Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 15:19:44 GMT
That is exactly what I have heard. clarky |
|
|
|
Post by houndal on Feb 28, 2023 15:25:19 GMT
Sandgaard is truly caught between a rock and a hardplace. No he won't want admin, but given his refusal to sell 100% he has to fund himself half a million a month. And that is just to keep us where we are, with no investment. I dont want to be rude but many posters have already explained, in detail, with numbers to back it up, why Sandgaard will not put the club into Administration. Maybe go back and have a read of them? No offense taken. I have indeed read the posts of others, but I repeat he is between a rock and a hardplace. Wont sell (100%) Cant (it appears) get investment/loan. Has to fund the club himself. Wont invest himself. Not much for us to look forward to. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Feb 28, 2023 15:28:39 GMT
Sandgaard obviously. What point are you trying to make though? My point is at some stage Sandgaard will stop ploughing more money in/down the drain. Given that currently any investment/loan is potentially mired in legal wrangling.s, I expect Sandgaard will take the easy way out and let admin take over. I hope I am wrong, but fear the worst. Ultimately we know he cares nothing for our club. Thanks for your reply. As I’ve said earlier in this thread, administration is highly unlikely because it simply isn’t in Sandgaard’s own interests. I note that others have already made the same point in reply to your comment above. There is a real irony here though. If, perhaps driven by a combination of ego, pride and inane bombast, Sandgaard did opt for administration there’d be a ready buyer. The Methven led consortium could almost certainly secure all of the club for less than they’ve just agreed to pay for only eighty or ninety percent of it. The key question then would be whether we could avoid relegation having suffered a twelve points deduction. That might be a close run thing, unfortunately. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 15:31:08 GMT
Thank you. Yes I have seen the diagram, but to my eye it shows TS retaining 10%, or am I misinterpreting it ? The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. Thank you for explaining, but Jesus this is getting complicated. So many different bits of information flying around but no certainty anywhere. I’ll wait for tomorrows ‘statement’ from CM but it will probably just be confirmation of the above, much of which TS will disagree with and nothing will have changed. So it looks like no deal with CM’s consortium, no administration, no TS carrying on as he is (because he can’t afford to), so presumably it’s going to be TS retaining majority control and Spiegel or Spiegel and/or others providing investment. Possibly better than it currently is, but whether it’s better or worse than CM’s consortium having 90% I guess we’ll never know. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Feb 28, 2023 15:36:35 GMT
The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. Thank you for explaining, but Jesus this is getting complicated. So many different bits of information flying around but no certainty anywhere. I’ll wait for tomorrows ‘statement’ from CM but it will probably just be confirmation of the above, much of which TS will disagree with and nothing will have changed. So it looks like no deal with CM’s consortium, no administration, no TS carrying on as he is (because he can’t afford to), so presumably it’s going to be TS retaining majority control and Spiegel or Spiegel and/or others providing investment. Possibly better than it currently is, but whether it’s better or worse than CM’s consortium having 90% I guess we’ll never know. It looks to me as if Sandgaard is spinning plates. Somewhat reminiscent of Tony Jimenez. The strategy is simple. Find some patsy to invest. Retain control. Have another swing. Fail again. Rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by valleydobson1 on Feb 28, 2023 15:40:42 GMT
That is exactly what I have heard. clarkyWould TS sell 49 per cent for £5m?. |
|
|
|
Post by houndal on Feb 28, 2023 15:44:00 GMT
The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. Thank you for explaining, but Jesus this is getting complicated. So many different bits of information flying around but no certainty anywhere. I’ll wait for tomorrows ‘statement’ from CM but it will probably just be confirmation of the above, much of which TS will disagree with and nothing will have changed. So it looks like no deal with CM’s consortium, no administration, no TS carrying on as he is (because he can’t afford to), so presumably it’s going to be TS retaining majority control and Spiegel or Spiegel and/or others providing investment. Possibly better than it currently is, but whether it’s better or worse than CM’s consortium having 90% I guess we’ll never know. Your synopsis looks to be about right. But what if Sandgaard cant get the investment/loan, through whatever reason? |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Feb 28, 2023 15:45:36 GMT
I am not sure that administration would be of any help to TS if he has given personal guarantees for monies owing, the guarantees would have to be satisfied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 16:54:05 GMT
