|
Post by themightymidget on May 18, 2020 4:12:26 GMT
Which is the best result we can hope for?
|
|
|
Post by AndyAddick on May 18, 2020 8:28:08 GMT
Which is the best result we can hope for? admin and relegation , then rent the stadium / tg back from RD, all very Nodes / Palace ! :-( anyone dug around in the ADBD web site ? I found the below, looks like it was knocked up by a Daniel Eden in 2019, strnage for a company with SO many well known clients , oh , and NONE of the said companies links resolve at their own websites ! I'm guessing this is a 100% fake site * animate.css -https://daneden.github.io/animate.css/ * Version - 3.7.2 * Licensed under the MIT license - opensource.org/licenses/MIT * * Copyright (c) 2019 Daniel Eden
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 18, 2020 8:36:28 GMT
Spoke to alan Nixon yeeseday said no one can volid the sale now plus old owner not interested getting involved as far as he concerned club got sold and untill he due payment he not getting in involved in it and said he get get hes money one way or another and esi have had loads off offers but not intested in selling at any price at moment as think efl was approved the funds shortley
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on May 18, 2020 8:59:52 GMT
Spoke to alan Nixon yeeseday said no one can volid the sale now plus old owner not interested getting involved as far as he concerned club got sold and untill he due payment he not getting in involved in it and said he get get hes money one way or another and esi have had loads off offers but not intested in selling at any price at moment as think efl was approved the funds shortley Come again? Dear me come on mate we have had this conversation before. Please read your messages back to yourself before posting because that is just shocking.
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on May 18, 2020 10:49:21 GMT
Spoke to alan Nixon yeeseday said no one can volid the sale now plus old owner not interested getting involved as far as he concerned club got sold and untill he due payment he not getting in involved in it and said he get get hes money one way or another and esi have had loads off offers but not intested in selling at any price at moment as think efl was approved the funds shortley Did Nixon actually explain why the sale could not be voided? The Ex-Directors stated that they had a strong case, not so long ago. They have also not made any announcement, to my knowledge and to the time of posting, that anything in that regard has changed.
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 18, 2020 11:06:05 GMT
Spoke to alan Nixon yeeseday said no one can volid the sale now plus old owner not interested getting involved as far as he concerned club got sold and untill he due payment he not getting in involved in it and said he get get hes money one way or another and esi have had loads off offers but not intested in selling at any price at moment as think efl was approved the funds shortley Did Nixon actually explain why the sale could not be voided? The Ex-Directors stated that they had a strong case, not so long ago. They have also not many any announcement, to my knowledge and to the time of posting, that anything in that regard has changed. How can a third party insist that Roland take back control of a losing business four months after he sold it and after the ‘new owners’ have, literally taken out all the cash and the income that has come in and where there is no income expected for months and months all the while the running costs need to be paid? That’s like you selling your house and six months later when the prices have fallen being forced to buy it back at the inflated price. I have no inside information about the ex-Director’s motives but I have always believed that it was to secure their loans by protecting their first charge or, more likely, proving that as the terms has changed they were repayable sooner than when Charlton are promoted to the Premier League, which, to me, looks further away now than at any time in the club’s history. I don’t expect that anyone, other than the ex-Directors, will get any benefit from this legal action. In fact, the outcome could, by coincidence/accident, make the club’s demise more likely.
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on May 18, 2020 11:20:33 GMT
Did Nixon actually explain why the sale could not be voided? The Ex-Directors stated that they had a strong case, not so long ago. They have also not many any announcement, to my knowledge and to the time of posting, that anything in that regard has changed. How can a third party insist that Roland take back control of a losing business four months after he sold it and after the ‘new owners’ have, literally taken out all the cash and the income that has come in and where there is no income expected for months and months all the while the running costs need to be paid? That’s like you selling your house and six months later when the prices have fallen being forced to buy it back at the inflated price. I have no inside information about the ex-Director’s motives but I have always believed that it was to secure their loans by protecting their first charge or, more likely, proving that as the terms has changed they were repayable sooner than when Charlton are promoted to the Premier League, which, to me, looks further away now than at any time in the club’s history. I don’t expect that anyone, other than the ex-Directors, we’ll get any benefit from this legal action. In fact, the outcome could, by coincidence/accident, make the club’s demise more likely. The only thing that will benefit us fans now, is a new and responsible buyer/owner. Given our recent past, we are more likely to see pigs fly. As to my comment about the Ex-Directors, I have no legal insight into what the former owner's obligations are, other than if he 'is' forced to take back control, then the club is his, to do as he pleases.
