I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
Edit: hang on - they didn't use a lawyer recommended by RD by any chance?
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
If they were moronic enough to expect it to get through if the dual ownership is the real reason, then we've ducked a bullet.
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
I find it astounding anyone in the Aussie consortium believed they'd get away with that if true / or didn't realise that rule existed.
That is what I do not get.
If they thought they would get away with it, or didn't have the nouse (or seek advice) as to what the EFL fit and proper tests involved then I'm not sure they are any better than the chuckle brothers.
I believe neither is the case - it might be that the two investors had second thoughts but I cannot believe it was for having a significant interest in another English club.
These guys use lawyers so they’d know anyway.
Precisely.
So why else would The EFL knock them back, I wonder?
If they have been knocked back, here you go, take your pick.
All well and good blaming RD. The facts are the Aussies got into a bidding war and didn't have the funds. Laughable
Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?
I don't think anyone here is going to fall for that ;-)
They decided to up an offer to outbid the Arabs when they didn’t have finances in place? Secondly going to a match wearing scarfs and sitting in the directors box, Michael Knighton only topped that.
Did they really?
You're trying to get a response on here. It's not worth it. We're over the argument phase. Why are you targetting me for the wind up btw?
What are you on about targeting you ??
Well you keep replying to me or using @jamesseed with hostile comments about the Aussies. It's just a bit obvious.
I haven't posted on here for weeks. Calm down dear.
We can tell.
@JamesSeed with all due respect, if you don't want people to try and wind you up then don't make silly replies.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
This was quite a short comment, but posted in a manner that it's supposed to be taken as fact. So I am going to dissect it into small enough pieces that we can differentiate the facts fro the conjecture and assumption.
(I'm quite aware that this is adding very little to the sum of knowledge on the thread, but it's quietly satisfying to dispell some of the nonsense).
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out
No. No-one has had to "pull out". The consortium can be reconfigured in a number of ways that allows all members of the consortium to continue to play a part. No individual has been banned from taking part.
Conjecture. Might be true in one case or in more than one case. But not confirmed. And, incidentally, if it were confirmed, wouldn't we expect to hear announcements (confirmatins? denials?) from the clubs concerned?
Conjecture. In fact, worse than conjecture, since it appears to have been denied - perhaps @JamesSeed knows whether this has been publicly or or privately denied, ie that sufficient funding is (still) in place.
In short, we don't know as fact any of these issues, presented as "fact". Interesting comment though.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
This was quite a short comment, but posted in a manner that it's supposed to be taken as fact. So I am going to dissect it into small enough pieces that we can differentiate the facts fro the conjecture and assumption.
(I'm quite aware that this is adding very little to the sum of knowledge on the thread, but it's quietly satisfying to dispell some of the nonsense).
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out
No. No-one has had to "pull out". The consortium can be reconfigured in a number of ways that allows all members of the consortium to continue to play a part. No individual has been banned from taking part.
Conjecture. Might be true in one case or in more than one case. But not confirmed. And, incidentally, if it were confirmed, wouldn't we expect to hear announcements (confirmatins? denials?) from the clubs concerned?
Conjecture. In fact, worse than conjecture, since it appears to have been denied - perhaps @JamesSeed knows whether this has been publicly or or privately denied, ie that sufficient funding is (still) in place.
In short, we don't know as fact any of these issues, presented as "fact". Interesting comment though.
Let’s wait and see.
Interesting. Because facts are facts. Not "wait and see if they're facts". That's conjecture.
So, thanks for confirming, in four words, that my post is right. Appreciate it.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
This was quite a short comment, but posted in a manner that it's supposed to be taken as fact. So I am going to dissect it into small enough pieces that we can differentiate the facts fro the conjecture and assumption.
(I'm quite aware that this is adding very little to the sum of knowledge on the thread, but it's quietly satisfying to dispell some of the nonsense).
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out
No. No-one has had to "pull out". The consortium can be reconfigured in a number of ways that allows all members of the consortium to continue to play a part. No individual has been banned from taking part.
Conjecture. Might be true in one case or in more than one case. But not confirmed. And, incidentally, if it were confirmed, wouldn't we expect to hear announcements (confirmatins? denials?) from the clubs concerned?
Conjecture. In fact, worse than conjecture, since it appears to have been denied - perhaps @JamesSeed knows whether this has been publicly or or privately denied, ie that sufficient funding is (still) in place.
In short, we don't know as fact any of these issues, presented as "fact". Interesting comment though.
Let’s wait and see.
Interesting. Because facts are facts. Not "wait and see if they're facts". That's conjecture.
So, thanks for confirming, in four words, that my post is right. Appreciate it.
And on what grounds are you basing my posts on speculation?
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
This was quite a short comment, but posted in a manner that it's supposed to be taken as fact. So I am going to dissect it into small enough pieces that we can differentiate the facts fro the conjecture and assumption.
(I'm quite aware that this is adding very little to the sum of knowledge on the thread, but it's quietly satisfying to dispell some of the nonsense).
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out
No. No-one has had to "pull out". The consortium can be reconfigured in a number of ways that allows all members of the consortium to continue to play a part. No individual has been banned from taking part.
Conjecture. Might be true in one case or in more than one case. But not confirmed. And, incidentally, if it were confirmed, wouldn't we expect to hear announcements (confirmatins? denials?) from the clubs concerned?
Conjecture. In fact, worse than conjecture, since it appears to have been denied - perhaps @JamesSeed knows whether this has been publicly or or privately denied, ie that sufficient funding is (still) in place.
In short, we don't know as fact any of these issues, presented as "fact". Interesting comment though.
Let’s wait and see.
