1. In SMEs, not publicly quoted on stock exchanges, it is quite common for a senior executive to be given a small % share of the business as part of their initial salary package, but there is a minimum time period (typically 3 years) before the person receives any benefit from it. If they leave before then - for any reason- their share in the business is usually automatically cancelled.
2. Personalities matter at Board level as at every other level, and at Board level by definition you have a group of people often exhibiting strong wills and large egos. A difference within the Board on "strategic direction" is often elevated by personality clashes.
So if both things are in play there, the last thing the remaining Board are going to do is to proactively air all that to its interested public audience, especially when only about 10% of that audience is actively interested in the detail.
Am I interested in why the CM announcement comes out now? Yes. I'm in the 10%.
Do I think it's sufficiently important to be "digging further"?. Well, it is not a big deal for the club's future like receiving a piece of paper telling us we are going to share with Palace, or news of a public bust up between one shady character who apparently owns us (Southall) and another (Farnell), so no. Unless it is the key precursor to further bigger changes, I see no reason to waste too much emotional energy on it - which is not to say nobody should discuss or speculate on it, it's what all active fans do.
This is plausible BUT…
wasnt he cited as an owner BEFORE he took up the paid (?) role as CEO?
Correct, he was.
It was said the big owners wanted him to have "skin in the game" so insisted he paid for a shareholding. Source? Charlie Methven.
Eleven pages of this thread in 24 hours discussing Charlie boys departure, who'd of thought there would be that much interest considering he has been hated for so long by so many...🤷♂️
Not sure exaggeration is needed, I don’t think anyone hates him, let alone many. He might not be many people’s cup of tea but hate is a strong word and I don’t think reflective of his time with Charlton (speaking as someone in the not cup of tea camp).
Also, this is a forum to discuss Charlton Athletic. The guy who put together our current ownership and senior management structure, then assumed the highest executive role in the club, has just left with no real clear indication of why. It would be bizarre if there was not detailed discussion on here.
Methven, whether you like him or not, was the leader and THE public figure of the consortium who bought us, far more than the actual owners (who've stayed in the background) or the other execs who came in with Methven, so his departure is significant.
It's not as if he was a Peter Varney type figure, organising an ownership group because of his love for the club who always was going to bow out once it was up and running.
1. In SMEs, not publicly quoted on stock exchanges, it is quite common for a senior executive to be given a small % share of the business as part of their initial salary package, but there is a minimum time period (typically 3 years) before the person receives any benefit from it. If they leave before then - for any reason- their share in the business is usually automatically cancelled.
Is that right? I'd always thought that senior executives were given options, exercisable after x years assuming still employed
1. In SMEs, not publicly quoted on stock exchanges, it is quite common for a senior executive to be given a small % share of the business as part of their initial salary package, but there is a minimum time period (typically 3 years) before the person receives any benefit from it. If they leave before then - for any reason- their share in the business is usually automatically cancelled.
Is that right? I'd always thought that senior executives were given options, exercisable after x years assuming still employed
In PLCs with a quoted share price, yes - not in private companies.
1. In SMEs, not publicly quoted on stock exchanges, it is quite common for a senior executive to be given a small % share of the business as part of their initial salary package, but there is a minimum time period (typically 3 years) before the person receives any benefit from it. If they leave before then - for any reason- their share in the business is usually automatically cancelled.
2. Personalities matter at Board level as at every other level, and at Board level by definition you have a group of people often exhibiting strong wills and large egos. A difference within the Board on "strategic direction" is often elevated by personality clashes.
So if both things are in play there, the last thing the remaining Board are going to do is to proactively air all that to its interested public audience, especially when only about 10% of that audience is actively interested in the detail.
Am I interested in why the CM announcement comes out now? Yes. I'm in the 10%.
Do I think it's sufficiently important to be "digging further"?. Well, it is not a big deal for the club's future like receiving a piece of paper telling us we are going to share with Palace, or news of a public bust up between one shady character who apparently owns us (Southall) and another (Farnell), so no. Unless it is the key precursor to further bigger changes, I see no reason to waste too much emotional energy on it - which is not to say nobody should discuss or speculate on it, it's what all active fans do.
This is plausible BUT…
wasnt he cited as an owner BEFORE he took up the paid (?) role as CEO?
"I guess I’d probably end up …I’d be investing my own money to own something like 7%, something like that in a minority investor. But probably the only one of the investors who is or the only one of any significance, who’s based here in the UK, together, maybe with Simon Lenagan, and also, you know, certainly anyone who’s had any kind of involvement in running or helping to run English football clubs; so probably, like,to keep an eye on the joint investment for everybody. And it certainly wouldn’t be my full time job or an executive role"
So since his shares were not assigned as part of a CEO remuneration package, they would not be automatically taken off him upon stepping down. So then It's also not obvious to me that they could be taken from him without his agreement. I could think of two scenarios where he gave them up willingly:
1. More obviously, he was offered a premium on the price he paid for them. 2. Possibly, he had not paid for them up front, as part of some kind of agreement when he first started (as he describes above) presumably on some consultancy terms, so he may have been paid for the shares at original face value.