|
|
|
Post by 1978sussex on May 18, 2020 15:51:48 GMT
I am only reporting what alan Nixon reporting that sale cant be stopped and previous owner wont get involved and esi wont sell less it silly money
|
|
|
Post by AndyAddick on May 18, 2020 15:52:49 GMT
southalls's deleted his twatter account
|
|
|
Post by squareball on May 18, 2020 16:26:00 GMT
I am only reporting what alan Nixon reporting that sale cant be stopped and previous owner wont get involved and esi wont sell less it silly money Why would he after all the hatred. I wouldn’t either. We are where we are not by chance but by a chain of events. We await our fate and hope it’s kind to us.
|
|
|
Post by clarky on May 18, 2020 16:56:07 GMT
The fact that the ex director's have first charge could make the sale invalid by virtue of these charges, thereby voiding the sale and reverting back to Roland. It could also mean that ESI cannot sell as the club is not their's to do so!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:04:37 GMT
The fact that the ex director's have first charge could make the sale invalid by virtue of these charges, thereby voiding the sale and reverting back to Roland. It could also mean that ESI cannot sell as the club is not their's to do so! That is correct. Welcome to the Forum.
|
|
|
Post by clarky on May 18, 2020 17:12:21 GMT
Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 18, 2020 17:26:03 GMT
The fact that the ex director's have first charge could make the sale invalid by virtue of these charges, thereby voiding the sale and reverting back to Roland. It could also mean that ESI cannot sell as the club is not their's to do so! I can see how the latter could be implemented but I can’t see how Roland can be forced to take the club back. At the very worst he would have to renegotiate the loans, or pay them off. More importantly, however, is what happens if the club ceases to exist. The club owes the debts (only in the event that the club get to the Premier League) but the charge is on the land assets that have always been owned by a separate company. If the club folds then the promotion trigger can never happen, which could well mean that the loans are never repayable. I have suspicions that this possible outcome might not have been catered for in the loan agreements. If not it could mean a long drawn out legal battle.
|
|
|
Post by dartford36 on May 18, 2020 17:30:39 GMT
The fact that the ex director's have first charge could make the sale invalid by virtue of these charges, thereby voiding the sale and reverting back to Roland. It could also mean that ESI cannot sell as the club is not their's to do so! That is correct. Welcome to the Forum. Does anyone know if the former Directors have actually commenced any legal action and if not whether they will? Because as stated elsewhere it could be a long process and expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:31:51 GMT
The fact that the ex director's have first charge could make the sale invalid by virtue of these charges, thereby voiding the sale and reverting back to Roland. It could also mean that ESI cannot sell as the club is not their's to do so! I can see how the latter could be implemented but I can’t see how Roland can be forced to take the club back. At the very worst he would have to renegotiate the loans, or pay them off. More importantly, however, is what happens if the club ceases to exist. The club owes the debts (only in the event that the club get to the Premier League) but the charge is on the land assets that have always been owned by a separate company. If the club folds then the promotion trigger can never happen, which could well mean that the loans are never repayable. I have suspicions that this possible outcome might not have been catered for in the loan agreements. If not it could mean a long drawn out legal battle. If the ex directors can get the judgement reversed in the courts it would revert back to Roland as the sale was not legally binding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:33:04 GMT
That is correct. Welcome to the Forum. Does anyone know if the former Directors have actually commenced any legal action and if not whether they will? Because as stated elsewhere it could be a long process and expensive. They have started the legal process but it is going at the pace of a snail.
