What is to stop TJ and MS banking the Sky money, selling a few players (or all of them) repaying some of the loans that they have then going into Administration as soon as they've taken the money out?
I know there are some rules about taking money out of a business then going into Administration, but if they are repaying loans....
I think if it was admin on Thursday, Airman Brown would have a better idea about it than all the rest of us regulars, and certainly better than that of any Nigel or Spanner
And by the way, rumouring it doesn't help the club, which is probably exactly why Nigels and Stuwalls do it
Not beyond the realms of possibility IMO Prague.The complexity of our ownership probably means that Cash/Slater have very little to lose by their standards.Cash does strike me as a man who would probably lose sleep if a fiver went missing out of his wallet,It's how people like him keep that money making mentality. I do think the only reason he's really sticking around is because there has been quite a bit of interest from other parties and he can see a way of maybe making a few quid.If that interest dissipates then he'll walk and leave it all to Tony.And then we really are in trouble.
Sure, I take your general points Carly, however the rumour mongers are working on the belief that there was only one takeover bid and that it has gone away. They believe this on the basis of a tiny and clearly spoon-fed couple of 'reports' in the Daily Fail , and in a local rag which has no serious interest in covering us properly. Airman has not backed up the rumours, which I believe he would do if he thought they had substance. That's why I think Thursday admin is bull.
I'm not historically the SLP's biggest fan, but in this case I think your criticism is misplaced. They are the only local paper making any attempt to cover the story and that is better than nothing. They resisted being bullied by the club last year and didn't make a song and dance about it, which they could have. They also have more interest in being right about it than any national. I don't doubt they are being used, but that's an occupational hazard. It's not down to having "no serious interest" at all.
While we're on the subject, Toby Porter is not a Millwall fan.
I've heard nothing about administration this week.
What is to stop TJ and MS banking the Sky money, selling a few players (or all of them) repaying some of the loans that they have then going into Administration as soon as they've taken the money out?
I know there are some rules about taking money out of a business then going into Administration, but if they are repaying loans....
On the player side they are all basically worthless as their contracts are running out. Who could we get money for? Solly and Cousins maybe, but Solly is coming off the back of a major injury so doubt they could raise much for him.
May I ask if you've heard anything about administration at all recently ? Thanks.
For reasons set out above, namely the debt structure, there is unlikely to be a plan to go into administration. However, there is obviously an ongoing shortage of cash in the business that poses a level of risk.
My opinion of the SLP is coloured by their shameful decision to implicitly link the - alleged - withdrawal of the Americans with the granting of ACV. It was especially shameful because Barnie had made himself available to Toby Porter earlier in the ACV process and had done his best to explain it. I understand Porter has since apologized to Barnie, but personally I think it was shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that, I believe.
I understand Porter has since apologized to Barnie, but personally I think it was shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that, I believe.
Would that be a private conversation between two other people and not involving you but which you have chosen to report second-hand ? If I'm ever tempted to tell you anything in confidence, I'll try to remember not to.
Toby Porter is doing his job. Working on a local rag is a shit job for shit pay and to have people like you come on here and accuse him of "shitty behaviour" for reporting what he was told by a well-placed source is pot calling the kettle black.
I understand Porter has since apologized to Barnie, but personally I think it was shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that, I believe.
Would that be a private conversation between two other people and not involving you but which you have chosen to report second-hand ? If I'm ever tempted to tell you anything in confidence, I'll try to remember not to.
Toby Porter is doing his job. Working on a local rag is a shit job for shit pay and to have people like you come on here and accuse him of "shitty behaviour" for reporting what he was told by a well-placed source is pot calling the kettle black.
Dunno why you are getting at Prague.
If the reporter was given facts and he chose to ignore them, then that is piss poor work in anyone's book I would have thought and is relevant to this forum and topic. Particularly as so many people on here slagged the people off who applied for the ACV based on that report.
I understand Porter has since apologized to Barnie, but personally I think it was shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that, I believe.
Would that be a private conversation between two other people and not involving you but which you have chosen to report second-hand ? If I'm ever tempted to tell you anything in confidence, I'll try to remember not to.
Toby Porter is doing his job. Working on a local rag is a shit job for shit pay and to have people like you come on here and accuse him of "shitty behaviour" for reporting what he was told by a well-placed source is pot calling the kettle black.
Is it not the job of journos to investigate all aspects of a story or does low pay mean you have the right to tell untruths?
...and what untruth was that ? Perhaps while Charlton are sacking Powell and appointing AVB, the SLP should sack Toby Porter and replace him with John Pilger.
Do you honestly believe the granting of an ACV would deter a bidder? The owners have links with the trust, they backed the application. There is no way it has anything to do with any supposed withdrawal of interest.
.and what reality check is that? You are trying to defend the indefensible IA. I was paid shit money in the NHS, perhaps that fact meant that whilst I was getting people's blood transfusions cross matched, I needn't have bothered to follow basic safety principles. But then maybe they should have sacked me and replaced me with he Minister for Health. Low pay is not an excuse for shoddy work.
