I don't get. Bassini himself knows this try-on failed once. And the general view is that he's potless, so why is he willing to throw good money after bad on another round of legal fees, now? @Henry Irving above mentioned that he previously tried it on after he saw that Southall wasn't going to pay him in the way Southall had suggested. That seems a reasonable explanation. In which case would he be ready to team up once again with Southall? Is Southall himself offering to pay the fees (and is Bassini so stupid as to trust him again?)
Another theory from within an active fan cell (not currently much on CL) is that it might actually be Farnell behind it, and with the aim not of getting at Thomas, but rather at Southall and Nimer. You can see why Farnell might have a big grudge against those two. Thus far though I've not found anything linking Osmond to Farnell. Osmond looks like a solicitor to whom you might entrust some routine conveyancing work (one of the references on his website says exactly that ) but not really Farnell's type. You know, like Fred Rose, with whom he set up Kinky Enterprises, back in the day...
So I'm not at all sure about the Farnell theory, but I haven't got a better one. Anyone?
The firm linked is a two partner firm. Just a guess based on being friends with some lawyers in smaller firms. Smaller legal firms sometimes have to grind for billable hours. Receive a small retainer from the client, bill a few hours to draft/respond to demand letters. They know it won’t work but worst case scenario they bill Bassini 1-2k and if it does lead to something, they can make some more money
This is what I don't get. Bassini himself knows this try-on failed once. And the general view is that he's potless, so why is he willing to throw good money after bad on another round of legal fees, now? @Henry Irving above mentioned that he previously tried it on after he saw that Southall wasn't going to pay him in the way Southall had suggested. That seems a reasonable explanation. In which case would he be ready to team up once again with Southall? Is Southall himself offering to pay the fees (and is Bassini so stupid as to trust him again?)
Another theory from within an active fan cell (not currently much on CL) is that it might actually be Farnell behind it, and with the aim not of getting at Thomas, but rather at Southall and Nimer. You can see why Farnell might have a big grudge against those two. Thus far though I've not found anything linking Osmond to Farnell. Osmond looks like a solicitor to whom you might entrust some routine conveyancing work (one of the references on his website says exactly that ) but not really Farnell's type. You know, like Fred Rose, with whom he set up Kinky Enterprises, back in the day...
So I'm not at all sure about the Farnell theory, but I haven't got a better one. Anyone?
You said it yourself. If he's (relatively) potless then what has he got to lose? Spend a couple of grand now to potentially get back hundreds of thousands. They are good odds for a punt if you're skint.
It's what people like that do. Front up, bluff out, play their hand, hope for a payday.
People like Bassini are Grade A narcissists. I wouldn’t doubt that he has such a high opinion of himself that he has actually convinced himself that he will prevail if he pushes hard enough. Blokes like this just can’t let go of something once they have their hooks into to something. He sees cash coming into Charlton with the Burstow sale. Spends a very small amount of legal fees to be a pest on the off chance that he can annoy TS into some settlement
Farnell can't get anything back on Nimer in the UAE even if he wanted to.
What isn't clear to me is that it was Southall who promised Bassini the money so why not go after Southall?
The obvious is that Southall is as bent as a nine bob note but doesn't have nine bob (that's 45p you kids) let alone £1.7m. Other than the house, which is in his wife's name and subject to another claim, and a few fake Rolex, he doesn't have money.
I think Bassini knows it's nonsense but it puts his name out there again (he does seem like a publicity junkie) and as Ellliot said maybe he thinks he'll be paid to go away.
He won't IMHO as Tommy boy is already laughing it away but these people (Bassini, Southall, Amis) have no shame or sense of right and wrong. If they want something then in their minds they are entitled to it.
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
You know, in the cold light of day, I feel I should apologise to @ElliotCAFC. When you are close to something for whatever reason, you get impatient with those who haven't spent that time, or got that experience. It's not a qualification to be on Charlton Life to have that experience, so please accept my apologies @ElliottCAFC.
