I got the impression (and this is my opinion based on a number of comments in the meeting, but not a direct comment) that documents were submitted but some change, clarification or more straightforward demonstration of the final ownership was needed and these are the documents that still need to be submitted. This is also backed up by numerous references to issues with the complexity of the Aussie consortium, and mention that the Aussies do have the money.
Attempts to question details beyond what has been stated were largely covered by NDA comments.
For me personally reference to the second bidder is irrelevant while the Aussies are still in play, and it may turn out to be a bluff - but as others have said and I tend to agree, wouldn't you be doing the same to maintain pressure on the sale/price?
Edit: A number of bids fell away early on when they looked at running costs (not sure however if this was based on our club with super Valley stadium, or based on a typical league 1 club - I will try and get clarity on that). Also others were rejected for their complexity which I take to mean leases and what not.
Would be interesting to hear from those with contacts to the old directors to hear if it is their understanding that the bonds are no longer an issue and if so why? @Davidsmith@nth london addick
By the looks of the report, nothing new was said, I don't understand about Directors Loans not being a problem,unless Roland has decided to repay them or Aussies don't now need clear title. Credit Card issue is disturbing as obviously provider has no guarantees, so holding cash on account. Aussies still scrambling for funds/people to put on EFL approval paperwork? Confirmation of other buyer, which we knew,are they waiting for Roland to pay off Loans? Looks like Aussies and other buyers holding off for as long as they can to get their agreed price which probably in both instances has to have clear title to assets, which means Roland has to sort out the £7mn of Loans. None the wiser than we were before the meeting.
Unless I've misread the minutes David the Club is satisfied that the Aussies do have the money and that Staprix will not retain title of the Valley or training ground no? Still as Henry said this is the regime's version of things.
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
Documents were submitted before the play-off final - Chris Parkes said so to CARD at the time.
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
Documents were submitted before the play-off final - Chris Parkes said so to CARD at the time.
100% of the required documents?
I was responding to the assertion that “the first document” was only submitted in June. This is categorically untrue.
The EFL may well ask for more information on receipt of documents or the make-up of the consortium may have been changed, requiring fresh submissions.
If the club says some paperwork is outstanding then I would take that at face value, because they stand to look very silly if the EFL was to state otherwise.
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
Documents were submitted before the play-off final - Chris Parkes said so to CARD at the time.
100% of the required documents?
Yes, and then they questioned it and asked for more documents which are yet to be provided.
The credit card thing is extraordinary. The banks have been demanding a much higher transaction fee for season tickets from Charlton or the value to be underwritten by guarantees since about 2010. That was why a fee was introduced to discourage people from using credit cards, but it never covered the cost. The bank holding back the funds for match by match release is a sign that they have no confidence in the administration of the club.
The issue is bound to be the Bank DD guarantee where the Bank would indefinitely be liable to repay you the amount you paid by DD if you as the consumer demand it back at any time in the future because the club broke its contract with you.
You can imagine how all the talk about splitting ownership of club and the ground might make the Bank a bit nervous with the prospect of the owner of the club and the owner of the ground being different entities and the owner of the ground locked the gates if a dispute arose.
The credit card thing is extraordinary. The banks have been demanding a much higher transaction fee for season tickets from Charlton or the value to be underwritten by guarantees since about 2010. That was why a fee was introduced to discourage people from using credit cards, but it never covered the cost. The bank holding back the funds for match by match release is a sign that they have no confidence in the administration of the club.
The issue is bound to be the Bank DD guarantee where the Bank would indefinitely be liable to repay you the amount you paid by DD if you as the consumer demand it back at any time in the future because the club broke its contract with you.
You can imagine how all the talk about splitting ownership of club and the ground might make the Bank a bit nervous with the prospect of the owner of the club and the owner of the ground being different entities and the owner of the ground locked the gates if a dispute arose.
I think, on reflection, it’s likely to be less specific than that. They don’t have a clear understanding of the immediate future and on that basis consider the risk of them becoming liable for refunds is too great.
I’m slowly getting the idea that this isn’t a serious problem....just the banks dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to cover their arses......as they are increasingly known to do nowadays.
Would be interesting to hear from those with contacts to the old directors to hear if it is their understanding that the bonds are no longer an issue and if so why? @Davidsmith@nth london addick
By the looks of the report, nothing new was said, I don't understand about Directors Loans not being a problem,unless Roland has decided to repay them or Aussies don't now need clear title. Credit Card issue is disturbing as obviously provider has no guarantees, so holding cash on account. Aussies still scrambling for funds/people to put on EFL approval paperwork? Confirmation of other buyer, which we knew,are they waiting for Roland to pay off Loans? Looks like Aussies and other buyers holding off for as long as they can to get their agreed price which probably in both instances has to have clear title to assets, which means Roland has to sort out the £7mn of Loans. None the wiser than we were before the meeting.
