Charlton Athletic

[The Mindsweep]

Have a look on Twitter and elsewhere about what's going on there. Heart goes out to them.

[Bergen]

It`s not looking good for them. Their fans and staff deserve better than this.

[point nine one eight]

Have a look on Twitter and elsewhere about what's going on there. Heart goes out to them.

Don't do Twitter, Link please

[Long slender neck]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... Nimer.html

[banqo]

F*** the EFL!

[point nine one eight]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... Nimer.html

Cheers thank you for that mate, See what you mean. We are well run in comparison.

[aylesburyos]

ESI the new owners have not paid a penny to the old owner & now want to pull out. Falling out between the Chairman Matt Southall & the majority owner. Southall is a chancer too & has been involved with loads of skint companies & was a football agent at one time. Claims to have graduated from Manchester Uni but denied bt them

[spen666]

F*** the EFL!

What has an internal dispute between shareholders of a club got to do with the EFL.

They have no legal powers to interfere in how Charlton shareholders get on or not with each other

[Wally Banter]

F*** the EFL!

What has an internal dispute between shareholders of a club got to do with the EFL.

They have no legal powers to interfere in how Charlton shareholders get on or not with each other

Perhaps Banqo was referring to the Board of the EFL's ability to propose changes to the rules which they enforce - including the rules around owners and directors - in order to properly discharge their responsibilities to further the interests of the League and to regulate the activities of Member Clubs and their officers?

[spen666]

F*** the EFL!

What has an internal dispute between shareholders of a club got to do with the EFL.

They have no legal powers to interfere in how Charlton shareholders get on or not with each other

Perhaps Banqo was referring to the Board of the EFL's ability to propose changes to the rules which they enforce - including the rules around owners and directors - in order to properly discharge their responsibilities to further the interests of the League and to regulate the activities of Member Clubs and their officers?

Again, the EFL have no power to interfere with the shareholders or directors of a limited company. That is governed by the Companies Act which is binding on the EFL.

The only sanction the EFL can do is to expel clubs who don't meet their rules.

Expel a club and you almost certainly force it out of business which is the thing they are trying to avoid

[EH16]

What has an internal dispute between shareholders of a club got to do with the EFL.

They have no legal powers to interfere in how Charlton shareholders get on or not with each other

Perhaps Banqo was referring to the Board of the EFL's ability to propose changes to the rules which they enforce - including the rules around owners and directors - in order to properly discharge their responsibilities to further the interests of the League and to regulate the activities of Member Clubs and their officers?

Again, the EFL have no power to interfere with the shareholders or directors of a limited company. That is governed by the Companies Act which is binding on the EFL.

The only sanction the EFL can do is to expel clubs who don't meet their rules.

Expel a club and you almost certainly force it out of business which is the thing they are trying to avoid

Not sure that's entirely true. This might help you https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... gulations/

[Thor]

ESI the new owners have not paid a penny to the old owner & now want to pull out. Falling out between the Chairman Matt Southall & the majority owner. Southall is a chancer too & has been involved with loads of skint companies & was a football agent at one time. Claims to have graduated from Manchester Uni but denied bt them

The old owner sold it for a pound but held on to the ground and training ground etc. Which they were to pay 55m for at a pater date.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Oh, Spevans!

If the EFL had fit and proper checks in place, and this purchaser failed them, and it was known that Charlton wouldn’t be able to stay in the EFL, then the new owner wouldn’t have purchased the club.

This should be pretty obvious to a man of your giant intellect.

[LittleMate]

Looks like the EFL approved the deal based on investments commitments that have not materialised - and they probably have zero clout to do anything about an owner who does not follow through on such promises.

If these clowns at the EFL were more professional then we'd trust them a bit more with the kind of clout that's needed. As it stands the EFL are as bad as these rogue owners they permit.

[spen666]

Perhaps Banqo was referring to the Board of the EFL's ability to propose changes to the rules which they enforce - including the rules around owners and directors - in order to properly discharge their responsibilities to further the interests of the League and to regulate the activities of Member Clubs and their officers?

Again, the EFL have no power to interfere with the shareholders or directors of a limited company. That is governed by the Companies Act which is binding on the EFL.

The only sanction the EFL can do is to expel clubs who don't meet their rules.

Expel a club and you almost certainly force it out of business which is the thing they are trying to avoid

Not sure that's entirely true. This might help you https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... gulations/

And if a club says to the EFL they will not agree to the demands of the EFL....the only sanction is expulsion ...which is what I said.

Fine the club doesn't force it to change directors. Deduct points doesn't force it to change directors

the only effective sanction is expulsion which will almost certainly bring about the demise of the club


which is what I said initially

[spen666]

Oh, Spevans!

If the EFL had fit and proper checks in place, and this purchaser failed them, and it was known that Charlton wouldn’t be able to stay in the EFL, then the new owner wouldn’t have purchased the club.

This should be pretty obvious to a man of your giant intellect.

Yeah because that worked at Bury didn't it?

[EH16]

Again, the EFL have no power to interfere with the shareholders or directors of a limited company. That is governed by the Companies Act which is binding on the EFL.

The only sanction the EFL can do is to expel clubs who don't meet their rules.

Expel a club and you almost certainly force it out of business which is the thing they are trying to avoid

Not sure that's entirely true. This might help you https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... gulations/

And if a club says to the EFL they will not agree to the demands of the EFL....the only sanction is expulsion ...which is what I said.

Fine the club doesn't force it to change directors. Deduct points doesn't force it to change directors

the only effective sanction is expulsion which will almost certainly bring about the demise of the club


which is what I said initially

I hate to derail a good argument with, like, actual real facts but if you READ your OWN initial post even you should be able to see that you didn't say any such thing initially. Only now, realising you've made yourself look a fool AGAIN, have you added the word EFFECTIVE. This correspondence is now closed.

[spen666]

Not sure that's entirely true. This might help you https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/ef ... gulations/

And if a club says to the EFL they will not agree to the demands of the EFL....the only sanction is expulsion ...which is what I said.

Fine the club doesn't force it to change directors. Deduct points doesn't force it to change directors

the only effective sanction is expulsion which will almost certainly bring about the demise of the club


which is what I said initially

I hate to derail a good argument with, like, actual real facts but if you READ your OWN initial post even you should be able to see that you didn't say any such thing initially. Only now, realising you've made yourself look a fool AGAIN, have you added the word EFFECTIVE. This correspondence is now closed.

Sorry,

I never realized that you were so stupid I had to spell everything out in words of one syllable. I never realized you were unable to develop thoughts for yourself and had to be spoon fed.

I did not use the word effective because anyone with half a brain cell would realize that it is pointless debating what ineffective sanction should be imposed. If you know an action is ineffective, then no sensible person would consider it a sanction. I added it into my response because it became apparent that
I was dealing with someone stupid enough to need me to spell it out for them

[Long slender neck]

Now, now chaps.

[spen666]

Now, now chaps.

Are you assuming our genders?

[Long slender neck]

Peter not a mans name?

[spen666]

Peter not a mans name?

Assuming genders?

now following it up with a bit of stereotyping.

[tuffers#1]

Why do these people even bother to get involved in Football ?

[Fellowo]

Why do these people even bother to get involved in Football ?

I'm actually starting to believe that these people are being paid millions to run clubs into the ground.

[tuffers#1]

Why do these people even bother to get involved in Football ?

I'm actually starting to believe that these people are being paid millions to run clubs into the ground.

I understand why you may say that.
Put a face up so some non descript developer can knick the land