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?
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"
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
Or Addickted’s very enticing offer cannot be discounted.
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”.
This seems very unfair. Other than selling players, What other income do most League One clubs receive during the summer?
The implication (if I recall correctly) was this was same for all clubs outside the Premiership
I’m not sure why they’d all bother selling season tickets if that were the case?
Because a season ticket sale guarantees the club income all the while it fulfils its fixtures, regardless of whether individual season ticket holders turn up to games. Plus many fans prefer the convenience factor of not having to repeat the ticket purchase faff each time they visit. Simple really
If the Australian bid is too complicated for the EFL to approve how the hell did the spivs slip through?
EFL could have different processes now. They bought the club in 2010/11.
Subsequent revelations about the spivs' "ownership" or "control" of the entities which owned CAFC during their tenure suggest that the structure was opaque beyond the comprehension of a competent authority. The Football League barely merits that description.
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.
I hope you're right but LDT is just roly's operative and we hardly need reminding of roly's history of bare-faced mendacity.
In correspondence over a case of apparent malpractice by the country's leading credit card issuer, said card issuer (a subsidiary of a well known high street bank) insisted, in writing, to me, that it had no possible way of knowing what I had purchased with that card in that transaction, beyond a generic trade classification appended to the supplier(CAFC); 'leisure services' or some such. It is on the record as claiming it couldn't know I'd bought a season ticket from the club. This was in attempts to defend its actions in levying charges to which it had no right and in contravention of its own published t's & c's. How might a card transactions company distinguish between, say, A Punter paying £1400 for 4 season tickets and A N Other paying £1400 for function room hire? CAFC would be the supplier in both cases. The payment cards would be put in the same card machine. CAFC must process individual card payments from a few pounds to several thousands. There's a strong smell here of telling people what we think they'd want to hear, all the while it reflects well on us, and clamming up, playing the NDA card when matters aren't so rosy.
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"
I wish it *was* black and white.
On 18th May GM said "we've done our bit. Everything is with the EFL. It's out of our hands now". That doesn't sound like the words of someone who has only submitted the first document of many. He was (categorically) expecting the matter to be concluded by 25th May. It's what's happened/changed since then that still seems uncertain, isn't it?
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"
I wish it *was* black and white.
On 18th May GM said "we've done our bit. Everything is with the EFL. It's out of our hands now". That doesn't sound like the words of someone who has only submitted the first document of many. He was (categorically) expecting the matter to be concluded by 25th May. It's what's happened/changed since then that still seems uncertain, isn't it?
Well that suggests that either GM or LDT is / was not telling the full truth. It may well be on the 18th May GM thought they had submitted everything they needed to, but since then discovered that a number of other documents were required. That would surprise me though, given I'm sure the required process is made clear to all parties in advance.
Given the Club would be aware that this was going to be a published and scrutinised output, and states it has to be cc'd on these submissions to the EFL, I'm sure the details of what was being said in this output have been double checked yesterday / this morning. It is making clear that at this point in time, everything is not with EFL, and by how they phrase it, never has been.
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"
I wish it *was* black and white.
On 18th May GM said "we've done our bit. Everything is with the EFL. It's out of our hands now". That doesn't sound like the words of someone who has only submitted the first document of many. He was (categorically) expecting the matter to be concluded by 25th May. It's what's happened/changed since then that still seems uncertain, isn't it?
EFL could quite easily have rejected the application due to missing documents or the requirement for further information. This further information may have needed a bit of extra work in order to supply adequate documentation / evidence to the EFL.
If we assume everyone has been telling the truth here, unlikely I know:
- GM on (or around) the 18th May had provided all the required information and it was therefore, at that stage, in the EFL's hands.
- EFL 'reject' the application as they require further information (would fall in line with both Red Henry stating the application was rejected and Addicted saying there were a couple of conditions). This is also in line with the report on the OS saying nothing needs to be resubmitted, it is further information that is required - this does however disprove the statements of someone needing to be removed due to other interests in an English club / club that plays in the English football pyramid, as taking someone out would surely mean a resubmission of some documents.
