Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Lauren Kreamer still isn't bovvered
Comments
-
Thank you for the replies to my question further up guys x0
-
Excellent information and good to read, thank you CAST and Lauren for your hard work!2
-
Lauren, from the bottom of my Charlton heart, THANK YOU for your help and expertise in keeping this club/community from extinction. Keep safe, have a wonderful christmas.
Oh one last thing, COME ON YOU REDS!!!5 -
However close CAFC came to falling into the hands of ne'erdowells or charlatans, I still fail to see what they thought they'd get out of it.
Unless they had yet another, even richer fucktard lined up to flog it on to immediately, all that CAFC represented at the time was a mountain of liabilities with negligible revenue. The ESI(1) version of the business was saddled with the ultra moronic commitments to the rat as well.
The cash cow that mouthall thought he'd secured had already been drained to beef jerky.
All in the past.
Onwards and upwards
COYR
2 -
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.MattF said:Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
0 -
I think this is right. I was thinking the same.Oggy Red said:
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.MattF said:Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
If that matter was presented in the injunction case, they risked failing due to the case that LK/PM were making about how limited the time was for club to survive.
I am sure that LK was worried but I doubt it was a mistake as simple as they just didn't spot the ability for ESI to sell its asset.
1 -
The worrying thing is, is that the next club will not be as lucky as us as Farnell & Co will have learnt their lesson0
-
There needs to be some sort of 'black list' where known predators of distressed clubs will never be approved by EFL.cafc999 said:The worrying thing is, is that the next club will not be as lucky as us as Farnell & Co will have learnt their lesson
But, of course, all they need is to hide their involvement - and find a 'stooge' to front a takeover.
3 -
That makes it sound like it was a calculated risk, which it couldn't have been, since the injunction didn't stop the sale of the club, and what they actually applied for meant they lost everything.bingaddick said:
I think this is right. I was thinking the same.Oggy Red said:
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.MattF said:Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
If that matter was presented in the injunction case, they risked failing due to the case that LK/PM were making about how limited the time was for club to survive.
I am sure that LK was worried but I doubt it was a mistake as simple as they just didn't spot the ability for ESI to sell its asset.
I think both Hanlon's and Occam's razors might apply here.2 -
Think also TS may have been underestimated in his ability to re-negotiate the various deals with Roland needed to take on the club, might be they felt that no-one would want to try and take CAFC off ESI and cop it for the agreements that Southall had made3
-
Sponsored links:
-
I am so impressed by the commitment of you guys..exiled in Belfast, Leeds and Edinburgh for the past 30 years, I miss the Valley and you are keeping it alive for me . Thanks.16
-
good interview, very informative plus the bit at the bottom from the Benjy guy - maybe i'm doing the trust a disservice but it certainly seems to have gone up a few gears in the last few weeks - slicker and more bullish and sure of itself and prepared to say it how it is - i like that6
-
And not a house analogy in sight! I suppose car analogies are all the rage nowadays.Fortune 82nd Minute said:Absolutely brilliant interview.
An immensely complicated issue explained in simple English that even I can understand!0 -
Fixed that for you. 😉Callumcafc said:
And not a house analogy in sight! I suppose car analogies are all the range nowadays.Fortune 82nd Minute said:Absolutely brilliant interview.
An immensely complicated issue explained in simple English that even I can understand!2 -
She is great. I was gonna put a heart but I'd get slaughtered on here.KBslittlesis said:Great article.
She really is wonderful isn’t she? ❤️
Sod it ❤11 -
MM was the main source of info coming out to the ‘ITK’ crowd. Good man .1
-
Great stuff from Lauren and CAST, thank you one and all.👏🤝👌0
-
I also struggle to understand their medium/long game, and given the cash would have run out. I can only conclude that administration was the objective in order to realise cash from the most valuable asset i.e players.StigThundercock said:However close CAFC came to falling into the hands of ne'erdowells or charlatans, I still fail to see what they thought they'd get out of it.
Unless they had yet another, even richer fucktard lined up to flog it on to immediately, all that CAFC represented at the time was a mountain of liabilities with negligible revenue. The ESI(1) version of the business was saddled with the ultra moronic commitments to the rat as well.
The cash cow that mouthall thought he'd secured had already been drained to beef jerky.
All in the past.
Onwards and upwards
COYR
It could explain why friends and family became debtors of such ridiculous amounts if these third party debts would have made the club non-viable as a going concern and resulted in the administrator having to wind-up the club and sell players rather than a sale of the whole club to a new owner.
On a wind-up, after meeting debts, the balance goes back to the shareholders. Is this why TN fell out with MS? - TN was being shafted out of a full share of the winding-up assets through MS and his mates creaming off the top.
