ESI: Thoughts so far?

nth_london_addick said:

I think a lot of fans who have been wetting themselves will hopefully be a tad drier today 

Wouldn't hold your breath...could sign 5 class players by lunchtime and it would be straight onto the next episodes of knee knocking, ball shrinking, arse flapping, spleen shitting, pant pissing outpourings by teatime.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Chunes said:

bobmunro said:

Chunes said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Henry Irving said:

Chunes said:

Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?

Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.

At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.

They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.

I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal action

I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement. 

What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?

Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.

So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.

I don't see how theyve ever been an issue, just great cover for the aussie consortium being skint, surely we're beyond that now?

It's just people keep bringing it up like they are an issue... @airman_brown just said "the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not."

Well... Because they're not due? 

I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.

Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?

it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.  

De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.

The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.

The thing is, virtually none of us know what was promised and what was delivered, so we can’t assess the impact on wider issues. As such, we can only go in what we see ... with which I am relatively comfortable but does depend on transfer activity. 

Im assuming you have more knowledge via your contacts. 

SteveKielyCambridge said:

Personally, I really do not understand what the issue is with ESI giving itself time to complete the purchase of the Valley. What else could he do with it? It is an asset with absolutely no value to him.

But it is an asset with huge value to CAFC.

It could be argued that it is business critical.

Buy the club from Roland ☑️
Provide open communication ☑️
Sign up Bowyer ☑️
Sign up Jackson and Marshall ❓but Bow said he'd sign when they're sorted.
Don't sell Taylor ✅ - so far
Sign up Taylor ⏳
Sign up Cullen ⏳
Sign some players to improve us ⏳
Complete the purchase of the freeholds ⏳

nth_london_addick said:

I think a lot of fans who have been wetting themselves will hopefully be a tad drier today 

You are right with some of the hysterics, and I hope HE gets a fantastic reception at the Barnsley game(or which ever game he can get to)  and Lyle Taylor is still here, because if Lyle can weave his magic in front of a near capacity home support then  Matt Southall can try to convince the owner that Football isn't an egalitarian work place and your main scorer, assists and talismanic scorer must get his contract which reflects his importance to Cafc over the past 18 months and the next two years.
A creative package must be possible for Lyle, can you imagine if Leicester didn't give Jamie Vardy a cracking pay rise when they were in the Championship ?
Goal bonus and assists can be included in the package. I'm fed up with Charlton being a selling club or letting quality leave so be dynamic Matt Southall, and plead with HE that for any 5 year plan which includes Premier football coming to fruition, then the first year to get the big calls right is paramount. Bowyer signed first, which after the initial misunderstanding has been achieved. 
I can't believe that ESI have paid 50 to 60 million at completion of the Valley and Sparrows lane which will finally make RD history, to carry on with Charlton being a mediocre football team where we celebrate finishing 21st in the Championship.

The " Marquee signings"  would be Taylor and Cullen, if the rest are players from League 1 then no problem if they fit the profile that Bowyer and Gallen have identified. Bonne have taken his chance and would love ESI to be pro active because Macaulay is on a modest contract.

In every business you must know your star turns and the warm up acts( still important but easier to replace) for Cafc to have momentum and takes the forward steps on this journey then solutions must be found.

This could be a fantastic time to be a Cafc fan and 24k Charlton supporting fans would ( I know some will be football tourists) create a buoyant atmosphere.
How great would it be to watch our young players become Charlton premier stars of the future, Now that would be different !

More revelations about FFP breeches with Abu Dhabi money: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/22/manchester-city-financial-fair-play-breaches-2012-13-accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league

If we're not careful we are going to be banned from the 2030 Champions League!

Cafc43v3r said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Chunes said:

bobmunro said:

Chunes said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Henry Irving said:

Chunes said:

Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?

Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.

At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.

They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.

I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal action

I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement. 

What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?

Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.

So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.

I don't see how theyve ever been an issue, just great cover for the aussie consortium being skint, surely we're beyond that now?

It's just people keep bringing it up like they are an issue... @airman_brown just said "the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not."

Well... Because they're not due? 

I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.

Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?

it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.  

We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.

De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.

The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.

Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.

Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club? 

As opposed to an electronics manufacturer and a lawyer..?

