Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Laurence Bassini - Telegraph claims he's bought Birmingham subject to EFL approval (p8)
Comments
-
You're welcome.ElliotCAFC said:
Thanks for bringing your insight to the table.AddicksAddict said:
I think the twaddle you’ve written deserves all ofElliotCAFC said:
Spare me the patronising tone, it doesn’t make it easy to communicate with you.PragueAddick said:
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?ElliotCAFC said:
Is there really the need to act so combative?PragueAddick said:
Indeed. That is why we created the Dossier, and we will take the opportunity to deploy it on this matter.AFKABartram said: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
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.
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.
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.PA’s patronising.1 -
That's good to know. Who is it you work for?bobmunro said:Off_it said:
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.PragueAddick said:
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.Off_it said:
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".PragueAddick said:@Off_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.
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.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.
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.20 -
Indeed Bob - "commercial reality".bobmunro said:Off_it said:
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.PragueAddick said:
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.Off_it said:
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".PragueAddick said:@Off_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.
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.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.
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.
Or as Harold Shand might say, "Get them off and give 'em a grand each expenses"
2 -
Can you not claim costs in a case like this which is clearly a groundless fishing exercise?bobmunro said:Off_it said:
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.PragueAddick said:
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.Off_it said:
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".PragueAddick said:@Off_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.
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.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.
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.0 -
From who? LB would claim that he’s polo (probably true)……and you would never collect on it.JamesSeed said:
Can you not claim costs in a case like this which is clearly a groundless fishing exercise?bobmunro said:Off_it said:
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.PragueAddick said:
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.Off_it said:
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".PragueAddick said:@Off_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.
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.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.
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.2 -
Our old friend Alan Nixon reporting it in the Sun today.
Must be true then that we are about to be wound up.6 -
Oi!!AddicksAddict said:
That's good to know. Who is it you work for?
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.
Join the queue!
My claims against Bob's firm are already in the post.1 -
I have a feeling LB could be asked to pay costs into Court in advance to show he can pay if he lostJamesSeed said:
Can you not claim costs in a case like this which is clearly a groundless fishing exercise?bobmunro said:Off_it said:
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.PragueAddick said:
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.Off_it said:
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".PragueAddick said:@Off_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.
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.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.
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.6 -
Actually it would be very helpful if people could post links to this and all other media coverage of this (apart from our friends at the Jewish Telegraph) in advance of a blogpost I'll put up tomorrow. Whatever else this is all useful for getting the Dossier website out and about.Fortune 82nd Minute said:Our old friend Alan Nixon reporting it in the Sun today.
Must be true then that we are about to be wound up.
Kieran Maguire says he is not going to give him the oxygen of publicity for now, but Bassini can always rely on shills like Nixon.0 -
- Sponsored links:
-
What a joke Alan Nixon is.35
-
We talk about wanting to find a genuine Reporter who'll expose these pricks for what they are... And then you get Alan Nixon who bends over for them at the first opportunity.7
-
Nixon doesn't care if it's true or not.
He runs the story with a click bait headline (yes, someone else might have written that) and keeps his Manchester contacts happy while filling a few virtual columns inches.
He will have no interest in the dossiers as reading them will be too much like hard work.
We all know it's a nothing story.11 -
It's not exactly surprising that the Sun is the only national paper which decided to print that shit.4
-
Exclusive!SantaClaus said:It's not exactly surprising that the Sun is the only national paper which decided to print that shit.4 -
Apart from the Jewish Telegraph running the story before them.Redrobo said:
Exclusive!SantaClaus said:It's not exactly surprising that the Sun is the only national paper which decided to print that shit.0 -
4
-
trash reporter working for a trash rag.Airman Brown said:What a joke Alan Nixon is.0 -
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.
4 - Sponsored links:
-
I saw the "Charlton rocked ..." headline and was worried Tommy had written another song for a minute.
As you were ..... nothing to see here.8 -
That's a bit harsh, Airman has produced some cracking VOTV'sHartleypete said:
trash reporter working for a trash rag.Airman Brown said:What a joke Alan Nixon is.15 -
Did the work experience write that? Here's a couple of random financial claims oh and by the way they played football too? Oh you want substance, why not click on one of our endless range of shite links below?Scoham said:1 -
Why why are you all still talking about this? It’s a nothing story TS already said so.
Move on and ignore it, attention is what he wants don’t get drawn into the negativity4 -
I'm guessing he's just heard we got £1.6m for Burstow. Like Davo said, he needs filling in. Just how long can he avoid a Watford or Charlton fan itching to do it? Not that I'd condone violence you understand.valleynick66 said:Also why has this taken a year or more to reach this point? If you are owed a sizeable sum wouldn't this be pursued expediently and you would seek a winding up order much sooner.
Unless of course there has been 'to & fro' between all parties throughout this period and this is the final action to conclude it once and for all.3 -
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.bobmunro said:Off_it said:
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.PragueAddick said:
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.Off_it said:
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".PragueAddick said:@Off_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.
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.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.
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.14 -
The joke in this context is one where nobody is even laughing at @therepugnantnicko or whatever mirthless twatter handle he wearsAirman Brown said:What a joke Alan Nixon is.
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
3 -
He couldn't afford it.. bloke doesn't have a pot to p**s in..HardyAddick said:
I have a feeling LB could be asked to pay costs into Court in advance to show he can pay if he lostJamesSeed said:
Can you not claim costs in a case like this which is clearly a groundless fishing exercise?bobmunro said:Off_it said:
No, they didn't. Nobody on this thread has said that Thomas "should" pay up. That's just not true.PragueAddick said:
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.Off_it said:
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".PragueAddick said:@Off_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.
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.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.
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.1 -
Can’t even remember why he blocked me.Billy_Mix said:
The joke in this context is one where nobody is even laughing at @therepugnantnicko or whatever mirthless twatter handle he wearsAirman Brown said:What a joke Alan Nixon is.
Pissing little coward that he is, argue even a little bit with him and he blocks you - a badge of honour on my twitter history1
