Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread v3.0 - DONE! - Methven interview in the Telegraph (p55)
Comments
-
Leuth said:Now I make sure there's at least 2 or 3 of the lads I really, really don't support
Bully1 -
Which I’ve never had eyes on despite other Charlton fans saying they have seen it and presumably have copies. Quite why it’s never seen widespread light of day is a question for those lucky few. Unless I’ve just missed it which is possible.sam3110 said:
Because there was once a prospectus floating around trying to get small time investment lined up in our club, that was apparently distributed in Texas, and spoke of closing stands/the academy/moving the club/turning us into Crystal Palace B team/changing the kit colours to purple and beige hoops or whatever that everyone got very uppity about, but the vast majority of us haven't been able to see.AndyG said:I must be missing something here. What difference does it make if one of them lives or has connections to Texas ? do we not like Texan's ?
I'd hope once the takeover is fully ratified those with it can share it once and for all4 -
I would very much like Storrie to stick around.
A competent football CEO.
The last time we had one of those in this league we smashed 101 points.
It’s staggering that successful business people couldn’t see the correlation.
Or didn’t want to.17 -
It’s Josh Friedman group not CMmendonca said:Being owned by Charlie Methven and his group sounds grim, but we have to roll with it.8 -
🙄0
-
We asked him about Texas because at the time that brochure was still a hot topic. People were rightly fearful of a consortium that - apparently- needed to offer parcels of 75k. Like @N01R4M I am wary of CMs sometimes loose answers to questions of important factual detail. On the other hand, as people keep saying, proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in fact we seem to have a consortium which is on the large side but certainly not looking like the result of some Texas crowdfunding exercise. So maybe we put that one to bed, while noting that CM's answer was a bit loose.
But that's why we insisted on an on-the-record interview. Everything he has said is available for us all to refer back to in future as and when necessary. And while I was surprised that he allowed himself to be pinned down in that way, he did not seek to back out.
It's why I don't quite see him as a "ruthless PR expert" as I think @grumpyaddick called him. A real ruthless PR operator would not have allowed himself to be pinned down on the record. Just as a real ruthless PR expert would never have allowed the Netflix car-crash to happen in such explicit, glorious detail. I'm not saying I've been sold on him, just that he's not quite as easy to pigeon-hole as we'd previously supposed.13 -
CM won't be putting cash in
He's "earnt" his shares for brokering the deal
The monies LOANED by the richest of the group will attract commercial rates of interest
CM will, I think, be paid for a job by CAFC
If it goes wrong, CM won't lose any cash
However, this takeover is way better than life under TS would have been in Season 23/24 !
6 -
Did we ever find out who the guy was in the stetson hat, who visited the museum?2
-
0
-
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:12 - Sponsored links:
-
Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand the need to respect sources but the prospectus has been a stick to bash this takeover and I think it’s rather unfair. I don’t quite agree it’s meaningless now. In practical terms perhaps but it’s a prospectus and as such should have been reasonably widely circulated. Certainly if it was directed at £75k investors. I find it strange that we haven’t been able to see it when it’s actually fundamental to many of this forums view of one of the major players.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:5 -
are you sure about that?supaclive said:CM won't be putting cash in
He's "earnt" his shares for brokering the deal
The monies LOANED by the richest of the group will attract commercial rates of interest
CM will, I think, be paid for a job by CAFC
If it goes wrong, CM won't lose any cash
However, this takeover is way better than life under TS would have been in Season 23/24 !
as I understand it the EFL source and sustainability of funding requirements apply to all incoming stakeholders
all the proposed shareholders have to show they are good for their portion of the 2 year money pit cashflow requirements
CM's stake might be small (insert Kenneth Williams photo/gif here) but I think he has to be good for his %age of the funding
if he has a paid role in some aspect of the business we can appraise his performance in his particular field
3 -
He originally said 7% stake of the 10.5m, which is near enough 3/4 of a million quid. However I believe the group expanded since then so probably has a smaller stake now, and I'd imagine therefore his S&S amount to be quite a bit lower. Also if he's a name in one particular group of people then that group as an entity have to show S&S and therefore that may well be bankrolled by someone else within the group, if that makes sense0
-
Not ALL shareholders have to put cash in. I'm quite sure there are many clubs who have shareholders who haven't put cash in.Billy_Mix said:
are you sure about that?supaclive said:CM won't be putting cash in
He's "earnt" his shares for brokering the deal
The monies LOANED by the richest of the group will attract commercial rates of interest
CM will, I think, be paid for a job by CAFC
If it goes wrong, CM won't lose any cash
However, this takeover is way better than life under TS would have been in Season 23/24 !
as I understand it the EFL source and sustainability of funding requirements apply to all incoming stakeholders
all the proposed shareholders have to show they are good for their portion of the 2 year money pit cashflow requirements
CM's stake might be small (insert Kenneth Williams photo/gif here) but I think he has to be good for his %age of the funding
if he has a paid role in some aspect of the business we can appraise his performance in his particular field
If the real money people and the paperwork shows they are the financiers the EFL would be subject to all sorts of legal challenges if they turned down a sale structured like this.