Interesting. Because facts are facts. Not "wait and see if they're facts". That's conjecture.
So, thanks for confirming, in four words, that my post is right. Appreciate it.
And on what grounds are you basing my posts on speculation?
On what grounds? On the grounds that none of it is demonstrable fact.
Let me be clear: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation, per se. But it is distinct from fact.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
This was quite a short comment, but posted in a manner that it's supposed to be taken as fact. So I am going to dissect it into small enough pieces that we can differentiate the facts fro the conjecture and assumption.
(I'm quite aware that this is adding very little to the sum of knowledge on the thread, but it's quietly satisfying to dispell some of the nonsense).
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out
No. No-one has had to "pull out". The consortium can be reconfigured in a number of ways that allows all members of the consortium to continue to play a part. No individual has been banned from taking part.
Conjecture. Might be true in one case or in more than one case. But not confirmed. And, incidentally, if it were confirmed, wouldn't we expect to hear announcements (confirmatins? denials?) from the clubs concerned?
Conjecture. In fact, worse than conjecture, since it appears to have been denied - perhaps @JamesSeed knows whether this has been publicly or or privately denied, ie that sufficient funding is (still) in place.
In short, we don't know as fact any of these issues, presented as "fact". Interesting comment though.
Let’s wait and see.
Interesting. Because facts are facts. Not "wait and see if they're facts". That's conjecture.
So, thanks for confirming, in four words, that my post is right. Appreciate it.
And on what grounds are you basing my posts on speculation?
On what grounds? On the grounds that none of it is demonstrable fact.
Let me be clear: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation, per se. But it is distinct from fact.
How do you know that they are not facts? Are you able to provide another version of events ?
All well and good blaming RD. The facts are the Aussies got into a bidding war and didn't have the funds. Laughable
Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?
I don't think anyone here is going to fall for that ;-)
They decided to up an offer to outbid the Arabs when they didn’t have finances in place? Secondly going to a match wearing scarfs and sitting in the directors box, Michael Knighton only topped that.
Did they really?
You're trying to get a response on here. It's not worth it. We're over the argument phase. Why are you targetting me for the wind up btw?
What are you on about targeting you ??
Well you keep replying to me or using @jamesseed with hostile comments about the Aussies. It's just a bit obvious.
I haven't posted on here for weeks. Calm down dear.
We can tell.
@JamesSeed with all due respect, if you don't want people to try and wind you up then don't make silly replies.
It appears that Red Henry and NLA are the main men to be in the know. Red Henry highlighted that Aussies failed the fit and proper test, NLA called it with the lack of funds, factor in Red Henry with the Arabs I know what posts are more reliable.
so, if the Aussies failed the fit and proper person test how did it get there if they didn't have the funds? They had the funds then but because of it don't have the funds now.
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out due to the fact that they had interests at other clubs, this then meant once these two left the funds were no longer there.
This was quite a short comment, but posted in a manner that it's supposed to be taken as fact. So I am going to dissect it into small enough pieces that we can differentiate the facts fro the conjecture and assumption.
(I'm quite aware that this is adding very little to the sum of knowledge on the thread, but it's quietly satisfying to dispell some of the nonsense).
Those that were backing the consortium had to pull out
No. No-one has had to "pull out". The consortium can be reconfigured in a number of ways that allows all members of the consortium to continue to play a part. No individual has been banned from taking part.
Conjecture. Might be true in one case or in more than one case. But not confirmed. And, incidentally, if it were confirmed, wouldn't we expect to hear announcements (confirmatins? denials?) from the clubs concerned?
Conjecture. In fact, worse than conjecture, since it appears to have been denied - perhaps @JamesSeed knows whether this has been publicly or or privately denied, ie that sufficient funding is (still) in place.
In short, we don't know as fact any of these issues, presented as "fact". Interesting comment though.
Let’s wait and see.
Interesting. Because facts are facts. Not "wait and see if they're facts". That's conjecture.
So, thanks for confirming, in four words, that my post is right. Appreciate it.
And on what grounds are you basing my posts on speculation?
On what grounds? On the grounds that none of it is demonstrable fact.
Let me be clear: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation, per se. But it is distinct from fact.
How do you know that they are not facts? Are you able to provide another version of events ?
He doesn't need to provide another version. That's not how facts work.
Is it significant that Saturday is the end of the Clubs financial year?
You do wonder. Perhaps why there's a deadline been mentioned. It's not a full deadline, it's a convenience deadline.
Like Henners I've heard a tiny piece of positivity from inside the club. Perhaps they had a better day, after an awful day. Nothing more than that probably.
Is it significant that Saturday is the end of the Clubs financial year?
You do wonder. Perhaps why there's a deadline been mentioned. It's not a full deadline, it's a convenience deadline.
Like Henners I've heard a tiny piece of positivity from inside the club. Perhaps they had a better day, after an awful day. Nothing more than that probably.
Is it significant that Saturday is the end of the Clubs financial year?
You do wonder. Perhaps why there's a deadline been mentioned. It's not a full deadline, it's a convenience deadline.
Like Henners I've heard a tiny piece of positivity from inside the club. Perhaps they had a better day, after an awful day. Nothing more than that probably.
Comments
Edit: hang on - they didn't use a lawyer recommended by RD by any chance?
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-3---owners-and-directors-test/
Colin’s new home is the Charlton Facebook group.
Colin he ain't.
tick tock, tick tock.
We'll find out WIOTOS
So, thanks for confirming, in four words, that my post is right. Appreciate it.
Let me be clear: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation, per se. But it is distinct from fact.
Like Henners I've heard a tiny piece of positivity from inside the club. Perhaps they had a better day, after an awful day. Nothing more than that probably.