I understand Porter has since apologized to Barnie, but personally I think it was shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that, I believe.
Would that be a private conversation between two other people and not involving you but which you have chosen to report second-hand ? If I'm ever tempted to tell you anything in confidence, I'll try to remember not to.
Toby Porter is doing his job. Working on a local rag is a shit job for shit pay and to have people like you come on here and accuse him of "shitty behaviour" for reporting what he was told by a well-placed source is pot calling the kettle black.
No, Barnie and I have discussed the whole thing at length. We had to. It was a real pisser for us, and btw we have jobs to do and mouths to feed without having to work on damage limitation that was totally unnecessary. It's also stupid of Porter, because inevitably it makes us more wary of helping him in future.
I trust Porter's apology will be given equal prominence to the original erroneous story?
Thought not!
All the money wasted on Leveson beause politicians are scared of being caught with their trousers down or skirts up.
The one thing that would kill shoddy journalism at a stroke would be the insistence that retractions are given at least the prominence of the original story.
So Prague is wrong for discussing a personal conversation (IA) and wrong for not talking about it more (LenG). I am confused?
Well it wasn't a personal conversation. That's just IA's interpretation. He may have inferred that because i used the phrase "I understand that..." but of course Barnie's conversation with Porter was on behalf of the rest of us, and the results immediately shared.
Anyway it's water under the bridge. Hopefully Toby Porter was sincere in his apology. I reckon he just tacked on the ACV to fill a few more column inches, and probably didn't realise how he'd make it all kick off on here
So Prague is wrong for discussing a personal conversation (IA) and wrong for not talking about it more (LenG). I am confused?
Well it wasn't a personal conversation. That's just IA's interpretation. He may have inferred that because i used the phrase "I understand that..." but of course Barnie's conversation with Porter was on behalf of the rest of us, and the results immediately shared.
Anyway it's water under the bridge. Hopefully Toby Porter was sincere in his apology. I reckon he just tacked on the ACV to fill a few more column inches, and probably didn't realise how he'd make it all kick off on here
Toby Porter has apologised for his misinformed article relating to to ACV and the Trust ? Is there a link ? Is it adjusted in the SLP ?
So Prague is wrong for discussing a personal conversation (IA) and wrong for not talking about it more (LenG). I am confused?
Well it wasn't a personal conversation. That's just IA's interpretation. He may have inferred that because i used the phrase "I understand that..." but of course Barnie's conversation with Porter was on behalf of the rest of us, and the results immediately shared.
Anyway it's water under the bridge. Hopefully Toby Porter was sincere in his apology. I reckon he just tacked on the ACV to fill a few more column inches, and probably didn't realise how he'd make it all kick off on here
Toby Porter has apologised for his misinformed article relating to to ACV and the Trust ? Is there a link ? Is it adjusted in the SLP ?
He made the apology to Barnie in a telcon. I don't think Barnie asked him about a retraction. None of us thought about it at the time, we were all too overwhelmed rebutting the reaction on here. That's why I carry the resentment towards him, even though I respect Airman's general remarks above.
Toby rang me for a story that's what journos do I assume, they ring everyone and anyone when they need to fill space, I declined but said I would ask a colleague to email him if had anything to say.
I did however attempt to clarify to him the technicalities around ACV pointing out that his story seemed to link the two which I believed based on my knowledge of ACV was very unlikely, also suggesting that before making that inference he could have asked me to clarify before going to press with the piece. At which point he became apologetic admitting the story could come across that way..
I then went to my Xmas party and got nicely aled after relaying the conversation to Prague who helps me with comms stuff.
We won't be pursuing an official apology that I am aware of or publishing a rebuttal, when there are no official quotes from either interested party it would be a bit hard to I think.
We won't be pursuing an official apology that I am aware of or publishing a rebuttal, when there are no official quotes from either interested party it would be a bit hard to I think.
Now that is a sensible answer. Toby Porter is a perfectly decent and honest local reporter. Same way Simon Church is a decent and honest lower division footballer and Powell is a decent and honest lower division manager.
But Porter ain't Paxman in the same way Church is not van Persie and Powell is not Roberto Matinez.
The snide comments about Porter - "shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that" - and claims that his reporting is "spiteful" and "shoddy" are as misguided as criticising Church for not having forced his way into Roy Hodgson's squad or attacking Powell for Charlton not being top of the league.
You get what you pay for. Every Charlton supporter should have learnt that by now.
We won't be pursuing an official apology that I am aware of or publishing a rebuttal, when there are no official quotes from either interested party it would be a bit hard to I think.
Now that is a sensible answer. Toby Porter is a perfectly decent and honest local reporter. Same way Simon Church is a decent and honest lower division footballer and Powell is a decent and honest lower division manager.
But Porter ain't Paxman in the same way Church is not van Persie and Powell is not Roberto Matinez.