We can review how much ACTUAL cash CM puts in in future years coming.
Right now, as I said, this takeover is plenty better already than life under TS.
1 -
been reliably told nothing at all connected to the takeover.mart77 said:Did we ever find out who the guy was in the stetson hat, who visited the museum?0 -
You've totally changed your view (if I'm not mistaken).supaclive said:CM won't be putting cash in
He's "earnt" his shares for brokering the deal
The monies LOANED by the richest of the group will attract commercial rates of interest
CM will, I think, be paid for a job by CAFC
If it goes wrong, CM won't lose any cash
However, this takeover is way better than life under TS would have been in Season 23/24 !
I thought you were apopletic about them taking over?2 -
Just seen Burger Boy arriving for work!
8 -
It never was as important as made out when we had majority billionaire/extremely wealthy owners taking major stakes.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:
The issue was that a substantial amount of fans disbelieved that there were to be billionaire/extremely wealthy owners.2 - Sponsored links:
-
You mean I'm not allowed to judge them by their actions?!Covered End said:
You've totally changed your view (if I'm not mistaken).supaclive said:CM won't be putting cash in
He's "earnt" his shares for brokering the deal
The monies LOANED by the richest of the group will attract commercial rates of interest
CM will, I think, be paid for a job by CAFC
If it goes wrong, CM won't lose any cash
However, this takeover is way better than life under TS would have been in Season 23/24 !
I thought you were apopletic about them taking over?
My goodness. Isn't that what people have been asking?
The signings have been solid. We need many more.
Holden continues to be a very promising manager.
Life under TS was going to get much worse
I was not overjoyed by this takeover
The words from Damo (who I said I'd spoken to before the Man U game) made me a little more positive
I remain concerned that the business plan pitched by CM is built on sand but compared to the other choice (Spiegel) - this is the best on offer.
Apopletic (sic?) No. Concerned hpw the first takeover attempt went. Yes. CM shut his gob. The second takeover with Storrie and others dealing with it, much more professional.
I want our Charlton back. That's all.
17 -
Yes, that's the point I'm making - we should be judging people by their actions.supaclive said:
You mean I'm not allowed to judge them by their actions?!Covered End said:
You've totally changed your view (if I'm not mistaken).supaclive said:CM won't be putting cash in
He's "earnt" his shares for brokering the deal
The monies LOANED by the richest of the group will attract commercial rates of interest
CM will, I think, be paid for a job by CAFC
If it goes wrong, CM won't lose any cash
However, this takeover is way better than life under TS would have been in Season 23/24 !
I thought you were apopletic about them taking over?
My goodness. Isn't that what people have been asking?
The signings have been solid. We need many more.
Holden continues to be a very promising manager.
Life under TS was going to get much worse
I was not overjoyed by this takeover
The words from Damo (who I said I'd spoken to before the Man U game) made me a little more positive
I remain concerned that the business plan pitched by CM is built on sand but compared to the other choice (Spiegel) - this is the best on offer.
Apopletic (sic?) No. Concerned hpw the first takeover attempt went. Yes. CM shut his gob. The second takeover with Storrie and others dealing with it, much more professional.
I want our Charlton back. That's all.
I'm very pleased that you've changed your view and you're now prepared to do that.
I was simply trying to understand why one of the very prominent anti "Methven" group has turned about face? Nothing of substance has changed (only perhaps people that never believed that there were billionaire/very wealthy owners, now accepting that there are.
NB I am absolutely not trying to be confrontational I was just trying to understand how someone so angrily against the prospective owners suddenly are for, with no apparent reason to change.