Cafc43v3r said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Chunes said:

bobmunro said:

Chunes said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Henry Irving said:

Chunes said:

Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?

Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.

At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.

They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.

I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal action

I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement. 

What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?

Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.

So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.

I don't see how theyve ever been an issue, just great cover for the aussie consortium being skint, surely we're beyond that now?

It's just people keep bringing it up like they are an issue... @airman_brown just said "the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not."

Well... Because they're not due? 

I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.

Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?

it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.  

We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.

De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.

The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.

Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.

Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club? 

What clubs these days are bought by pure footballing people or local fans?

jacob_CAFC said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Chunes said:

bobmunro said:

Chunes said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Henry Irving said:

Chunes said:

Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?

Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.

At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.

They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.

I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal action

I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement. 

What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?

Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.

So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.

I don't see how theyve ever been an issue, just great cover for the aussie consortium being skint, surely we're beyond that now?

It's just people keep bringing it up like they are an issue... @airman_brown just said "the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not."

Well... Because they're not due? 

I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.

Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?

it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.  

We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.

De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.

The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.

Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.

Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club? 

What clubs these days are bought by pure footballing people or local fans?

None or as near to none as makes no diffrence.

But property people never see a property angle and football agents always have the reputation for putting thier clients interests above there own don't they? 

Chizz said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Chunes said:

bobmunro said:

Chunes said:

Airman Brown said:

Chunes said:

Henry Irving said:

Chunes said:

Am I missing something because I don't get why the loans keep getting brought up... They were repayable on Charlton re-entering the Premier League, which hasn't happened, so why would they be repaid?

Or when the Valley is sold as they have a charge on the ground IIRC.

At previous sales the directors have agreed to roll over the bonds but some maybe less willing to do so now.

They have to be consulted on any leases as they have a charge on the Valley.

I see. So what's the issue? Have directors said there's a problem? The Valley hasn't been sold... There is a lease, and if they have to be consulted then I assume they have been, or else they're entitled to take legal action

I think you can reasonably assume that when I reported that the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not that this was based on firm information. You can also assume that at that stage they hadn't been consulted about any lease arrangement. 

What's stopping them from suing to get their money back?

Because the outstanding loans are not due and payable as I understand it.

So they haven't been repaid but they're not due or repayable. Right. So I still don't get why people keep bringing them up like they're a big issue.

I don't see how theyve ever been an issue, just great cover for the aussie consortium being skint, surely we're beyond that now?

It's just people keep bringing it up like they are an issue... @airman_brown just said "the ex-director loans hadn't been repaid and they hadn't been told why not."

Well... Because they're not due? 

I’m sure they’re grateful for your expertise on the loan agreement.

Why then did ESI - through Lee Amis - approach some ex-directors before the takeover was announced, to discuss the loans? Is it consistent or an act of good faith towards these individuals that they are then left in the dark following the takeover? What did ESI promise them?

it has always been the view among at least some ex-directors and the person who oversaw the original loan agreement that the issue of leases or other disposal of land required the permission of the lenders. Otherwise what do the charges actually mean? The companies’ assets could all be removed and reassembled elsewhere and the loans left without any security if they mean nothing.  

We know they don’t fall due if Baton is sold complete - it is less clear what happens when Baton is divided up, as would appear to be the position if ESI have bought FC Limited but not Holdings. It’s possible that the charges prevent that happening.

De Turck certainly questioned whether the charges have the effect that the ex-directors - or at least some of them - believe. But then De Turck’s arguments on this issue were at least in part nonsensical. He also tried to argue the “expiry” theory.

The question is probably one for lawyers armed with copies of the legal agreement. But aside from that the issue remains - what did ESI promise the individuals and have they delivered? That isn’t a legal point and it might be thought to bear on wider issues.

Intresting stuff, thank you Airman.

Would it be bed wetting to say I am at least slightly concerned about the predominant roles played by a property developer and a football agent in buying and running the club? 

As opposed to an electronics manufacturer and a lawyer..?

I know a club not far from the valley that have a Dildo dealer, porn provider and a woman who was made a CEO at 24 because the porn provider had a soft ? Spot for her.
Owners, Chairmen, and CEO's come from an eclectic mix of backgrounds.
In the above case, batteries and tissues may be provided.