What gets my goat (not the comment so much, but Bassini's claim) is not just the lack of paperwork evidence but the ridiculous size of the claim. But I only know its ridiculous because I've done M&A work myself - and that basically the front end only, "finding" the right match, not the due diligence work which is for financial and legal teams. To give you an idea, the first time I found the right local ad agency for my client, a WPP agency, to successfully buy, I got £25k. Even then, he felt I got an easy ride because there really was only ever one candidate big enough in the market. So when he asked me to repeat the trick in Warsaw, a market I didn't know, I only got £8k ; but I didn't mind because I loved the work and the thrill of seeing it succeed. So, you know, £1.2m for what was only ever going to be a phone call to Richard Murray or de Turck is just off-the-scale ridiculous. (before we factor in that there's no evidence he made the call). But only very few Lifers would know that aspect.
But now we know, we should therefore all be able to agree that these naked try-ons should be firmly and "combatively" resisted by every fan. They are part of the pollutant of our modern world where wrong'uns (including global politicians) argue black is white and, deliberately, leave everybody confused. Which brings me, in a separate comment, to the lawyers who promulgate this shit....
No need for apologies, perhaps just some crossed wires. All good 👍
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.
I think the twaddle you’ve written deserves all of
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what the courts are there to decide on. Always has been. This sort of dispute isn't anything new and certainly doesn't say anything new about "the legal system and the society it supports".
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what the courts are there to decide on. Always has been. This sort of dispute isn't anything new and certainly doesn't say anything new about "the legal system and the society it supports".
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
At least two posters suggested exactly that. Not the full amount, but a “settlement”. I’m not looking to pick on them again, rather to make the point that if TS gives them even a quid for such an obviously bogus claim, its money for nothing, a quite appalling precedent, and an abuse of our legal system.
I think the best thing I can do now is to try to highlight more publicly just how bogus and abusive of the system it is.
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what the courts are there to decide on. Always has been. This sort of dispute isn't anything new and certainly doesn't say anything new about "the legal system and the society it supports".
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
At least two posters suggested exactly that. Not the full amount, but a “settlement”. I’m not looking to pick on them again, rather to make the point that if TS gives them even a quid for such an obviously bogus claim, its money for nothing, a quite appalling precedent, and an abuse of our legal system.
I think the best thing I can do now is to try to highlight more publicly just how bogus and abusive of the system it is.
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.
All people have said is that this appears to be LB's hope, ie that if he makes enough noise he may be given some money just to fuck off to save on aggro. That's all.
I'm really not sure why that is so difficult to understand. Read the thread again. Nobody is advocating that the parasite is given anything.
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what the courts are there to decide on. Always has been. This sort of dispute isn't anything new and certainly doesn't say anything new about "the legal system and the society it supports".
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
At least two posters suggested exactly that. Not the full amount, but a “settlement”. I’m not looking to pick on them again, rather to make the point that if TS gives them even a quid for such an obviously bogus claim, its money for nothing, a quite appalling precedent, and an abuse of our legal system.
I think the best thing I can do now is to try to highlight more publicly just how bogus and abusive of the system it is.
I think this is where the misunderstanding stems from. I never suggested Thomas should pay him off, I said that’s what LB wants I personally wouldn’t be surprised if that happened - which thankfully doesn’t look likely. There’s a world of difference between those two statements.
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what the courts are there to decide on. Always has been. This sort of dispute isn't anything new and certainly doesn't say anything new about "the legal system and the society it supports".
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
At least two posters suggested exactly that. Not the full amount, but a “settlement”. I’m not looking to pick on them again, rather to make the point that if TS gives them even a quid for such an obviously bogus claim, its money for nothing, a quite appalling precedent, and an abuse of our legal system.
I think the best thing I can do now is to try to highlight more publicly just how bogus and abusive of the system it is.
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.
All people have said is that this appears to be LB's hope, ie that if he makes enough noise he may be given some money just to fuck off to save on aggro. That's all.
I'm really not sure why that is so difficult to understand. Read the thread again. Nobody is advocating that the parasite is given anything.
I agree. He deserves nothing but sometimes commercial reality kicks in - wasted legal fees (TS would win any court case but would incur costs that even if awarded to him he wouldn't have a chance of getting back from LB) and wasted management time. I often settle claims that I know we would 100% successfully defend, but a couple of grand up front to save maybe tens of thousands in legal fees avoids the waste of a Pyrrhic victory.
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what the courts are there to decide on. Always has been. This sort of dispute isn't anything new and certainly doesn't say anything new about "the legal system and the society it supports".
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
At least two posters suggested exactly that. Not the full amount, but a “settlement”. I’m not looking to pick on them again, rather to make the point that if TS gives them even a quid for such an obviously bogus claim, its money for nothing, a quite appalling precedent, and an abuse of our legal system.
