Wednesday 18 November 2020

Elliott gives it large

So-called 'Manchester businessman' Paul Elliott was interviewed by the incisive Jim White on Talksport this morning.   If nothing else, this justified the alternative name of the station as 'Talk****.'

Elliott said that Thomas Sandgaard has not recognised money he claims to have put into the club.   He said that Sandgaard had produced 'cheap tricks' and 'sound bites' which brings to mind the pot and the kettle.   Elliott said he had never come up with any lies.

He says that a 'sealed' legal order has gone to Sandgaard's legal team, but he cannot discuss that for legal reasons.  I am not sure what a 'sealed' legal order is or why is it superior to an unsealed order.  If it is sealed with wax, it will be a new experience at Freshfields.

Elliott again claimed to own Charlton Athletic, but the court order refers to the empty vessel of ESI rather than the club.

Richard Cawley reports, 'Elliott says he expects to pass the Owners' and Directors' test on appeal. Asked what message he has for Sandgaard: "Come and talk to me. If not we carry on with court action - the club doesn't need that. It doesn't need to be dragged through more legal wranglings on ownership."'

Remarkable sense from the Orange One with Simon Jordan making the point that if Elliott has put money into the club it should be in black and white. Also doesn't understand why it needs to be a sealed order. And how it helps 'insulting' someone on national radio when he is seeking mediation.

Rick Everitt notes that Jordan has missed the point that there is no evidence at Companies House that Elliott owns either ESI or Charlton Athletic.

Richard Cawley correctly comments: 'I think the message coming out from his side is that he wants the money he feels is due. I don't think this has ever been a play to gain control of Charlton.'

Rick Everitt points out: 'Possession may not be nine tenths of the law, but it matters. The big difference from pre-October is that Thomas Sandgaard is in possession of the club. Until that changes, if it does, this remains just noise.'

Everitt added from his Ramsgate fastness: 'Perhaps for tactical reasons, neither side in this latest Charlton episode has so far engaged with the details of what Elliott’s court order says or what it means - all we’ve had so far is assertions the other party is wrong. That doesn’t assist understanding.'

The VOTV editor concludes: 'Suspect Elliott can’t actually follow through because he knows even if he did take ownership of Charlton he’d 1) have to take on the liabilities and 2) he’d have to satisfy both the EFL and Roland Duchatelet, neither of whom will want to deal with him.'

No comments:

Post a Comment