Charlton takeover in a mess

[drfchound]

Agreed SM, but surely the EFL could have pushed ESI a bit harder for the information.
Also, any information that the new owners come up with would have to be thoroughly checked.
Anyway, whatever happens I will be amazed if Charlton are refused permission to start the season..

The threat of not being allowed to compete in the league isn't enough?? What do you think the EFL should do to get information that's a harder push than that?

The EFL should have asked for information from ESI in January when they took over and still hadn’t got it until this week.
In my opinion they should have pushed much harder to get the information instead of waiting until a few days ago before making the threat.
Do you think that eight months is a reasonable amount of time to wait?

According to that, I presume that you think they should have chucked Bury out a lot quicker then they did?

Possibly so.
They did dither about making that decision too didn’t they.
You haven’t answered my question yet.
Do you think that eight months to wait for the required information is reasonable?

No I don't, but I know what I'd want to the EFL to do to 'pressure' them. I'm wanting to find out what you'd want them to do.

I think you may have missed a word or two out of your response.
I have already said what I think the EFL should have done.

You've said they should push harder, but not how you think they should do that. Anyone can say 'they should do 'this''.

GW, sometimes your posts stand out like a sore thumb as wanting to start an argument.
That last one of yours is just that.
Use your imagination to work out how the EFL should contact Charlton to ask for the information.

I've already used my imagination.

No I don't, but I know what I'd want to the EFL to do to 'pressure' them. I'm wanting to find out what you'd want them to do.

I'm not wanting to start an argument, I'm wanting to hear how you would want the EFL do what you suggest they do - which is pressure them, nothing to do with how they contact them and ask. If you don't know how you want them to do it, just say so! Or don't you have the imagination you so rudely expect others to have?

Haha, mmmm, let me see, they might email them or even write a letter and say can you provide us with the information we have been asking you for.

Now I’m sure you will have an empty room in your house where you can go to start an argument with yourself.
I’m done with this now, or at least with you.

[Glyn_Wigley]

How can anybody argue with something that someone won't tell them?

As for what you've just said, that's exactly what the EFL do now that you don't think is doing enough! I though from what you said you had an idea of what they should do differently...

[NewDonny]

How can anybody argue with something that someone won't tell them?

As for what you've just said, that's exactly what the EFL do now that you don't think is doing enough! I though from what you said you had an idea of what they should do differently...

Why are you digging out Hound on what's already very clear. Hound is right, the EFL have been very slow to react in this matter with Charlton now and in the past in the cases of Bury, Bolton and Sheff Wed. Anything they do, they they do slowly, they are always slow to react and invariably duck the issue unless pinned in a corner. This latest matter with Charlton should have been addressed long before now. OK the EFL have been requesting additional clarification and detail on the ownership, but equally have not made its position very clear. The club were only made aware for example that they were under a transfer embargo when they tried to sign players late last week and were refused, so not only have they been knocked back in terms of the new ownership and the fresh investment that was promised but also now cannot sign players with just 12 full time senior players signed for next season.

I'm not defending Charlton or in any way sticking up for them but equally have some sympathy for the position that they find themselves yet again in trying to find a new owner and fresh investment. We are already in very difficult times, let alone uncharted waters. The football industry more than some is in dire straits with clubs having no income stream or ability to raise money through trading. So you would think that the EFL would be falling over themselves to try and resolve this latest issue with Charlton as quickly as possible.

For me the EFL needs to be quicker to react and more transparent in its thinking and decision making and be there to govern, manage and direct rather than sitting in judgement putting up hurdles and barriers.

[Alan Southstand]

just 12 full time Senior players signed for next season at the moment

We’re not in a mess and we had fewer!

[Glyn_Wigley]

How can anybody argue with something that someone won't tell them?

As for what you've just said, that's exactly what the EFL do now that you don't think is doing enough! I though from what you said you had an idea of what they should do differently...

Why are you digging out Hound on what's already very clear. Hound is right, the EFL have been very slow to react in this matter with Charlton now and in the past in the cases of Bury, Bolton and Sheff Wed. Anything they do, they they do slowly, they are always slow to react and invariably duck the issue unless pinned in a corner. This latest matter with Charlton should have been addressed long before now. OK the EFL have been requesting additional clarification and detail on the ownership, but equally have not made its position very clear. The club were only made aware for example that they were under a transfer embargo when they tried to sign players late last week and were refused, so not only have they been knocked back in terms of the new ownership and the fresh investment that was promised but also now cannot sign players with just 12 full time senior players signed for next season.

I'm not defending Charlton or in any way sticking up for them but equally have some sympathy for the position that they find themselves yet again in trying to find a new owner and fresh investment. We are already in very difficult times, let alone uncharted waters. The football industry more than some is in dire straits with clubs having no income stream or ability to raise money through trading. So you would think that the EFL would be falling over themselves to try and resolve this latest issue with Charlton as quickly as possible.