Either way, it's not something I'm losing sleep over. Also FWIW, looking at that image of the Jamaican academy venue, and thinking about the relatively low-key role running that compared to "CEO" of Charlton, I still reckon health concerns may have played a role.
Instead of looking for conspiracy theories around CM ceasing to be a shareholder first consider the conventional form of share agreements that private companies have in place for company officers.
On leaving office the individual will invariably have to offer up their shares to the other shareholders. The terms will normally be different for “good leavers” and “bad leavers”. Sounds like he was a “good leaver”. Price may be guaranteed or based on an independent valuation.
These term ensure the company shares don’t end up fragmented across random ex employees with potential negative implications.
Instead of looking for conspiracy theories around CM ceasing to be a shareholder first consider the conventional form of share agreements that private companies have in place for company officers.
On leaving office the individual will invariably have to offer up their shares to the other shareholders. The terms will normally be different for “good leavers” and “bad leavers”. Sounds like he was a “good leaver”. Price may be guaranteed or based on an independent valuation.
These term ensure the company shares don’t end up fragmented across random ex employees with potential negative implications.
Instead of looking for conspiracy theories around CM ceasing to be a shareholder first consider the conventional form of share agreements that private companies have in place for company officers.
On leaving office the individual will invariably have to offer up their shares to the other shareholders. The terms will normally be different for “good leavers” and “bad leavers”. Sounds like he was a “good leaver”. Price may be guaranteed or based on an independent valuation.
These term ensure the company shares don’t end up fragmented across random ex employees with potential negative implications.
But it was reported that he was a shareholder BEFORE he became an officer.
He also reported himself that he had purchased the shares.
Instead of looking for conspiracy theories around CM ceasing to be a shareholder first consider the conventional form of share agreements that private companies have in place for company officers.
On leaving office the individual will invariably have to offer up their shares to the other shareholders. The terms will normally be different for “good leavers” and “bad leavers”. Sounds like he was a “good leaver”. Price may be guaranteed or based on an independent valuation.
These term ensure the company shares don’t end up fragmented across random ex employees with potential negative implications.
That's more or less what I had originally been assuming (I had such an agreement myself in my last employee role), but @valleynick66 reminded me that he wasn't a "company officer" at the time he first became a shareholder, so does that clean and straightforward scenario apply? And does it matter much, either way?
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
I said complete transparency.
They have chosen not to simply say the other shareholders have taken them up or otherwise clarified.
His initial involvement and migration to CEO was equally not fully explained when it could be.
They are not unfamiliar with the supporter base distrust of our ownership based on recent history and a clear unambiguous communication piece is their choice not to issue.
Instead of looking for conspiracy theories around CM ceasing to be a shareholder first consider the conventional form of share agreements that private companies have in place for company officers.
On leaving office the individual will invariably have to offer up their shares to the other shareholders. The terms will normally be different for “good leavers” and “bad leavers”. Sounds like he was a “good leaver”. Price may be guaranteed or based on an independent valuation.
These term ensure the company shares don’t end up fragmented across random ex employees with potential negative implications.
But it was reported that he was a shareholder BEFORE he became an officer.
He also reported himself that he had purchased the shares.
Every private company share agreement will have "buy-back" terms for the majority shareholders to ensure control cannot be diluted. Even the majority shareholders will not have the right to sell without offering them first to the other shareholders.
I have no doubt CM was allowed to buy shares as a perk in anticipation of taking up office, not because the consortium needed his money. His agreement would have been drawn up appropriately by the lawyers, unlikely on the same terms as for majority shareholders.
Either he has voluntarily chosen to sell his shares, probably at a sweet price, rather than hang on for better days, or been required to sell them at a sweet price. Nothing unusual I suggest.
Remember, there is no buyers market for minority shares in a third tier loss making football club, and if he had the option, CM is probably not rich enough to turn down a nice little earner today compared to a possible lottery win down the line.
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
I said complete transparency.
They have chosen not to simply say the other shareholders have taken them up or otherwise clarified.
His initial involvement and migration to CEO was equally not fully explained when it could be.
They are not unfamiliar with the supporter base distrust of our ownership based on recent history and a clear unambiguous communication piece is their choice not to issue.
Sorry, your “transparency” bar is a detailed, publicly issued breakdown explaining the redistribution or sale of shares worth ~5%… in a timeframe of your choosing?