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 18, 2020 17:45:53 GMT
I can see how the latter could be implemented but I can’t see how Roland can be forced to take the club back. At the very worst he would have to renegotiate the loans, or pay them off. More importantly, however, is what happens if the club ceases to exist. The club owes the debts (only in the event that the club get to the Premier League) but the charge is on the land assets that have always been owned by a separate company. If the club folds then the promotion trigger can never happen, which could well mean that the loans are never repayable. I have suspicions that this possible outcome might not have been catered for in the loan agreements. If not it could mean a long drawn out legal battle. If the ex directors can get the judgement reversed in the courts it would revert back to Roland as the sale was not legally binding. I don’t see what jurisdiction a British Court can have on a Belgium company that has, presumably, not broken the law by selling a company that was losing money. More importantly, how can the Courts make Staprix fund a loss making business?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:53:54 GMT
If the ex directors can get the judgement reversed in the courts it would revert back to Roland as the sale was not legally binding. I don’t see what jurisdiction a British Court can have on a Belgium company that has, presumably, not broken the law by selling a company that was losing money. More importantly, how can the Courts make Staprix fund a loss making business? The ex Directors have taken top legal advice and have been assured that they have a good case for overturning the sale.
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on May 18, 2020 17:58:31 GMT
I don’t see what jurisdiction a British Court can have on a Belgium company that has, presumably, not broken the law by selling a company that was losing money. More importantly, how can the Courts make Staprix fund a loss making business? The ex Directors have taken top legal advice and have been assured that they have a good case for overturning the sale. I don’t doubt it. However, if all legal advice was correct no one would ever go to court, yet they do, all the time, and normally one person wins and one person loses and I suspect that the loser expected to win. Having said all that I would be delighted if the club was taken away from the two chancers that, currently, own it. The elephant in the room, however, is that if there is any real chance of that happening Nimer will put no money into the club until the decision is made which, almost certainly, means that there will be no club left by the time we find out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 18:01:19 GMT
Perhaps this will explain it better.
Charlton Athletic Sport Charlton Athletic’s former directors ready to ramp up legal proceedings to unpick ESI’s takeover deal with Roland Duchatelet 20th March 2020 Richard Cawley 4 Comments BY RICHARD CAWLEY richard@slpmedia.co.uk
Tahnoon Nimer’s hold over Charlton Athletic is set to be tested by a legal challenge from some of the club’s ex-directors – who are ready to take out an injunction to force control back to Roland Duchatelet.
We exclusively revealed on our website earlier this week that East Street Investments’ January takeover of the Championship outfit was set to take a fresh twist.
There were fears that there was a significant shortfall in funding for the Addicks to finish the campaign – and that was before the coronavirus outbreak halted the domestic football calendar and put extra strain on clubs.
But the EFL’s decision to bring forward “basic award payments” to help ease the crisis has boosted Charlton’s coffers by £800,000.
The ex-directors – Derek Chappell, Bob Whitehand, David Sumners, Richard Murray, Sir Maurice Hatter, David White and David Hughes – are due loans totalling £7million should Charlton win promotion to the Premier League.
Roland Duchatelet did not resolve the historic debt when he bought the Addicks in 2014.
Chappell and one other former board member have started legal proceedings with the threat of a mandatory injunction before the end of next week if Charlton is not reversed back to Baton 2010 Ltd. Baton is owned by Staprix NV, which Duchatelet has a 95 per cent stake in.
There are aspects of the takeover that would have required their consent. The question is whether their charge over Charlton Athletic has been compromised as a result.
If successful with their application then it is not clear what Duchatelet would do.
He already owns the freehold to all the land with ESI only stating before they had a “legal obligation” to buy inside six months.
Duchatelet had been looking to offload the club long before he struck a deal with ESI and seems unlikely to want to take back on the day-to-day running. One scenario is that he quickly agrees a deal with another party.
Nimer is the majority shareholder in ESI but the Syrian has not shown proof or sufficiency of funds to the EFL.
Those last hurdles – both significant ones – have been the stumbling blocks to gaining takeover approval from the governing body since the middle of January.
There is a “legal obligation” by ESI to buy The Valley and the training ground by the end of June.
Nimer has won his power struggle with executive chairman Matt Southall, who has stayed away from the South London club’s property since the end of last week.