For me the EFL needs to be quicker to react and more transparent in its thinking and decision making and be there to govern, manage and direct rather than sitting in judgement putting up hurdles and barriers.

I know all that. Hound said the EFL should push harder, I was just asking how he thought they should do that. Apparently it's by writing them a letter.

[NickDRFC]

This must be one of the dullest, most pointless exchanges I’ve ever read on here. And there has been some stiff competition over the years.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I know, if he'd just said that in the first place instead of getting all arsey about it (why, I don't know) it wouldn't have happened.

[IDM]

Is it just me, or do some people (not aimed at anyone in particular) think that the EFL has all kinds of powers which it can wield to bring unruly clubs into line.?

Who at the EFL organisation is empowered to do all that.?

I don’t know, that’s for sure.  Clearly there are areas where the EFL management should be empowered (by its members) to respond and make authoritative decisions without having to go to a club vote every time - such as the Bolton fixture fiasco, where the existing EFL rules didn’t cover what to do in the event apart from going to an independent panel. 

There needs to be a huge EGM or extended AGM with enough notice for rule proposals to be submitted, and also for the members to review, in order to vote any rule changes in.

But to consistently blame “the EFL” for every little thing wrong with football is becoming somewhat annoying..

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Just a little digging tells you these takeovers are never a straightforward as some might assume. The club has to have a buyer before the EFL get a chence to perform the relevant tests. See this article from June to give you some idea of the chain of events and the buyers awareness of their obligations.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11684/12004049/charlton-athletic-consortium-completes-takeover-of-club

[NewDonny]

Is it just me, or do some people (not aimed at anyone in particular) think that the EFL has all kinds of powers which it can wield to bring unruly clubs into line.?

Who at the EFL organisation is empowered to do all that.?

I don’t know, that’s for sure.  Clearly there are areas where the EFL management should be empowered (by its members) to respond and make authoritative decisions without having to go to a club vote every time - such as the Bolton fixture fiasco, where the existing EFL rules didn’t cover what to do in the event apart from going to an independent panel. 

There needs to be a huge EGM or extended AGM with enough notice for rule proposals to be submitted, and also for the members to review, in order to vote any rule changes in.

But to consistently blame “the EFL” for every little thing wrong with football is becoming somewhat annoying..

Well actually making timely decisions instead of sitting on things for weeks would be a good start don’t you think.

[IDM]

But the point is does the decision making process allow for things to be done better, at the moment.?

Clearly most would say this should happen, but that might need to be a change.  That’s kind of the point I was making..

I was gobsmacked to find out (last season) that there wasn’t a default punishment for failing to fulfil a league fixture without permission.  It is so simple to write that the punishment is the fixture is forfeit and a nominal 2-0 victory awarded to the opposition.

You probably can’t legislate for everything, but if the rules and procedures aren’t there, how is it fair to criticise the organisation for inaction, where it isn’t empowered to act.?

[NewDonny]

But the point is does the decision making process allow for things to be done better, at the moment.?

Clearly most would say this should happen, but that might need to be a change.  That’s kind of the point I was making..

I was gobsmacked to find out (last season) that there wasn’t a default punishment for failing to fulfil a league fixture without permission.  It is so simple to write that the punishment is the fixture is forfeit and a nominal 2-0 victory awarded to the opposition.

You probably can’t legislate for everything, but if the rules and procedures aren’t there, how is it fair to criticise the organisation for inaction, where it isn’t empowered to act.?

But we are not just talking about now are we, this has been the case since before last season started with Bury & Bolton. To your point, why are there not clear rules and penalties in place for not fulfilling a fixture, that has to be the absolute cardinal sin in football surely, so why did that scenario with Bolton rock on for so many weeks without being addressed and when it was nothing properly done about it?

Surely thats what Hound's point is? How did we not get the points, why did it take weeks to resolve, why did they get off scott free...........................I could go on?

[drfchound]

I know, if he'd just said that in the first place instead of getting all arsey about it (why, I don't know) it wouldn't have happened.

I wasn’t getting arsey at all.
Clearly none of us know what the EFL had asked for but it is fair to suggest that determining whether the new owners were “fit and proper” would be at the forefront and that the finances were available.
I said that the EFL had let things run for too long at time, which you agreed with.
You asked me what else theEFL could do.
Very obviously I have no idea but I did suggest that they could have put pressure on the ESI group to answer the questions that had been put to them.
In my post to DRNaith I made a case for why the EFL might have let things drift along, they do have history for doing that.
You appear to have totally ignored that post and then continued to ask me what I think the EFL could have done to push things along.
You even brought Bury into the conversation for some reason known only to you.
My eventual response about the email or letter was in frustration borne out of your determination to create another argument between us.

[Glyn_Wigley]

If it was obvious you had no idea I wouldn't have asked. If you had then said you had no idea there'd be nothing to argue about - which I wasn't trying to do at all.