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
I said complete transparency.
They have chosen not to simply say the other shareholders have taken them up or otherwise clarified.
His initial involvement and migration to CEO was equally not fully explained when it could be.
They are not unfamiliar with the supporter base distrust of our ownership based on recent history and a clear unambiguous communication piece is their choice not to issue.
Sorry, your “transparency” bar is a detailed, publicly issued breakdown explaining the redistribution or sale of shares worth ~5%… in a timeframe of your choosing?
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
I said complete transparency.
They have chosen not to simply say the other shareholders have taken them up or otherwise clarified.
His initial involvement and migration to CEO was equally not fully explained when it could be.
They are not unfamiliar with the supporter base distrust of our ownership based on recent history and a clear unambiguous communication piece is their choice not to issue.
Sorry, your “transparency” bar is a detailed, publicly issued breakdown explaining the redistribution or sale of shares worth ~5%… in a timeframe of your choosing?
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
I said complete transparency.
They have chosen not to simply say the other shareholders have taken them up or otherwise clarified.
His initial involvement and migration to CEO was equally not fully explained when it could be.
They are not unfamiliar with the supporter base distrust of our ownership based on recent history and a clear unambiguous communication piece is their choice not to issue.
Sorry, your “transparency” bar is a detailed, publicly issued breakdown explaining the redistribution or sale of shares worth ~5%… in a timeframe of your choosing?
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
I said complete transparency.
They have chosen not to simply say the other shareholders have taken them up or otherwise clarified.
His initial involvement and migration to CEO was equally not fully explained when it could be.
They are not unfamiliar with the supporter base distrust of our ownership based on recent history and a clear unambiguous communication piece is their choice not to issue.
Sorry, your “transparency” bar is a detailed, publicly issued breakdown explaining the redistribution or sale of shares worth ~5%… in a timeframe of your choosing?
As ever the lack of complete transparency (when there easily could be) is why we speculate and assume the worse.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
I said complete transparency.
They have chosen not to simply say the other shareholders have taken them up or otherwise clarified.
His initial involvement and migration to CEO was equally not fully explained when it could be.
They are not unfamiliar with the supporter base distrust of our ownership based on recent history and a clear unambiguous communication piece is their choice not to issue.
Sorry, your “transparency” bar is a detailed, publicly issued breakdown explaining the redistribution or sale of shares worth ~5%… in a timeframe of your choosing?
No. Simply who now has his shares.
lol aka “yes”
The answer remains no. Didn’t ask for a detailed breakdown.
The timeframe reference (towards me) makes little sense just wrap it into the announcement in the first place.
But let’s face it - CM is a PR man and he likely wrote in large part the announcement and decided what to say / spin for his own benefit.
Good. I find some of the comments on here hilarious, with people desperate to believe whatever nonsense the club puts out, but never mind.
Shock / Horror - The first sign of something slightly out of the ordinary and Airman pipes up with his giant wooden spoon.
Predictable
Don’t worry. There’s bound to be someone new for you to boost on here soon.
I hardly boost him. I gave him a really hard time when he first got here but he proved he had a plan and has largely executed it. Surely even you can see that we are in a better position than we have been for a while.
And similarly ,I'm sure his replacement will be treated with contempt by you because you fucking hate it when this club does anything right.
Only the deliberately obtuse could fail to see advances made, albeit we won't see audited accounts for this season for another year. Let's hope progress continues at the same rate over the next 18 months, and that there's a smooth transition once appointments are made.
As Voltaire stated, "don't let the best be the enemy of the good". Not only do we have an 80% chance of making the play-offs but 16 of the matchday 18 are under contract for next season. Plus we have a high quality manager together with a Director of Performance who has years of experience in the Championship and EPL. And fast improving revenues across all streams.
We are eminently investable, for a club in the top half of the Championship has an enterprise value exceeding £100M. Nobody said that operating losses would disappear in League One - the vision stated was always that promotion to the Championship + much improved commercial revenues would lead to a far better set of financials.
There are sure to be other changes, especially once we're promoted, because League One is a picnic compared to the Championship. For now, we've hit form of two points per game since early December, and we're on the same points as we were under Bowyer six years ago.
And that required vision, stability as well as appropriate budgets. Fortunately we've had all that for nearly two years now. Such a contrast to the decade before SE7 / GFP took over the club! We'll need a new CEO in due course, but the budget and choice of candidate may well vary depending upon what division we find ourselves in.
At this time all we can do is thank Methven for freeing us from Sandgaard's grip, bringing the investors on board and playing a leading role in the recruitment of executives and football management that has delivered progress on and off the pitch.