I was always in the wait and see camp and still am, although I was struggling to see how they could not be an improvement on Sandgaard who had decided to no longer fund Charlton to get promoted from L1.2 -
The thing is, and either AB or CS can correct me, I don’t think it was ever proved that CM had anything to do with it.ShootersHillGuru said:
Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand the need to respect sources but the prospectus has been a stick to bash this takeover and I think it’s rather unfair. I don’t quite agree it’s meaningless now. In practical terms perhaps but it’s a prospectus and as such should have been reasonably widely circulated. Certainly if it was directed at £75k investors. I find it strange that we haven’t been able to see it when it’s actually fundamental to many of this forums view of one of the major players.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:1 -
I'll always judge people by their actions. I remain wary of CM and if he's in charge I'll remain cincerned.Covered End said:
Yes, that's the point I'm making - we should be judging people by their actions.supaclive said:
You mean I'm not allowed to judge them by their actions?!Covered End said:
You've totally changed your view (if I'm not mistaken).supaclive said:CM won't be putting cash in
He's "earnt" his shares for brokering the deal
The monies LOANED by the richest of the group will attract commercial rates of interest
CM will, I think, be paid for a job by CAFC
If it goes wrong, CM won't lose any cash
However, this takeover is way better than life under TS would have been in Season 23/24 !
I thought you were apopletic about them taking over?
My goodness. Isn't that what people have been asking?
The signings have been solid. We need many more.
Holden continues to be a very promising manager.
Life under TS was going to get much worse
I was not overjoyed by this takeover
The words from Damo (who I said I'd spoken to before the Man U game) made me a little more positive
I remain concerned that the business plan pitched by CM is built on sand but compared to the other choice (Spiegel) - this is the best on offer.
Apopletic (sic?) No. Concerned hpw the first takeover attempt went. Yes. CM shut his gob. The second takeover with Storrie and others dealing with it, much more professional.
I want our Charlton back. That's all.
I'm very pleased that you've changed your view and you're now prepared to do that.
I was simply trying to understand why one of the very prominent anti "Methven" group has turned about face? Nothing of substance has changed (only perhaps people that never believed that there were billionaire/very wealthy owners, now accepting that there are.
NB I am absolutely not trying to be confrontational I was just trying to understand how someone so angrily against the prospective owners suddenly are for, with no apparent reason to change.
I was always in the wait and see camp and still am, although I was struggling to see how they could not be an improvement on Sandgaard who had decided to no longer fund Charlton to get promoted from L1.
He's been much quieter. Much less PR, much less in full view.
Again, I believe the plan he's sold people is built on sand. But it's done now. I can't change what is going on.
I am anti CM. That hasn't changed
5 -
Have explained all this several times previously. What matters now is proof of the pudding. If they run the club appropriately and with the clubs and supporters best interests at heart, it will prove to have been nonsense or at least seen a change of strategy. If there proves to be very limited money and cost-cutting begins, we will have a much better idea of where we are headed.ShootersHillGuru said:
Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand the need to respect sources but the prospectus has been a stick to bash this takeover and I think it’s rather unfair. I don’t quite agree it’s meaningless now. In practical terms perhaps but it’s a prospectus and as such should have been reasonably widely circulated. Certainly if it was directed at £75k investors. I find it strange that we haven’t been able to see it when it’s actually fundamental to many of this forums view of one of the major players.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:5 -
But the man definitely isn't running the club and has nothing to do with day-to-day affairs.Gribbo said:Storrie - "It’s another milestone in the history of Charlton. It’s the end of Thomas’ era, subject to the legal formalities in the next few days, and a start of a new era under SE7 Partners – Charlie Methven and his group.”
1 -
I think that is correct, but since the prospectus apparently mentioned Methven, Rodwell, Warrick, Scott, Holden, and the previously unknown Simon Lenagan connection, the assumption was that it most probably came from that group. The alternative theory, that it was a Sandgaard initiative, seemed unlikely.PragueAddick said:
The thing is, and either AB or CS can correct me, I don’t think it was ever proved that CM had anything to do with it.ShootersHillGuru said:
Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand the need to respect sources but the prospectus has been a stick to bash this takeover and I think it’s rather unfair. I don’t quite agree it’s meaningless now. In practical terms perhaps but it’s a prospectus and as such should have been reasonably widely circulated. Certainly if it was directed at £75k investors. I find it strange that we haven’t been able to see it when it’s actually fundamental to many of this forums view of one of the major players.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:
What I am not clear about is why the share offer was restricted to Texas. I have learnt from this forum that Delaware has a special status as a tax haven within the US. Does Texas similarly have laws which make it a most-favoured launch pad for highly speculative share sales? Or was it chosen because there were wealthy people in that state who were already interested in buying into CAFC?