I think the best thing I can do now is to try to highlight more publicly just how bogus and abusive of the system it is.
I think this is where the misunderstanding stems from. I’m not suggest Thomas pays him off, I just said I wouldn’t surprised it that happened. There’s a world of difference between those two statements.
Unfortunately once Prague is up on his charger and gallops up a head of steam it can be difficult to convince him that he's galloping the wrong way to fight a good fight that doesn't actually need fighting!
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that . It says "the Agreement dated as per the signatures below confirms that Bloom Properties Limited acted (my emphasis) as the introducer and conduit between the above named Client and the property known as CAFC"
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say, but this sort of thing is EXACTLY what the courts are there to decide on. Always has been. This sort of dispute isn't anything new and certainly doesn't say anything new about "the legal system and the society it supports".
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
At least two posters suggested exactly that. Not the full amount, but a “settlement”. I’m not looking to pick on them again, rather to make the point that if TS gives them even a quid for such an obviously bogus claim, its money for nothing, a quite appalling precedent, and an abuse of our legal system.
I think the best thing I can do now is to try to highlight more publicly just how bogus and abusive of the system it is.
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.
All people have said is that this appears to be LB's hope, ie that if he makes enough noise he may be given some money just to fuck off to save on aggro. That's all.
I'm really not sure why that is so difficult to understand. Read the thread again. Nobody is advocating that the parasite is given anything.
I agree. He deserves nothing but sometimes commercial reality kicks in - wasted legal fees (TS would win any court case but would incur costs that even if awarded to him he wouldn't have a chance of getting back from LB) and wasted management time. I often settle claims that I know we would 100% successfully defend, but a couple of grand up front to save maybe tens of thousands in legal fees avoids the waste of a Pyrrhic victory.
Sadly this is where our (in)justice system falls down. Allows any joker to make all sorts of nonsense claims without significant penalties when they are proven quasi fraudulent.
Comments
In the unlikely event that he or his company did issue a winding up petition- which would inevitably be struck out - there is, as @Athletico Charlton says, little or no chance of enforcing the costs order against Bassini or his alter ego. Any solicitors acting on their behalf would, however, be seriously exposed to a wasted costs order on the grounds that they had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently in issuing a petition which (1) had zero prospects of success and (2) constituted a serious abuse of the process of the court. Such a costs order would certainly be enforceable against the lawyers, so at least Thomas would see some money back. Leaving aside reputational considerations, why would any competent firm issue a petition at Bassini's behest and expose themselves to such a costs liability ?
Bassini's threats are totally risible and, despite his attempts to stir things up, we'll all probably have forgotten about it in a week or two.
https://charltonlife.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/89739/discussion-thread-southall-bassini-and-the-purchase-of-charlton-athletic/p1
and given that some of the reaction posts were somewhat intemperate, we thought it would be safer to make the thread Members Only. (But the Promote is still there...
https://charltonlife.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/89745/southall-bassini-and-the-purchase-of-charlton-athletic
so that non-members could read it, and members didn't inadvertently drop themselves in it or give away any proposed strategies to counter it
:-)
What gets my goat (not the comment so much, but Bassini's claim) is not just the lack of paperwork evidence but the ridiculous size of the claim. But I only know its ridiculous because I've done M&A work myself - and that basically the front end only, "finding" the right match, not the due diligence work which is for financial and legal teams. To give you an idea, the first time I found the right local ad agency for my client, a WPP agency, to successfully buy, I got £25k. Even then, he felt I got an easy ride because there really was only ever one candidate big enough in the market. So when he asked me to repeat the trick in Warsaw, a market I didn't know, I only got £8k ; but I didn't mind because I loved the work and the thrill of seeing it succeed. So, you know, £1.2m for what was only ever going to be a phone call to Richard Murray or de Turck is just off-the-scale ridiculous. (before we factor in that there's no evidence he made the call). But only very few Lifers would know that aspect.
But now we know, we should therefore all be able to agree that these naked try-ons should be firmly and "combatively" resisted by every fan. They are part of the pollutant of our modern world where wrong'uns (including global politicians) argue black is white and, deliberately, leave everybody confused. Which brings me, in a separate comment, to the lawyers who promulgate this shit....
I think you completely misunderstood what @ElliotCAFC was saying and jumped down his throat unnecessarily. But all friends again now.
