You can still end up in court though with a very expensive court case.
The Johnny Depp case just the other week showed that.
You can still end up in court though with a very expensive court case.
This x10000
I'm fully aware of talks between Charlton and Burnley at different levels. I've spoken with some very good people there.Charlton Boy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:48 pmThis x10000
I gain absolutely nothing by coming on here and lying to you chaps. I just don't want this mob anywhere near any football club in England.
Who's squabbling?Billy Balfour wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:51 pmBlimey. What have some of you become on here. Squabbling with a Charlton supporter who registered on here with our own interests at heart. Embarrassing or what.
Nobody has accused you of lyingCharlton Boy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:48 pmThis x10000
I gain absolutely nothing by coming on here and lying to you chaps. I just don't want this mob anywhere near any football club in England.
Tony, do you mean the clubs have spoken to each other, or supporters groups ?ClaretTony wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:54 pmI'm fully aware of talks between Charlton and Burnley at different levels. I've spoken with some very good people there.
I wouldn't know about the clubs speaking but Burnley FC Supporters Groups have been in dialog with supporters groups from Charlton and other clubs.randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:38 pmTony, do you mean the clubs have spoken to each other, or supporters groups ?
Would you care to share what it is you've been reading to form that opinion, I haven't seen anything since the reports when it was first mentioned. Is there something new?
Cheers TonyClaretTony wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:51 pmI wouldn't know about the clubs speaking but Burnley FC Supporters Groups have been in dialog with supporters groups from Charlton and other clubs.
Are Board members aware of supporters' worries, especially if the BFC supporters groups share the consternation on this message board?ClaretTony wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:51 pmI wouldn't know about the clubs speaking but Burnley FC Supporters Groups have been in dialog with supporters groups from Charlton and other clubs.
I can confirm I have spoken with directors. Obviously they can't tell me anything because of confidentiality and I wouldn't expect them to, but they have listened to my concerns which I hope mirror the concerns I've experienced via this message board and talking to other Burnley supporters. It's all out of hour hands to be honest but all you can do is hope they will listen.
The trouble is, the views of people on this message board are being made as a result of what Charlton fans are saying. When asked easy questions, which the answers perhaps don't fit their view, they don't answer.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:24 pmI can confirm I have spoken with directors. Obviously they can't tell me anything because of confidentiality and I wouldn't expect them to, but they have listened to my concerns which I hope mirror the concerns I've experienced via this message board and talking to other Burnley supporters. It's all out of hour hands to be honest but all you can do is hope they will listen.
Probably because it was a fake website, as pointed out at the time.Bosscat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:31 pmI read it in this ....
https://theefl.co.uk/chris-farnell
But looks like its been closed down
There was almost no substance on that website. And the fact that the website tried to pass itself off as an official EFL website leads me to have absolutely no faith in its content. It being closed down suggests that either the EFL or Farnell may well have threatened action against the author on copyright or libellous grounds.Bosscat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:31 pmI read it in this ....
https://theefl.co.uk/chris-farnell
But looks like its been closed down
What happened to the perjury charges?Bosscat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:45 pmhttps://london-post.co.uk/wigan-athleti ... n-control/
https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... e-19183152
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-31626754
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/f ... me-1846059
Nice man what was I thinking
Fake news as far as Grumps is concerned !Bosscat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:45 pmhttps://london-post.co.uk/wigan-athleti ... n-control/
https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... e-19183152
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-31626754
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/f ... me-1846059
Nice man what was I thinking
Facts mate, that's all iam asking for, no need to try and make funny comments
No idea TVC no ideaTVC15 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:13 pmThe very fact that he was advising and working for people (crooks) likes of Massimo Cellino and Gartside is enough to stay well clear of Farnell.
Why would people want to give him the benefit of the doubt with his history of football associations and dealings ?
Is it not fair to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until you are given a reason not to?TVC15 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:13 pmThe very fact that he was advising and working for people (crooks) likes of Massimo Cellino and Gartside is enough to stay well clear of Farnell.
Why would people want to give him the benefit of the doubt with his history of football associations and dealings ?
Exactly.....Guitargeorge wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:13 pmHe was cleared of the assault charges and the perjury charges were dropped.
Come on Grumps, I know you're playing Devil's Advocate (even though we actually already have someone else doing a fine job of that on here!! ) but there's more than enough there to signal this guy is a wrong 'un. Yes, formal charges seem to melt away, but then again he IS a top lawyer, so is that altogether surprising!!? He's been "implicated" in more than one dodgy deal and imo he's guilty by associating with entirely the wrong sort of people for a start off. Ultimately, if we (well Garlick) has a choice, and I definitely think he does have a choice, he should be giving this character and any of his associates an extremely wide berth, even if it's just to err on the safe side.
The reasons not to are his previous dealings in football and the types of characters he was involved in.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:25 pmIs it not fair to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until you are given a reason not to?
And I don’t think this is necessarily about giving him the benefit of the doubt, it’s about trying to understand what exactly this man has done that is wrong, and what his role is in the potential takeover of the club.
For all I know Farnell may just be acting in a legal/advisory role. There must be lots of ‘dodgy’ people involved in football. Would you be against us signing a player who is represented by a ‘dodgy’ agent for example?