In any case, unless Brener and Friedman have got involved through believing the far-fetched money-saving claims in that prospectus (if so, all is likely to end in tears), the brochure truly is last year's news. I mentioned it primarily because I think Methven's responses to questions about it are revealing of his personality and /or truthfulness, and this matters because it appears from the Dossier interview he fancies for himself a role as the spider at the centre of the club/ consortium web.
My personal conclusion is that if Methven told me the sun is shining, I would glance out of the window to check.
7 -
All I can add to that is that the accompanying email trail said that all the main funding was in place but that they had been given a 5% parcel to make available to smaller investors who might be interested. On the basis that the original deal was even less than they are now paying, there would only have been room for perhaps six investors at those numbers. If no-one bit with the initial trawl, they may well have decided to park it.N01R4M said:
I think that is correct, but since the prospectus apparently mentioned Methven, Rodwell, Warrick, Scott, Holden, and the previously unknown Simon Lenagan connection, the assumption was that it most probably came from that group. The alternative theory, that it was a Sandgaard initiative, seemed unlikely.PragueAddick said:
The thing is, and either AB or CS can correct me, I don’t think it was ever proved that CM had anything to do with it.ShootersHillGuru said:
Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand the need to respect sources but the prospectus has been a stick to bash this takeover and I think it’s rather unfair. I don’t quite agree it’s meaningless now. In practical terms perhaps but it’s a prospectus and as such should have been reasonably widely circulated. Certainly if it was directed at £75k investors. I find it strange that we haven’t been able to see it when it’s actually fundamental to many of this forums view of one of the major players.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:
What I am not clear about is why the share offer was restricted to Texas. I have learnt from this forum that Delaware has a special status as a tax haven within the US. Does Texas similarly have laws which make it a most-favoured launch pad for highly speculative share sales? Or was it chosen because there were wealthy people in that state who were already interested in buying into CAFC?
In any case, unless Brener and Friedman have got involved through believing the far-fetched money-saving claims in that prospectus (if so, all is likely to end in tears), the brochure truly is last year's news. I mentioned it primarily because I think Methven's responses to questions about it are revealing of his personality and /or truthfulness, and this matters because it appears from the Dossier interview he fancies for himself a role as the spider at the centre of the club/ consortium web.
My personal conclusion is that if Methven told me the sun is shining, I would glance out of the window to check.4 -
Was is it ever true that this was the case though? I fully accept that a prospectus was indeed found in Texas but I don't know we ever had proof that it was ONLY in Texas...N01R4M said:PragueAddick said:
The thing is, and either AB or CS can correct me, I don’t think it was ever proved that CM had anything to do with it.ShootersHillGuru said:
Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand the need to respect sources but the prospectus has been a stick to bash this takeover and I think it’s rather unfair. I don’t quite agree it’s meaningless now. In practical terms perhaps but it’s a prospectus and as such should have been reasonably widely circulated. Certainly if it was directed at £75k investors. I find it strange that we haven’t been able to see it when it’s actually fundamental to many of this forums view of one of the major players.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:
What I am not clear about is why the share offer was restricted to Texas. I have learnt from this forum that Delaware has a special status as a tax haven within the US. Does Texas similarly have laws which make it a most-favoured launch pad for highly speculative share sales? Or was it chosen because there were wealthy people in that state who were already interested in buying into CAFC?1 -
It may well have been offered elsewhere but it certainly wasn't made public. I only found out by a remote coincidence.thenewbie said:
Was is it ever true that this was the case though? I fully accept that a prospectus was indeed found in Texas but I don't know we ever had proof that it was ONLY in Texas...N01R4M said:PragueAddick said:
The thing is, and either AB or CS can correct me, I don’t think it was ever proved that CM had anything to do with it.ShootersHillGuru said:
Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand the need to respect sources but the prospectus has been a stick to bash this takeover and I think it’s rather unfair. I don’t quite agree it’s meaningless now. In practical terms perhaps but it’s a prospectus and as such should have been reasonably widely circulated. Certainly if it was directed at £75k investors. I find it strange that we haven’t been able to see it when it’s actually fundamental to many of this forums view of one of the major players.PragueAddick said:
Nope, but I fully trust @Airman Brown and @Cardinal Sin, who have, and I respect that they honour their commitment to their respective sources. I think we can now safely say that it does not matter too much now.ShootersHillGuru said:
What I am not clear about is why the share offer was restricted to Texas. I have learnt from this forum that Delaware has a special status as a tax haven within the US. Does Texas similarly have laws which make it a most-favoured launch pad for highly speculative share sales? Or was it chosen because there were wealthy people in that state who were already interested in buying into CAFC?4
