The latest patsy at Charlton is Paul Elliott

By the way, its not the Paul Elliott, our much admired former player, its another not so well known outside Didsbury, less successful Paul Elliott who has agreed to accept the role of Patsy for Mr Nimer and Mr Farnell, probably in return for a free golf club subscription next year.

In the merry go round of ownership at Charlton, Tahnoon Nimer has neatly passed his ownership of the club from his right trouser pocket to his left trouser pocket with the transfer of ownership to his lawyer, Chris Farnell and a mate of Farnell’s, called Paul Elliott who Farnell knows either from the golf club or his local boozer.

This transaction has been effected to trigger the drag along provisions of the Shareholders Agreement in ESI so that Matt – 2 Range Rovers -Southall receives 35% of bugger all which was the transaction price paid by Farnell and Elliott.

Having moved Southall out of the way, this frees up Nimer & Farnell with their temporary mate, Paul Elliott ”the patsy”, to move to the next stage which is to try to sell the football club to someone who actually has some money so that they can walk away with a couple of hundred thousand.

The hope is that all of this can be achieved before June payroll comes around. If there is anything at all valuable at Sparrows Lane or The Valley, Bowyer and co should bring in their cordless drills to work and fix it to the wall.

The locusts remain in charge at Charlton.

9 thoughts on “The latest patsy at Charlton is Paul Elliott

  1. First Farnell paid the wages in May and the running of the club as been secured for the next few months at least till the end of this current season …. so far Dalman , Aussies, Jenkins and Varney have all said the deal to complicated and expensive so it’s a way of getting rid of hurdles to make it easier to get a deal done ..

  2. Although clearly not the Varney/Jenkins takeover we all wanted, let’s hope that this is the case – i.e. the prelude to a proper takeover. Looking at articles 13 and 15 or ESI’s articles of association filed at companies house (and assuming the shareholders agreement simply mirrors this) then there is no need for an offer to be “bona fide” (as often you would see). So as you say, it could be a ploy to get rid of Southall without him receiving meaningful payment for his shares. He may have a claim for unfair prejudicial conduct (because he’d say the articles have been abused to get rid of him). But if the sole asset of ESI is shares in CAFC limited which they bought for £1 and then ran that company (our beloved football club) into the ground, then on any sensible basis, that asset is now worth even less than £1.

  3. I did read in 2 news papers (sorry, can’t remember which ones) ‘meanwhile, it has been confirmed that Chris Parnell was the one who covered the £400,000 wage bill at the end of May’. I can only assume there is something somewhere to ensure he will get this back at some point from the ‘real new owners’

  4. A fantastic summary of the situation. Wish these articles were in the mainstream media rather than the usual ill informed, poorly researched and misleading drivel we get. Keep up the good work @Albury Addick

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s