Thank you for explaining, but Jesus this is getting complicated. So many different bits of information flying around but no certainty anywhere. I’ll wait for tomorrows ‘statement’ from CM but it will probably just be confirmation of the above, much of which TS will disagree with and nothing will have changed. So it looks like no deal with CM’s consortium, no administration, no TS carrying on as he is (because he can’t afford to), so presumably it’s going to be TS retaining majority control and Spiegel or Spiegel and/or others providing investment. Possibly better than it currently is, but whether it’s better or worse than CM’s consortium having 90% I guess we’ll never know. Your synopsis looks to be about right. But what if Sandgaard cant get the investment/loan, through whatever reason? And why wouldn’t he ? We’re a lower mid-table L1 side losing £500K per month, with dwindling crowds and rent and upkeep to pay on a premier league ground that we don’t own, with a couple of half decent players who we might sell, several crocks, some kids and some loans that’ll go back in May. Oh, plus some legal compensation threats hanging over us and a £17M outstanding debt to our landlord. Should be easy enough 🤣 (emoji added to avoid confusion). |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Feb 28, 2023 17:36:37 GMT
Thank you. Yes I have seen the diagram, but to my eye it shows TS retaining 10%, or am I misinterpreting it ? The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. People will be able to back me up on here through conversations I have had with them back stage that Freidman was the man who was going head on this week with TS to offer him a take it or leave it deal. The stubborn egotistical prick ignored him. We are ending up with Sandgaard, Spiegel, Storrie and that football agent. Said all those two weeks ago what the fall back plan would look like. This is desperate news for all Charlton fans and will end in trouble. Nice of that CL poster to find out out I haven't been making it up as I go along after all. Innocent until proven guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by valleydobson1 on Feb 28, 2023 17:43:36 GMT
Reams apart from Spiegel any other money coming in?.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Feb 28, 2023 18:19:18 GMT
The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. People will be able to back me up on here through conversations I have had with them back stage that Freidman was the man who was going head on this week with TS to offer him a take it or leave it deal. The stubborn egotistical prick ignored him. We are ending up with Sandgaard, Spiegel, Storrie and that football agent. Said all those two weeks ago what the fall back plan would look like. This is desperate news for all Charlton fans and will end in trouble. Nice of that CL poster to find out out I haven't been making it up as I go along after all. Innocent until proven guilty. For those that are against Methven (and co.), are you happy with the current situation with this Spiegel etc? From my perspective, this new(er) group with Spiegel seems to be swimming in a far different pond. One more associated to the likes of Mouthall. Hopefully I’m wrong on that, but if Methven and co gave you ‘red flags’, then this new lot must be like Chinese supporters at the olympics with a sea of red flags. One of them being, where is the money?! If they takeover, then I feel like we’ll have this Takeover thread open again in 12-18months time. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Feb 28, 2023 18:20:08 GMT
Reams apart from Spiegel any other money coming in?. Doubt it. The fact that TS owes RD double what he was willing to sell the club to the Americans for, sums up where we are as a football club. We should let that sink in. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Feb 28, 2023 18:32:36 GMT
From The Athletic. For what its worth. In short, we're not the only club Americans are interested in. American investors believe that clubs in the EFL, and the National League, represent good value (i.e. believe they're cheap) and have lots of potential.
Wrexham factor, promotion and a strong dollar – why Americans are buying EFL clubs
The opening question of the press conference usually writes itself when a new owner takes over a football club.
“So (owner name), why (team X)?”
But that question is a lot more fun when everyone is trying to establish why on earth wealthy businessmen from glamorous locations in the United States are choosing to plough six-figure sums of money into the football clubs of Gillingham, Walsall or Woking.
The Americans are here — and more are probably on their way — with 27 per cent of the EFL, three National League teams and four of the 12 Scottish Premiership clubs all either owned or invested in by US-based groups.
Last week, Lincoln City were the latest club to announce new backing from the States as former professional player Pablo Webster and associates Evan Mitz and Brian Anderson made a “significant investment” and will join South African chairman Clive Nates on the board. It follows a wave of recent takeovers, from high-profile examples such as Crawley Town and Wrexham, to deals done with less fanfare, including Walsall and Gillingham.
With owning a Premier League club a status now reserved for billionaires, the EFL and National League have become fertile ground for investment with the prospect of relegation, the dollar-to-pound exchange rate and the growing popularity of soccer in the US all contributing factors.
“If you’re an American and you’re interested in investing in ‘football’, there’s no better market than England,” says Ipswich Town co-owner Brett Johnson, a Rhode Island-based businessman who bought a majority shareholding in that League One club as part of the Gamechanger 20 group in 2021.
“The history and gravitas of so many of the clubs, the quality and depth of the players and leagues, the exceptional supporter base that comes with so many of these clubs and the ultimate prize of a potential to buy into or get promoted to play in the Premier League provides a diversity of investment options for Americans that is difficult to match in any sport or market in the world.”
Tim Keech is co-founder of MRKT Insights, a consultancy firm that advises clubs and investors on analytics, recruitment and investment strategy. He says: “There are a lot of people out there who like the idea of owning a sports team.