Iam not playing anything, I just want more information before running the bad guys out of town.Dark Cloud wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:31 pmCome on Grumps, I know you're playing Devil's Advocate (even though we actually already have someone else doing a fine job of that on here!! ) but there's more than enough there to signal this guy is a wrong 'un. Yes, formal charges seem to melt away, but then again he IS a top lawyer, so is that altogether surprising!!? He's been "implicated" in more than one dodgy deal and imo he's guilty by associating with entirely the wrong sort of people for a start off. Ultimately, if we (well Garlick) has a choice, and I definitely think he does have a choice, he should be giving this character and any of his associates an extremely wide berth, even if it's just to err on the safe side.
I agree that it would be better for us not to be associated with such a character, but like I said, we don’t know what his involvement is. He may just be facilitating the deal, taking a fee from his client and we may never hear from him again. That may not be the case. But I’d rather know what his involvement is, and what exactly he’s done wrong in the past, other than be associated with ‘dodgy characters’.TVC15 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:57 pmThe reasons not to are his previous dealings in football and the types of characters he was involved in.
Surely you must be aware of at least some of the background of Cellino for example. And look at what happened at Bolton when Gartside was in charge with Allardyce and his son and agents fees - his club pretty much invented the term “undisclosed fee” !!
Whilst I appreciate that somebody has to legally represent these criminals personally I’d rather not be associated with those lawyers who seem to have made a career of representing dodgy characters....because on many occasions in history it’s been proven that the lawyers are just as bent as their clients.
Whilst I do agree with you and said detail (bones) probably won't ever be ours to peruse as it unfortunately won't enter the public domain, I just know that in a court of law you have to be PROVEN guilty, but when you're selling anything, including a football club, unless you're absolutely desperately strapped for immediate cash, you can choose not to sell to, or deal with someone you simply don't like the look of and this guy really is in that category imo.Grumps wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:04 pmIam not playing anything, I just want more information before running the bad guys out of town.
There are two trains of thought on here, those who don't want anything to do with this deal, even though they don't know any detail of said deal, and those who want more meat on the bone before making any decision. Iam firmly in the second camp.
Which bent Lawers, in history, are you talking aboutTVC15 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:57 pmThe reasons not to are his previous dealings in football and the types of characters he was involved in.
Surely you must be aware of at least some of the background of Cellino for example. And look at what happened at Bolton when Gartside was in charge with Allardyce and his son and agents fees - his club pretty much invented the term “undisclosed fee” !!
Whilst I appreciate that somebody has to legally represent these criminals personally I’d rather not be associated with those lawyers who seem to have made a career of representing dodgy characters....because on many occasions in history it’s been proven that the lawyers are just as bent as their clients.
Here we go again.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:32 pmI'm just amazed at how easily so many people get seduced by money.
Even dodgy money
But, and it's a big but, Mr Garlick and others will know those facts that aren't in the public domain, and might not see any problem in dealing with himDark Cloud wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:19 pmWhilst I do agree with you and said detail (bones) probably won't ever be ours to peruse as it unfortunately won't enter the public domain, I just know that in a court of law you have to be PROVEN guilty, but when you're selling anything, including a football club, unless you're absolutely desperately strapped for immediate cash, you can choose not to sell to, or deal with someone you simply don't like the look of and this guy really is in that category imo.
Problem is Riley that as mere supporters we are never going to be told that level of detail as to what his exact role is or the due diligence we have undertaken.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:10 pmI agree that it would be better for us not to be associated with such a character, but like I said, we don’t know what his involvement is. He may just be facilitating the deal, taking a fee from his client and we may never hear from him again. That may not be the case. But I’d rather know what his involvement is, and what exactly he’s done wrong in the past, other than be associated with ‘dodgy characters’.
I can understand why people aren’t interested in finding those things out, but equally that is why some people are asking fairly fundamental questions to the Charlton fans and around the deal in general.
You would also expect our directors have undertaken due diligence for the deal to become so far advanced, and in a small world such as football I’m sure they’ve asked questions of Farnell.
I absolutely agree there and as it stands my opinion of Mike Garlick (leaving aside all the chatter about transfer spending and not spending) is that he's not only a very shrewd businessman, but a proper fan who has led the club superbly during his tenure and I would hope and expect that if we on the outside are unsure about these characters (or any other interested characters) he will have looked extremely closely into who exactly they are and how safe the club will be in their hands. In short, I trust him (I think )
That’s fair enough, and I don’t have a problem with you or others wanting nothing to do with him. But equally, you should be able to see why other people are asking more questions, or as you put it, giving him the benefit of the doubt, before deciding that this is a bad deal.TVC15 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:24 pmProblem is Riley that as mere supporters we are never going to be told that level of detail as to what his exact role is or the due diligence we have undertaken.
I’m more than happy to give people the benefit of the doubt especially when I know little about them. And I’m happy to confess that up until recently I knew nothing about Farnell.
However - when I found out some of his previous associations and especially with Leeds and Bolton where I have actually had previous dealings myself working in this sector at the time then yes I have to admit that straight away I wanted no involvement with Farnell.
Gartside was a wrong un -these days he would not be allowed to be a chairman or owner of a club with what he got away with for decades at Bolton.
But what I would say about Gartside is that compared to Leeds and the succession of crooks they had take over their club Gartside was like the Pope !
So whilst I don’t have anything concrete - just like that bloke from Notre Dame I have a rather big hunch !
Agreed - no problem at all with other people wanting more detail.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:34 pmThat’s fair enough, and I don’t have a problem with you or others wanting nothing to do with him. But equally, you should be able to see why other people are asking more questions, or as you put it, giving him the benefit of the doubt, before deciding that this is a bad deal.
Like I suggested, for all we know he may be acting purely in an advisory role to facilitate the deal. We just don’t know.
Quick check of the Law Society Gazette would tell you how many bent lawyers are struck off.