- the Aussies have the funds in place according to the OS, hopefully people can now stop saying they don't have the funds, whilst they may not have had the funds at some point this is very unlikely to be the case now, and people ascertaining otherwise are probably using out of date information.
- there probably are some issues surrounding the complexity of the consortium, but hopefully these will be ironed out as soon as possible so the final paperwork can be submitted soon.
Can't wait til this is all over, takeover completed and Charlton go crazy on transfer deadline day in a bid to sign 10 new players.
Geoff Shreeves is mobbed by a delirious crowd live on Sky sports outside the club shop and Seb does the worm for the entire length of the car park.
I can see the headlines now....
" Mysterious disappearance overshadows celebrations at a Happy Valley.
Club legend, Seb " The Worm" Lewis, vanished without trace when he joined thousands of delirious fellow supporters outside the stadium to welcome Charlton's new owners.
He was last seen worming his way across the car park but when questioned later, no-one present could throw any light on his whereabouts.
A member of the club's clean up staff, Anthony Keohane, admitted that he had always been concerned about the potholes in said area and that they were " an accident waiting to happen" but that no-one at the football club had ever taken him seriously....."
AFKA's statement above is my interpretation too. I have been saying for months that I do not think the EFL have all the documents they need and we were nowhere near EFL approval.
Comments
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"
Geoff Shreeves is mobbed by a delirious crowd live on Sky sports outside the club shop and Seb does the worm for the entire length of the car park.
How might a card transactions company distinguish between, say, A Punter paying £1400 for 4 season tickets and A N Other paying £1400 for function room hire? CAFC would be the supplier in both cases. The payment cards would be put in the same card machine. CAFC must process individual card payments from a few pounds to several thousands.
There's a strong smell here of telling people what we think they'd want to hear, all the while it reflects well on us, and clamming up, playing the NDA card when matters aren't so rosy.
On 18th May GM said "we've done our bit. Everything is with the EFL. It's out of our hands now". That doesn't sound like the words of someone who has only submitted the first document of many. He was (categorically) expecting the matter to be concluded by 25th May.
It's what's happened/changed since then that still seems uncertain, isn't it?
I wonder if that is a headline for the official site.
Given the Club would be aware that this was going to be a published and scrutinised output, and states it has to be cc'd on these submissions to the EFL, I'm sure the details of what was being said in this output have been double checked yesterday / this morning. It is making clear that at this point in time, everything is not with EFL, and by how they phrase it, never has been.
that's my interpretation.
EFL could quite easily have rejected the application due to missing documents or the requirement for further information. This further information may have needed a bit of extra work in order to supply adequate documentation / evidence to the EFL.
If we assume everyone has been telling the truth here, unlikely I know:
- GM on (or around) the 18th May had provided all the required information and it was therefore, at that stage, in the EFL's hands.
- EFL 'reject' the application as they require further information (would fall in line with both Red Henry stating the application was rejected and Addicted saying there were a couple of conditions). This is also in line with the report on the OS saying nothing needs to be resubmitted, it is further information that is required - this does however disprove the statements of someone needing to be removed due to other interests in an English club / club that plays in the English football pyramid, as taking someone out would surely mean a resubmission of some documents.
- the Aussies have the funds in place according to the OS, hopefully people can now stop saying they don't have the funds, whilst they may not have had the funds at some point this is very unlikely to be the case now, and people ascertaining otherwise are probably using out of date information.
- there probably are some issues surrounding the complexity of the consortium, but hopefully these will be ironed out as soon as possible so the final paperwork can be submitted soon.
Geoff Shreeves is mobbed by a delirious crowd live on Sky sports outside the club shop and Seb does the worm for the entire length of the car park.
I can see the headlines now....
" Mysterious disappearance overshadows celebrations at a Happy Valley.
Club legend, Seb " The Worm" Lewis, vanished without trace when he joined thousands of delirious fellow supporters outside the stadium to welcome Charlton's new owners.
He was last seen worming his way across the car park but when questioned later, no-one present could throw any light on his whereabouts.
A member of the club's clean up staff, Anthony Keohane, admitted that he had always been concerned about the potholes in said area and that they were " an accident waiting to happen" but that no-one at the football club had ever taken him seriously....."
It is looking to be correct.