[drfchound]

Here we go again.
Do you really think I could have known what had been asked for?
My posts prior to you getting involved were simply suggesting that whatever had been requested wasn’t getting back to the EFL quickly enough.

[Glyn_Wigley]

All I was asking is what pressure you thought the EFL could have put on ESI to get answers out of them. That is always what I was querying, which is why I highlighted that bit when I quoted you in the first place. Nothing else.

[ravenrover]

How can anybody argue with something that someone won't tell them?

As for what you've just said, that's exactly what the EFL do now that you don't think is doing enough! I though from what you said you had an idea of what they should do differently...

Why are you digging out Hound on what's already very clear. Hound is right, the EFL have been very slow to react in this matter with Charlton now and in the past in the cases of Bury, Bolton and Sheff Wed. Anything they do, they they do slowly, they are always slow to react and invariably duck the issue unless pinned in a corner. This latest matter with Charlton should have been addressed long before now. OK the EFL have been requesting additional clarification and detail on the ownership, but equally have not made its position very clear. The club were only made aware for example that they were under a transfer embargo when they tried to sign players late last week and were refused, so not only have they been knocked back in terms of the new ownership and the fresh investment that was promised but also now cannot sign players with just 12 full time senior players signed for next season.

I'm not defending Charlton or in any way sticking up for them but equally have some sympathy for the position that they find themselves yet again in trying to find a new owner and fresh investment. We are already in very difficult times, let alone uncharted waters. The football industry more than some is in dire straits with clubs having no income stream or ability to raise money through trading. So you would think that the EFL would be falling over themselves to try and resolve this latest issue with Charlton as quickly as possible.

For me the EFL needs to be quicker to react and more transparent in its thinking and decision making and be there to govern, manage and direct rather than sitting in judgement putting up hurdles and barriers.

ND I think the embargo is a rollover from last season so they knew all about that

[idler]

But the point is does the decision making process allow for things to be done better, at the moment.?

Clearly most would say this should happen, but that might need to be a change.  That’s kind of the point I was making..

I was gobsmacked to find out (last season) that there wasn’t a default punishment for failing to fulfil a league fixture without permission.  It is so simple to write that the punishment is the fixture is forfeit and a nominal 2-0 victory awarded to the opposition.

You probably can’t legislate for everything, but if the rules and procedures aren’t there, how is it fair to criticise the organisation for inaction, where it isn’t empowered to act.?

But we are not just talking about now are we, this has been the case since before last season started with Bury & Bolton. To your point, why are there not clear rules and penalties in place for not fulfilling a fixture, that has to be the absolute cardinal sin in football surely, so why did that scenario with Bolton rock on for so many weeks without being addressed and when it was nothing properly done about it?

Surely thats what Hound's point is? How did we not get the points, why did it take weeks to resolve, why did they get off scott free...........................I could go on?

The problem with giving us the points was that other clubs were willing to object to us getting points without playing. This was obviously in their own interests as Bolton had picked up a bit but we're always going to be near or in the bottom four. I'm sure that Peterborough and others around us in the league disagreed with us getting any points awarded without playing when the EFL were mulling it over.

[drfchound]

All I was asking is what pressure you thought the EFL could have put on ESI to get answers out of them. That is always what I was querying, which is why I highlighted that bit when I quoted you in the first place. Nothing else.

.......and I told you that they should chase up the answers to the questions they must have asked.

See post number 16.

[NewDonny]

But the point is does the decision making process allow for things to be done better, at the moment.?

Clearly most would say this should happen, but that might need to be a change.  That’s kind of the point I was making..

I was gobsmacked to find out (last season) that there wasn’t a default punishment for failing to fulfil a league fixture without permission.  It is so simple to write that the punishment is the fixture is forfeit and a nominal 2-0 victory awarded to the opposition.

You probably can’t legislate for everything, but if the rules and procedures aren’t there, how is it fair to criticise the organisation for inaction, where it isn’t empowered to act.?

But we are not just talking about now are we, this has been the case since before last season started with Bury & Bolton. To your point, why are there not clear rules and penalties in place for not fulfilling a fixture, that has to be the absolute cardinal sin in football surely, so why did that scenario with Bolton rock on for so many weeks without being addressed and when it was nothing properly done about it?

Surely thats what Hound's point is? How did we not get the points, why did it take weeks to resolve, why did they get off scott free...........................I could go on?

The problem with giving us the points was that other clubs were willing to object to us getting points without playing. This was obviously in their own interests as Bolton had picked up a bit but we're always going to be near or in the bottom four. I'm sure that Peterborough and others around us in the league disagreed with us getting any points awarded without playing when the EFL were mulling it over.

Well again that's exactly what i am talking about, its absolutely nothing to do with what other clubs think or say.

[les@donr]

Will Charlton get a points deduction?

[Chris Black come back]

Well, they haven’t been short of help from the authorities in recent years, specifically, when playing us - so who knows.