0 -
The AGM was a great event, my fist one, and Lauren's session was particularly informative, candid and clear. She offered even more detail than covered in the excellent write up.bingaddick said:
I think this is right. I was thinking the same.Oggy Red said:
There was also, during the Southall case back in July (I think), where the judge made a declaration that ESI/Panorama Magic owned CAFC and not Elliot, based on evidence/admission by Farnell, I believe.MattF said:Seem to remember Lex Dominus' side repeatedly rubbishing any suggestion that the impact on Charlton and specifically Charlton in the community should be considered as it was irrelevant, so maybe they weren't as sure as Panorama Magic that the injunction would be granted if it included Charlton.
I'm a bit hazy on detail, but no doubt someone on here can recall and clarify?
Was that the reason Lex Dom only sought an injunction with the sale of shares in ESI - as they'd already stated in court that they did not own the club in the July court case?
If that matter was presented in the injunction case, they risked failing due to the case that LK/PM were making about how limited the time was for club to survive.
I am sure that LK was worried but I doubt it was a mistake as simple as they just didn't spot the ability for ESI to sell its asset.
I was the person who asked this question at the meeting, and I still can't really understand why LD didn't attempt to prevent the sale of ESI's assets as well as ESI itself and its shares - maybe because I am not so familiar with detail of the previous Southall, Companies House case.
The whole discussion at the injunction hearing was about CAFC and the risk to its future, and the LD side didn't really hide that. Chaisty's main point at the first hearing was that media talk of a sale was just rumour, the club had started the season, wasn't in financial danger and that there was no tangible evidence of an imminent sale before a trial could be heard. He is smart and was able to make almost the total opposite argument the day after, but it was still about the club.
Maybe their position was intentional and they made the early call they could focus arguments in court solely on ESI and not its only asset. Or maybe it was just a massive oversight, an open goal miss of Ronny Rosenthal proportions. Whatever the case, it was a huge mistake.
I'm undecided whether I'm happier they missed what was right in front of them (perhaps because in their eyes it was only ever about ESI and flipping it on, never about the club), or that they attempted a clever strategic play and totally ballsed it up!
5 -
2819 as we stand, member 2820 wins........... a badge!KBslittlesis said:
I know!soapboxsam said:Interesting Q and A from Lauren.
"Two bald men fighting over a comb"
LOL
If Lauren gives a good reference to Marian Mihail for his work behind the scenes for CAFC then we should accept that endorsement.
After the Wigan owner checked out putting the football club into adminstration BEFORE buying Wigan we may count ourselves very lucky that we not only have the Trust but a very knowledgeable fan base.
We are fortunate to have Laura and her legal experience and the other 5 who were elected to the board recently all bringing their different skill set to the table.
Many thanks to the other two candidates who stood as well.
Weggie as Chair person will lead the Trust into having even more members in the future, 3000 and counting.
I’ve resisted for years.
I’m struggling to justify my non conformity now.
All it would take is for the great Lady Tracey to ask me to do it and my willpower will be gone 😜1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Marry me Lauren15
-
That’s a brilliant interview, well done CAST,Lauren thank you, you are a Charlton legend & I am so glad you are one of our own...0
-
Ha ha your too late Canters, I posted exactly those words the day after the first trial.cantersaddick said:Marry me Lauren
Suppose you being around half a century younger than me could help you! 🤣2 -
Good clear explanation from Lauren. Shame the journos can’t be bothered to report this correctly.0
-
It makes you wonder if Marian Mihail had on purpose "messed" up a little in court to ensure they thought they would get away with it and not wonder about the "asset".
LK is class though! She's going to be treated like royalty in the covered end!1 -
I wonder. I do seem to remember him talking about "smokescreens".SE10Addick said:It makes you wonder if Marian Mihail had on purpose "messed" up a little in court to ensure they thought they would get away with it and not wonder about the "asset".
LK is class though! She's going to be treated like royalty in the covered end!2 -
Pretty sure it was exactly that - his twitter feed mentioned smokescreens a couple of times.Pico said:
I wonder. I do seem to remember him talking about "smokescreens".SE10Addick said:It makes you wonder if Marian Mihail had on purpose "messed" up a little in court to ensure they thought they would get away with it and not wonder about the "asset".
LK is class though! She's going to be treated like royalty in the covered end!
Get the plaintiff to spot some minor error or inconsistency and they will focus on that in an attempt to win the case and miss out on the bigger picture.2 -
Once this has all blown over with us in the dreamland, CF & co. behind bars and TS worshipped like a God in a packed out Valley - I hope Lauren releases a book on this madness with as much depth as legally safe to delve into.
I'm sure between us lot we can think of an apt book name....
0 -
Probably safer and more professional for Lauren to have somebody else write a book on the subject and perhaps maybe be a resource for the research. If only CAFC had such a person !Atletico Addick said:Once this has all blown over with us in the dreamland, CF & co. behind bars and TS worshipped like a God in a packed out Valley - I hope Lauren releases a book on this madness with as much depth as legally safe to delve into.
I'm sure between us lot we can think of an apt book name....4 -
Oi ... Get to the back of the queuecantersaddick said:Marry me Lauren2