Just because one lawyers view is that an issue is without foundation it doesnt mean they're always right or that another lawyer might not reasonably adopt a different view. That's what the courts are for.
Some claims might be spurious. Some might just be a try on hoping for a payout. But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties. You and I may think it's all bollocks, but ultimately that's for a court to decide, if it gets that far.
You also cant really question the "value" provided in determining whether there is a case as everyone has their own ideas about what anything is worth. In my experience if a deal is being put together that could potentially cost £60 million plus then you are going to expect some hefty fees as part of that. The man in the street ultimately has no say in what price is put on a transaction if the parties have agreed to it. Whether the parties actually did agree is the ultimate issue.
This is what I don't get. Bassini himself knows this try-on failed once. And the general view is that he's potless, so why is he willing to throw good money after bad on another round of legal fees, now? @Henry Irving above mentioned that he previously tried it on after he saw that Southall wasn't going to pay him in the way Southall had suggested. That seems a reasonable explanation. In which case would he be ready to team up once again with Southall? Is Southall himself offering to pay the fees (and is Bassini so stupid as to trust him again?)
Another theory from within an active fan cell (not currently much on CL) is that it might actually be Farnell behind it, and with the aim not of getting at Thomas, but rather at Southall and Nimer. You can see why Farnell might have a big grudge against those two. Thus far though I've not found anything linking Osmond to Farnell. Osmond looks like a solicitor to whom you might entrust some routine conveyancing work (one of the references on his website says exactly that
So I'm not at all sure about the Farnell theory, but I haven't got a better one. Anyone?
It's what people like that do. Front up, bluff out, play their hand, hope for a payday.
If he was he could act as solicitor himself.
Farnell can't get anything back on Nimer in the UAE even if he wanted to.
What isn't clear to me is that it was Southall who promised Bassini the money so why not go after Southall?
The obvious is that Southall is as bent as a nine bob note but doesn't have nine bob (that's 45p you kids) let alone £1.7m. Other than the house, which is in his wife's name and subject to another claim, and a few fake Rolex, he doesn't have money.
I think Bassini knows it's nonsense but it puts his name out there again (he does seem like a publicity junkie) and as Ellliot said maybe he thinks he'll be paid to go away.
He won't IMHO as Tommy boy is already laughing it away but these people (Bassini, Southall, Amis) have no shame or sense of right and wrong. If they want something then in their minds they are entitled to it.
"But the fact here is that there IS something written down that appears to reflect an agreement between certain parties."
With the previous effort, what was written down was an agreement between Southall and Bassini dated "August 2019" - nothing more precise than that
Pause to ponder on the sheer incoherence of that text, and then note that if true it implied that Bassini actually contacted someone at Charlton back in August 2019 and sold them on what a fine chap Southall, of ESI Ltd was. Which presumably he can prove.
But either way, that is a service to Southall as an individual or at a stretch East Street Investments Ltd, as it says in brackets next to his name. And the trouble with that, as you can see in the Southall file is that ESI was only incorporated on 13th November 2019.
There is no paperwork that in any way Southall successfully "novated" (new word for me) the obviously bogus fee agreement onto the Club.
You may well repeat, that while you agree its all bollocks, it's for a court to decide. My point is that if bollocks of this magnitude is allowed to get anywhere near a court our legal system and the society it supports is more fucked than I realised. And I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and suggest Thomas just pays up to make them go away.
People disagree about things all the time. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't. We all on here are clearly invested in this issue as it affects our club, but this really isn't any different from disputes the courts will see on a daily basis.
I haven't read anything suggesting that Thomas should "pay up to make them go away", but clearly that's what this fella is after. Saying that doesn't mean I think he has a leg to stand on though.
All people have said is that this appears to be LB's hope, ie that if he makes enough noise he may be given some money just to fuck off to save on aggro. That's all.
I'm really not sure why that is so difficult to understand. Read the thread again. Nobody is advocating that the parasite is given anything.
I agree. He deserves nothing but sometimes commercial reality kicks in - wasted legal fees (TS would win any court case but would incur costs that even if awarded to him he wouldn't have a chance of getting back from LB) and wasted management time. I often settle claims that I know we would 100% successfully defend, but a couple of grand up front to save maybe tens of thousands in legal fees avoids the waste of a Pyrrhic victory.