Why are you still perpetuating the myth that the Aussies don't have the funds when the club have said they are satisfied that they do? It's getting boring now.
I'd say it's the opposite. If the EFL process is the only thing holding it up, then providing the Aussies can simplify their structure and submit the remaining paperwork, we could be home and dry.
I guess it depends on the complexity of the paperwork that still needs to be submitted. If it's relatively simple then we could be close but that would beg the question as to why it hasn't been submitted yet if it's so simple?
I got the impression (and this is my opinion based on a number of comments in the meeting, but not a direct comment) that documents were submitted but some change, clarification or more straightforward demonstration of the final ownership was needed and these are the documents that still need to be submitted. This is also backed up by numerous references to issues with the complexity of the Aussie consortium, and mention that the Aussies do have the money.
Attempts to question details beyond what has been stated were largely covered by NDA comments.
For me personally reference to the second bidder is irrelevant while the Aussies are still in play, and it may turn out to be a bluff - but as others have said and I tend to agree, wouldn't you be doing the same to maintain pressure on the sale/price?
Edit: A number of bids fell away early on when they looked at running costs (not sure however if this was based on our club with super Valley stadium, or based on a typical league 1 club - I will try and get clarity on that). Also others were rejected for their complexity which I take to mean leases and what not.
Should the truth ever emerge, would this not be seen as fraud rather than a simple bluff? To hold the price artificially high by lying wouldn't be viewed to well in the courts imo.
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
That's wrong I think. They told me they submitted all documents before 18th May.
I suspect these new documents *may* be to do with new/replacement investors. Whether they are to do with proving they have the liquid assets to invest, or whether they are to prove that they have no interests in other clubs (or something else) it's hard to know.
I got the impression (and this is my opinion based on a number of comments in the meeting, but not a direct comment) that documents were submitted but some change, clarification or more straightforward demonstration of the final ownership was needed and these are the documents that still need to be submitted. This is also backed up by numerous references to issues with the complexity of the Aussie consortium, and mention that the Aussies do have the money.
Attempts to question details beyond what has been stated were largely covered by NDA comments.
For me personally reference to the second bidder is irrelevant while the Aussies are still in play, and it may turn out to be a bluff - but as others have said and I tend to agree, wouldn't you be doing the same to maintain pressure on the sale/price?
Edit: A number of bids fell away early on when they looked at running costs (not sure however if this was based on our club with super Valley stadium, or based on a typical league 1 club - I will try and get clarity on that). Also others were rejected for their complexity which I take to mean leases and what not.
Should the truth ever emerge, would this not be seen as fraud rather than a simple bluff? To hold the price artificially high by lying wouldn't be viewed to well in the courts imo.
The other bid may be RM for a quid, but no-one needs to know except that there is a second bidder and that an NDA is in place
Would be interesting if anyone here knows someone in the Aussie camp and could ask if the statements are consistent with their knowledge of things. Not l necessarily after details just a yes or no response (but with the obvious follow up questions if the answer is no!)
If only we had someone on this forum who knows one of the Aussies...
Would be interesting if anyone here knows someone in the Aussie camp and could ask if the statements are consistent with their knowledge of things. Not l necessarily after details just a yes or no response (but with the obvious follow up questions if the answer is no!)
If only we had someone on this forum who knows one of the Aussies...
I've asked the question, and if I get an answer I'll post it on here first.
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
That's wrong I think. They told me they submitted all documents before 18th May.
I suspect these new documents *may* be to do with new/replacement investors. Whether they are to do with proving they have the liquid assets to invest, or whether they are to prove that they have no interests in other clubs (or something else) it's hard to know.
I wondered if it was more the case that the EFL aren't 100% happy with the complex structure of the consortium and need it simplified before any more progress can be made. Perhaps they want more clarity on who will actually own the club or take overall responsibility. I don't know, I'm guessing here really, but after the obscurity of the previous regime, maybe the EFL want things a bit clearer this time?
The credit card thing is extraordinary. The banks have been demanding a much higher transaction fee for season tickets from Charlton or the value to be underwritten by guarantees since about 2010. That was why a fee was introduced to discourage people from using credit cards, but it never covered the cost. The bank holding back the funds for match by match release is a sign that they have no confidence in the administration of the club.
I was going to ask is it not so (credit card season ticket money being released game-by-game) at other clubs. Reading your post I guess it's indeed just us?
It's an interesting point. Have they now introduced this for other clubs too? I wouldn't be surprised.
The thing is Jessie that under UK legislation the credit card companies are jointly and severally liable for anything over £100 in the event that goods and services are not provided when a company goes bust. That'll make them ultra cautious.
I recall, for example that when the club offered the last (5-year?) VIP season ticket scheme, that you couldn't even pay by credit card as the credit card companies wouldn't take the risk that the club would still exist in 5 year's time. (As I, too, am risk adverse I didn't apply for one for this reason.)
