"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.
Conversely, we (as an insurer) will sometimes take cases to court which we know we can settle for less, simply because we want it settled in court rather than an out of court settlement which will usually be subject to an NDA. We want people to see that a claim like theirs has been made and that it failed. This acts to deter other similar claims in the future and in the long run may well save many times the costs we incur in going to court.
Absolutely - there are times when a court/tribunal hearing victory sends a message.
Apparently, Charlton fan on Twitter is delusional for suggesting, Alan Nixon's (Reluctant Niko) article was poorly researched and Bassini a shakedown artist abusing court process. Bit touchy is Alan. Apparently delusional comment came from a parody account.
To be fair, it’s difficult to tell which is the parody and which is the supposed “real” journalist in this case 🤷🏻♂️😂
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.
Wouldn't that solicitor Chris Farrell take it on? They could all sue each other-perfect
And now, the brilliant Kieran Maguire,(Price of Football podcaster and sworn enemy of all football Wrong'uns), is going to give the case a going over tomorrow, despite at the weekend expressing his wariness of doing anything on Bassini in case he got a solicitors letter
Give the podcast a listen. It's never less than excellent and no media channel fights the corner of smaller distressed clubs better than him and Stripey Nigel Kevin Day.
Say what you like about bassini - he's one plug ugly bastard
With a tiny tiny ....
You can't take him or his claims seriously after watching his Thailand video (you'll want to bleach your eyes afterwards though). The man's a complete joke.
The joke in this context is one where nobody is even laughing at@therepugnantnicko or whatever mirthless twatter handle he wears
Pissing little coward that he is, argue even a little bit with him and he blocks you - a badge of honour on my twitter history
Can’t even remember why he blocked me.
He blocked me a while back. I don't know why. He's only a Sun journalist so no great loss in my life. I don't like to click on anything connected with that pile of drivel anyway.
The Head of Dossiers discovered the update by chance today. But of course it comes after we learnt that Farnell had provided comically inept "expert witness testimony" for Lozza's own Statutory Demand. The Head of Dossiers has now discovered further evidence of new "business" co-operation between these two world-class tyre-kickers, but we are sitting on that pending further investigations.
After all the abuse Farnell got and being reporting to the Attorney's governing power you would think he would avoid us....but no he comes back at us......time to start the abuse again
After all the abuse Farnell got and being reporting to the Attorney's governing power you would think he would avoid us....but no he comes back at us......time to start the abuse again
Was it abuse or justified criticism? He makes himself a sitting duck.
Thanks. So are they chancers or just completely dense?
Both, I think. That is certainly Darren New’s opinion, and he has personally “met” more of them than most of us. i’ve also been connected to a Watford fan who is looking to restart their Trust, and who says he had the “displeasure” of meeting Lozza when he was messing with them. But why they are doing this now is beyond me. Maybe there is no big hidden reason. But we need to watch them. And we believe we might have the opportunity to make life a bit hot for Lozza.
EXCLUSIVE: David Sullivan is funding Laurence Bassini's proposed £35m bid to buy Birmingham City - and West Ham owner could regain control at St Andrew's if prospective buyer fails to repay £33m loan
So Sullivan sells BCFC for £81.5 million. Loans Bassini £33 million to buy it back and then gets the stadium and other BCFC real estate for effectively nothing when Bassini fails to repay the loan which he can’t possibly . Puts WHU FC up for sale at £150 million and returns to BCFC. Quite a deal.
Comments
Absolutely - there are times when a court/tribunal hearing victory sends a message.
Give the podcast a listen. It's never less than excellent and no media channel fights the corner of smaller distressed clubs better than him and Stripey Nigel Kevin Day.
You can't take him or his claims seriously after watching his Thailand video (you'll want to bleach your eyes afterwards though). The man's a complete joke.
I don't like to click on anything connected with that pile of drivel anyway.
FFS.
https://thecharltondossier.com/laurence-bassinis-claim-against-charlton-more-ridiculous-than-a-partygate-denial/
EXCLUSIVE: David Sullivan is funding Laurence Bassini's proposed £35m bid to buy Birmingham City - and West Ham owner could regain control at St Andrew's if prospective buyer fails to repay £33m loan
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10802831/West-Ham-owner-David-Sullivan-funding-Laurence-Bassinis-proposed-35m-bid-buy-Birmingham-City.html