“English football represents a low-cost entry point. The history of it appeals. You can buy a 100-year-old club for less than the cost of a franchise in the US minor leagues. ‘Why now?’ is a good question — the publicity around Wrexham has been part of it with some of the newest investors; it just looks fun and if you have made lots of money then wasting some on fun stuff is perfectly valid. Whether it actually is fun is another thing.”
While it would be glib to suggest that the EFL and National League are likely to see a wave of Hollywood stars looking to invest in their teams, the Wrexham effect is real and has made an impression on prospective investors in the States since actors Rob McElhenney and Ryan Reynolds took over the Welsh non-Leaguers in 2021.
Their ability to commercialise Wrexham — transforming them from a fan-owned entity in need of love to a global brand subject to their own Disney+ documentary series — has been an example of how to grow a club’s popularity and value in a short space of time from a fairly low purchase price in comparison to the sums of money buying Premier League clubs now involves.
Woking are another of the American-owned clubs in the fifth-tier National League. Unlike Wrexham, they have never played in the EFL but sit third, albeit 19 points adrift, behind the second-placed Welshmen, having held them to a 2-2 away draw last month.
“Who?” Woking’s chief executive and co-owner John Katz says with a laugh when asked about Wrexham’s influence, having himself invested in English football in late 2020.
“People do it for their own reasons but we did it first and foremost because of passion. I’m what you would call a baseball lifer. I worked in baseball for 30 years and was passionate about the Minor League level (a ‘farm-team’ system where clubs develop players for the top-flight MLB teams they are affiliated to) because it was more about people than results. I’ve got that broad base of experience running facilities and baseball stadiums all over the US, so we bring a unique perspective on monetising sport.
“It sort of comes back to real estate, ‘Don’t buy the nicest house in the neighbourhood, buy the cheapest house in the neighbourhood and build it up’. You increase the value by building assets and part of that is having the right first-team and the right manager.
“So number one, it’s the opportunity; number two, it’s about the passion and number three, it’s doing something that you really can’t do in the US. If you’re in the NBA (the world’s top basketball league), you can put a team together and win a championship and that’s all well and good but the last-place team doesn’t drop down (get relegated). It’s that opportunity of accepting that the results can determine your future, good or bad. And you have to be willing to accept the bad with the good.”
“There are several factors driving investment interest in the Championship, League One, League Two and the National League, from organised capital (funds and firms) and personal capital (individuals and families),” says Greg Bettinelli, a partner at The Chernin Group, an investment advisory firm based in Los Angeles.
“One is the increasing popularity of soccer in the United States, driven by the emergence of MLS, the popularity of USMNT and USWNT, the availability of the world’s top leagues on television in the US, the success of the EA Sports FIFA video game and not to be underestimated is the success of shows like Ted Lasso and Welcome To Wrexham.
“The second is that the entry price to own sports properties, specifically soccer, is quite high relative to revenues and costs in the US. Clubs in MLS now exceed $1billion in value and even NWSL (National Women’s Soccer League) clubs are now valued between $50m and $150m despite revenues that aren’t much larger than their European peers.”
Promotion and relegation remain a novel factor not present in the US franchise-based system operating in most sports there, including MLS, with the potential for investors to see return on their money if their team progresses up the leagues.
“A promotion from League One to the Championship is a ‘five-bagger’, in that the value of your club could go up by five times,” says Laurie Pinto, a veteran dealmaker in the game for Pinto Capital.
“From the Championship to the Premier League, it might be a six-bagger.
“How do you grow the value of a Premier League team by five or six times in a short period? You can’t, and that’s why I’ve got more potential buyers than there are clubs to buy — and they are proper investment groups, nearly all of them North American.”
Tim Bridge of Deloitte’s sports business group says: “Overall, there are clearly some macro trends that are impacting decision making — the relatively low entry price of clubs further down the system is made even more appealing by the strength of the dollar.
“There is also a seemingly growing fascination with the system itself, so whilst relegation poses a challenge that American sports franchise owners don’t have to negotiate, it now presents an opportunity. There are lots of people who look at a club like Bournemouth (who went from fourth division to Premier League via three promotions in six seasons between 2010 and 2015) and think, ‘Why can’t we do that?’, and at a price or investment point that is lower than simply acquiring a club higher up the system.”
Add to that the promise of a new TV deal for the EFL and the potential of reform to the system of parachute payments and distribution of funds, among other things, on the cards in the UK government’s upcoming white paper and there are plenty of reasons for interest from US money.
And it does not stop with English football. Stateside backers are just as likely to join the growing trend towards multi-club ownership group, such as League One side Barnsley’s owner Pacific Media Group, which has a network of teams extending to France, Belgium, Denmark and Switzerland.