The snide comments about Porter - "shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that" - and claims that his reporting is "spiteful" and "shoddy" are as misguided as criticising Church for not having forced his way into Roy Hodgson's squad or attacking Powell for Charlton not being top of the league.
You get what you pay for. Every Charlton supporter should have learnt that by now.
Simon Church is a full welsh international. Just saying. :-)
But Church is English and presumably exercised the Welsh option due to the loophole of some generations distant relative because he's not good enough to play for England?
"Snide" is defined as " derogatory or mocking in an indirect way ". I would have no problem whatsoever to explain face to face to Toby Porter why I consider his behaviour was shitty; however since he's made his apologies to Barnie there is no need to do so. Just saying that I try my best to only write what I would say directly to people; should you wish to test me on that, I would happily try to meet up with you around the Brighton or Massive games (and please don't think that's a Reams type offer :-))
The reference to Peter Cordwell was largely for Airman's benefit; he knows that during the Valley Party campaign Peter was great to us, but always professional, delivering great copy for his readers. Peter was a fan. However we dealt with a whole raft of other journos, most of them in bigger jobs than Peter; and the only one who was shitty to us was Michael Herd of the Standard, and even he gave me a most gracious apology to quote for my paper for the Advertising Effectiveness awards.
I guess its because of all those positive experiences that I was so disappointed with Toby Porter's piece. I don't think times have changed so much. He screwed up, and hurt us in the process.
Comments
I know there are some rules about taking money out of a business then going into Administration, but if they are repaying loans....
While we're on the subject, Toby Porter is not a Millwall fan.
I've heard nothing about administration this week.
Is it gonna be in the next "sensational" voice?
May I ask if you've heard anything about administration at all recently ?
Thanks.
My opinion of the SLP is coloured by their shameful decision to implicitly link the - alleged - withdrawal of the Americans with the granting of ACV. It was especially shameful because Barnie had made himself available to Toby Porter earlier in the ACV process and had done his best to explain it. I understand Porter has since apologized to Barnie, but personally I think it was shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that, I believe.
Toby Porter is doing his job. Working on a local rag is a shit job for shit pay and to have people like you come on here and accuse him of "shitty behaviour" for reporting what he was told by a well-placed source is pot calling the kettle black.
If the reporter was given facts and he chose to ignore them, then that is piss poor work in anyone's book I would have thought and is relevant to this forum and topic. Particularly as so many people on here slagged the people off who applied for the ACV based on that report.
Time some people took a reality check.
Thought not!
All the money wasted on Leveson beause politicians are scared of being caught with their trousers down or skirts up.
The one thing that would kill shoddy journalism at a stroke would be the insistence that retractions are given at least the prominence of the original story.
Anyway it's water under the bridge. Hopefully Toby Porter was sincere in his apology. I reckon he just tacked on the ACV to fill a few more column inches, and probably didn't realise how he'd make it all kick off on here
Toby rang me for a story that's what journos do I assume, they ring everyone and anyone when they need to fill space, I declined but said I would ask a colleague to email him if had anything to say.
I did however attempt to clarify to him the technicalities around ACV pointing out that his story seemed to link the two which I believed based on my knowledge of ACV was very unlikely, also suggesting that before making that inference he could have asked me to clarify before going to press with the piece. At which point he became apologetic admitting the story could come across that way..
I then went to my Xmas party and got nicely aled after relaying the conversation to Prague who helps me with comms stuff.
We won't be pursuing an official apology that I am aware of or publishing a rebuttal, when there are no official quotes from either interested party it would be a bit hard to I think.
But Porter ain't Paxman in the same way Church is not van Persie and Powell is not Roberto Matinez.
The snide comments about Porter - "shitty behaviour. Peter Cordwell wouldn't have done that" - and claims that his reporting is "spiteful" and "shoddy" are as misguided as criticising Church for not having forced his way into Roy Hodgson's squad or attacking Powell for Charlton not being top of the league.
You get what you pay for. Every Charlton supporter should have learnt that by now.
He is welsh!
Just saying.
:-)
"Snide" is defined as " derogatory or mocking in an indirect way ". I would have no problem whatsoever to explain face to face to Toby Porter why I consider his behaviour was shitty; however since he's made his apologies to Barnie there is no need to do so. Just saying that I try my best to only write what I would say directly to people; should you wish to test me on that, I would happily try to meet up with you around the Brighton or Massive games (and please don't think that's a Reams type offer :-))
The reference to Peter Cordwell was largely for Airman's benefit; he knows that during the Valley Party campaign Peter was great to us, but always professional, delivering great copy for his readers. Peter was a fan. However we dealt with a whole raft of other journos, most of them in bigger jobs than Peter; and the only one who was shitty to us was Michael Herd of the Standard, and even he gave me a most gracious apology to quote for my paper for the Advertising Effectiveness awards.
I guess its because of all those positive experiences that I was so disappointed with Toby Porter's piece. I don't think times have changed so much. He screwed up, and hurt us in the process.