Our paper tried to contact Nimer via Charlton Athletic but there was no response by the time we went to press.
|
|
|
Post by squareball on May 18, 2020 18:11:31 GMT
If RD is somehow forced to take the club back he’ll just liquidate it l fear. He’ll probably sell the assets, pay off the ex-directors and be done with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 18:16:06 GMT
If RD is somehow forced to take the club back he’ll just liquidate it l fear. He’ll probably sell the assets, pay off the ex-directors and be done with it. Or he might find a new buyer.
|
|
|
Post by clarky on May 18, 2020 18:25:41 GMT
In answer to kings hill addict, I think the point is Roland could not split the club from its assets without gaining consent from the ex director's, he did not do this so with that in mind it may make the sale illegal. I also do not think it is in Roland's best interest for the club to go into administration. The ex director's are likely to be first in line for payback which may fall to Roland if Nimer doesn't have the funds as has been muted. Yes Roland would be left with the ground and training ground but their value is £25m, and probably depreciating in the current climate, so he is not going to get the £55m he wants by that route either.
|
|
|
Post by jonkool on May 18, 2020 21:45:44 GMT
I don’t see what jurisdiction a British Court can have on a Belgium company that has, presumably, not broken the law by selling a company that was losing money. More importantly, how can the Courts make Staprix fund a loss making business? The ex Directors have taken top legal advice and have been assured that they have a good case for overturning the sale. Not doubting your sources Dick but I’m sure that Megan Markle was advised that she had a strong case against the Mail on Sunday but the case is already looking very shaky!
|
|
|
Post by oldred on May 18, 2020 22:54:43 GMT
I can see how the latter could be implemented but I can’t see how Roland can be forced to take the club back. At the very worst he would have to renegotiate the loans, or pay them off. More importantly, however, is what happens if the club ceases to exist. The club owes the debts (only in the event that the club get to the Premier League) but the charge is on the land assets that have always been owned by a separate company. If the club folds then the promotion trigger can never happen, which could well mean that the loans are never repayable. I have suspicions that this possible outcome might not have been catered for in the loan agreements. If not it could mean a long drawn out legal battle. If the ex directors can get the judgement reversed in the courts it would revert back to Roland as the sale was not legally binding. That’s how I saw it also, RD won’t be taking it back, if the sale Is voided it was never sold, therefore ownership automatically reverts to him.
|
|
|
Post by fferdinand on May 19, 2020 1:55:34 GMT
i don't think RD will be take back the club. also nimer and southall won't get along anymore. we need new owner(s) it's the best way the solve the crisis. club has big debts, will lose most important players in the squad like taylor. we can't hold them. if we get relegated, have to build a new squad. club needs a new investor and hope there won't be someone like that nimer, southall or cellino. need some fresh ideas. i don't know how but it should be.
|
|
|
Post by lukepiestalker on May 19, 2020 5:58:49 GMT
The sale of The Valley will be under English law, regardless of who or what owns it and where they are based.
In theory, it cannot be sold without the consent of any first charges on the property.
As such, the deal that has been made, if it includes the sale of the property, i.e. if what we are lead to believe is true, then it is can be argued to be invalid.
Law is arguable. Always. The court could side with the Directors in which case RD can in theory appeal the judgement. This could take many many years with likely twists and turns, so we might as well buckle up.
Courts exist to uphold arguments arising re the law. Lawyers exist to guide parties through the process and fight their argument.
Lawyers will always say we can fight for you - rarely do they turn down a clean, conflict free billing opportunity.
RD is wealthy enough to do what he likes and fight. And he doesn't do failure, remember.
It is also worth remembering that all this is down to RD, not CARD, any other fans or anyone else for that matter. The outrageous price he wants to cover his own fiscal stupidity was always going to lead to a complicated deal which inevitably was going to end with some level of bottom feeder without the money to invest as no rational investor would pay said asking price.
|
|
|
Post by squareball on May 19, 2020 8:01:27 GMT
If RD is somehow forced to take the club back he’ll just liquidate it l fear. He’ll probably sell the assets, pay off the ex-directors and be done with it. Or he might find a new buyer. He might but that could take years as we know. Nobody knows. All we know is what we’ve got. It’s not encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by clarky on May 19, 2020 8:06:32 GMT
Good post, and as I see it. As things currently stand the ex director's winning the case would be the best outcome for the club but the timescale is against us and we can't afford to wait for this to happen, and they may not win anyway. So, we have two options, Nimer proves source of funds etc or he sells to a new buyer (unfortunately Southall probably gets a pay off to take him out of the equation), who can strike a deal with Roland that also satisfies the ex director's. None of this looks particularly promising although there are strong rumours that potential buyers are waiting in the wings!
|
|