Thanks. That's indeed something new to me. It's not like that here in China.
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
That's wrong I think. They told me they submitted all documents before 18th May.
I suspect these new documents *may* be to do with new/replacement investors. Whether they are to do with proving they have the liquid assets to invest, or whether they are to prove that they have no interests in other clubs (or something else) it's hard to know.
I wondered if it was more the case that the EFL aren't 100% happy with the complex structure of the consortium and need it simplified before any more progress can be made. Perhaps they want more clarity on who will actually own the club or take overall responsibility. I don't know, I'm guessing here really, but after the obscurity of the previous regime, maybe the EFL want things a bit clearer this time?
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
That's wrong I think. They told me they submitted all documents before 18th May.
I suspect these new documents *may* be to do with new/replacement investors. Whether they are to do with proving they have the liquid assets to invest, or whether they are to prove that they have no interests in other clubs (or something else) it's hard to know.
I wondered if it was more the case that the EFL aren't 100% happy with the complex structure of the consortium and need it simplified before any more progress can be made. Perhaps they want more clarity on who will actually own the club or take overall responsibility. I don't know, I'm guessing here really, but after the obscurity of the previous regime, maybe the EFL want things a bit clearer this time?
To be honest, after what happened with the Spivs, I too would like our new ownership to be completely transparent.
at no point in this statement does it appear that any blame for the delay, or even the cuts in breakfast spending, are the fault of Mr Trueck or the regime.
It's the bank holding back the money, it's the Aussies, it's the EFL, never the regime's fault.
At the same time, there have been plenty of comments here blaming the delays entirely on Roland, and exonerating the Aussies. All along I've wondered if there were issues on the Aussie side, and the statement confirms this. Trueck might paint a one side picture, but the one thing he won't do is tell factual lies (that can be disproven) in public and on record.
As part of the regulations the Australians need to lodge a series of documents with the EFL before they get formal approval. The documents prove financials, include a director’s test etc. Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted
So the first document was only submitted to the EFL in June, and the full set still haven't been submitted. So we can't blame the EFL for not approving the takeover, as they haven't received all the documentation yet.
That's wrong I think. They told me they submitted all documents before 18th May.
I suspect these new documents *may* be to do with new/replacement investors. Whether they are to do with proving they have the liquid assets to invest, or whether they are to prove that they have no interests in other clubs (or something else) it's hard to know.
I wondered if it was more the case that the EFL aren't 100% happy with the complex structure of the consortium and need it simplified before any more progress can be made. Perhaps they want more clarity on who will actually own the club or take overall responsibility. I don't know, I'm guessing here really, but after the obscurity of the previous regime, maybe the EFL want things a bit clearer this time?
To be honest, after what happened with the Spivs, I too would like our new ownership to be completely transparent.
Indeed, me too.
Besides, if it all goes tits up, we need to know who's in charge so we can direct the protests accordingly
I’m told by someone who is very much better placed than anyone at the FF to know that match by match drawdown of season ticket funds is “only standard when they think there is a serious financial risk”.
The complication thing / EFL potentially questioning I think is red herring.
Its set out clear in black and white:
"The only issue holding up the process is EFL approval"
"Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted"
Comments
Attempts to question details beyond what has been stated were largely covered by NDA comments.
For me personally reference to the second bidder is irrelevant while the Aussies are still in play, and it may turn out to be a bluff - but as others have said and I tend to agree, wouldn't you be doing the same to maintain pressure on the sale/price?
Edit: A number of bids fell away early on when they looked at running costs (not sure however if this was based on our club with super Valley stadium, or based on a typical league 1 club - I will try and get clarity on that). Also others were rejected for their complexity which I take to mean leases and what not.
The EFL may well ask for more information on receipt of documents or the make-up of the consortium may have been changed, requiring fresh submissions.
If the club says some paperwork is outstanding then I would take that at face value, because they stand to look very silly if the EFL was to state otherwise.
You can imagine how all the talk about splitting ownership of club and the ground might make the Bank a bit nervous with the prospect of the owner of the club and the owner of the ground being different entities and the owner of the ground locked the gates if a dispute arose.
The big unknown is why?
Unlike us....the respective lawyers will be loving every minute of it.
That's wrong I think. They told me they submitted all documents before 18th May.
I suspect these new documents *may* be to do with new/replacement investors. Whether they are to do with proving they have the liquid assets to invest, or whether they are to prove that they have no interests in other clubs (or something else) it's hard to know.
If only we had someone on this forum who knows one of the Aussies...
It's certainly possible.
Page 2000 coming up on the inside rail.
Besides, if it all goes tits up, we need to know who's in charge so we can direct the protests accordingly
Its set out clear in black and white:
"The only issue holding up the process is EFL approval"
"Around one month ago, the first document was lodged with the EFL but not all required documents have yet been submitted to the EFL. There are one or two still outstanding. There has been no need for anything to be resubmitted"