We all want the team to succeed but those who fail to recognise how we arrived here, and who made the decisions on the squad are simply blind to strategy and progress.
I’ve never understood the complete dislike for CM by some. Yes he’s a typical PR man and after what we’ve been through it’s a default to distrust anyone that comes into a position of responsibility at Charlton. He was undoubtedly responsible for getting in Scott and Rodwell on board and must take at least some responsibility for Holden and Appleton. They were appalling appointments and took us backwards on the pitch. Having said that I think as seriouslyRed point out you’d have to be very obtuse not to recognise that under his short stewardship the club is measurably in a better position than it was when he arrived. No doubting he’s a football man and I don’t blame him as others seem to for openly supporting another team. He’s also a businessman and earns his living from football. Mistakes certainly but the trajectory since he came in has been an upward one. Good luck to him I’d say.
Comments
It was said the big owners wanted him to have "skin in the game" so insisted he paid for a shareholding. Source? Charlie Methven.
It's not as if he was a Peter Varney type figure, organising an ownership group because of his love for the club who always was going to bow out once it was up and running.
In PLCs with a quoted share price, yes - not in private companies.
"I guess I’d probably end up …I’d be investing my own money to own something like 7%, something like that in a minority investor. But probably the only one of the investors who is or the only one of any significance, who’s based here in the UK, together, maybe with Simon Lenagan, and also, you know, certainly anyone who’s had any kind of involvement in running or helping to run English football clubs; so probably, like,to keep an eye on the joint investment for everybody. And it certainly wouldn’t be my full time job or an executive role"
So since his shares were not assigned as part of a CEO remuneration package, they would not be automatically taken off him upon stepping down. So then It's also not obvious to me that they could be taken from him without his agreement.
I could think of two scenarios where he gave them up willingly:
1. More obviously, he was offered a premium on the price he paid for them.
2. Possibly, he had not paid for them up front, as part of some kind of agreement when he first started (as he describes above) presumably on some consultancy terms, so he may have been paid for the shares at original face value.
Either way, it's not something I'm losing sleep over. Also FWIW, looking at that image of the Jamaican academy venue, and thinking about the relatively low-key role running that compared to "CEO" of Charlton, I still reckon health concerns may have played a role.
He also reported himself that he had purchased the shares.
The Club has confirmed that CM is no longer an owner (i.e. no longer a shareholder). They didn't have to do that although CM's removal from the list of shareholders on the club's website confirmed it anyway.The exact details of any share transaction would be considered confidential information but it is reasonable to believe that his minor shareholding was subsumed by the existing shareholders as no new shareholders are listed.
The guy has done well for the club and has lined up new employment.
Why is so much being made of a fairly routine event?
I have no doubt CM was allowed to buy shares as a perk in anticipation of taking up office, not because the consortium needed his money. His agreement would have been drawn up appropriately by the lawyers, unlikely on the same terms as for majority shareholders.
Either he has voluntarily chosen to sell his shares, probably at a sweet price, rather than hang on for better days, or been required to sell them at a sweet price. Nothing unusual I suggest.
Remember, there is no buyers market for minority shares in a third tier loss making football club, and if he had the option, CM is probably not rich enough to turn down a nice little earner today compared to a possible lottery win down the line.
it’s the CL way, everything, no matter how small, is a conspiracy.
Only the deliberately obtuse could fail to see advances made, albeit we won't see audited accounts for this season for another year. Let's hope progress continues at the same rate over the next 18 months, and that there's a smooth transition once appointments are made.
As Voltaire stated, "don't let the best be the enemy of the good". Not only do we have an 80% chance of making the play-offs but 16 of the matchday 18 are under contract for next season. Plus we have a high quality manager together with a Director of Performance who has years of experience in the Championship and EPL. And fast improving revenues across all streams.
We are eminently investable, for a club in the top half of the Championship has an enterprise value exceeding £100M. Nobody said that operating losses would disappear in League One - the vision stated was always that promotion to the Championship + much improved commercial revenues would lead to a far better set of financials.
There are sure to be other changes, especially once we're promoted, because League One is a picnic compared to the Championship. For now, we've hit form of two points per game since early December, and we're on the same points as we were under Bowyer six years ago.
And that required vision, stability as well as appropriate budgets. Fortunately we've had all that for nearly two years now. Such a contrast to the decade before SE7 / GFP took over the club! We'll need a new CEO in due course, but the budget and choice of candidate may well vary depending upon what division we find ourselves in.
At this time all we can do is thank Methven for freeing us from Sandgaard's grip, bringing the investors on board and playing a leading role in the recruitment of executives and football management that has delivered progress on and off the pitch.
We all want the team to succeed but those who fail to recognise how we arrived here, and who made the decisions on the squad are simply blind to strategy and progress.