“It will lead to a substantial expansion of a multi-club ownership model, with these American investors using satellite clubs to better support their ability to compete in England,” says Ipswich owner Johnson. “It should be viewed in a very positive light for everyone associated with the sport in England and beyond.”
And while investment looks like it will keep coming from US-based firms or private wealth, there is cause to be cautious for all parties.
“Most clubs lose money on trading activities and most fanbases are fairly demanding that money is spent on their team,” says MRKT Insight’s Keech. “I’m not sure some of the people looking (at buying into UK football) understand just how much money can be lost when owning a club. It may be fun writing that first cheque to buy the club but it is less so when you have lost £5million and the fans are shouting abuse at you.
“My worry is for the groups of owners clubbing together to buy a team. This is common in the US but the concept of losing lots of money from ownership every year is difficult to cope with. Should we be worried? There are good owners and bad of all nationalities. I worry more for the owners. Who is advising them? How do they know who to trust? There are a lot of people who will do their best to spend their money for them and too many get excited by the first transfer window.”
“It’s not for the faint-hearted,” says Katz, who is uniquely hands-on having relocated more than 4,000 miles from his family to build something at Woking, a commuter town a short drive south west of London.
“There are times when there are really high highs and really low lows. I think of a week where I went back to the warm of the US to spend time with my wife, I landed at Heathrow and was on the coach at 9am to Chesterfield and then didn’t get back until 4am. Then the next week it was two overnights, one to Wrexham where we drew, and one to Altrincham, which was a game we lost for reasons I still can’t work out.
“I look at it in the same way I would any passive investment. If I just put money into the club and had someone else running it for us, it wouldn’t be the same.
“One of the things we are able to do here is really let the passion flow. If anyone sees me on matchday, I’m up when we’re up, I’m down when we’re down. I was so excited after the win over Bromley last week (coming from a goal down to lead, then holding on for 30 minutes with 10 men) that I called my wife and she asked me what happened, because it was unusual for me to call her at 11pm UK time, 6pm her time. And it’s because I want to talk about it, I was on such a high.
“It’s about celebrating the successes and not feeling alone when we’ve lost.
“It’s consuming but it’s consuming in very positive ways… mostly.”
|
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on Feb 28, 2023 18:37:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by valleydobson1 on Feb 28, 2023 18:42:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on Feb 28, 2023 18:43:59 GMT
He has worked for both clubs, maybe he is there as a fan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 19:10:45 GMT
Ed Warrick there as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by coloradocafc on Feb 28, 2023 19:18:54 GMT
From The Athletic. For what its worth. In short, we're not the only club Americans are interested in. American investors believe that clubs in the EFL, and the National League, represent good value (i.e. believe they're cheap) and have lots of potential. Wrexham factor, promotion and a strong dollar – why Americans are buying EFL clubsFootball clubs are like boats. Rich people like the idea of owning both. And both are excellent tools to destroy capital. |
|
|
|
Post by earlpurple on Feb 28, 2023 19:46:52 GMT
But there's a danger that if all the clubs in League One get rich investors, it will become far more competitive and the budget you'll need to get promoted will mean even bigger losses as you have to beat all the others.
A few years ago it felt this wasn't a difficult league to get out of - we weren't that good in 2017-18 but still got into the playoffs, and then made it up the next season.
Now it feels ever more difficult than before.
|
|
995632
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 362
|
Post by 995632 on Feb 28, 2023 21:17:30 GMT
They are not walking away from the club, Sandgaard is not selling to them, there is a difference. I hate to sound like Seriously Red but let us wait to see what Methven’s statement says. For me going forward any takeover should be for 100 per cent of the Share Capital. To grow as a Club Sandgaard should ride off into the Sunset with his Fender Stratocaster and never be seen in SE7 again. Will his statement make any difference? Doubt it he's a serial bullshitter same as Sandguarrd . Please can you explain this pathological hatred of Methven? Is it all because of Sunderland 'Til I Die and his stupid trousers? |
|
|
|
Post by hertsaddick on Feb 28, 2023 21:30:40 GMT
Ed Warrick there as well. No surprise, Warwick is a Posh fan. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Feb 28, 2023 22:36:29 GMT
The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. Thank you for explaining, but Jesus this is getting complicated. So many different bits of information flying around but no certainty anywhere. I’ll wait for tomorrows ‘statement’ from CM but it will probably just be confirmation of the above, much of which TS will disagree with and nothing will have changed. So it looks like no deal with CM’s consortium, no administration, no TS carrying on as he is (because he can’t afford to), so presumably it’s going to be TS retaining majority control and Spiegel or Spiegel and/or others providing investment. Possibly better than it currently is, but whether it’s better or worse than CM’s consortium having 90% I guess we’ll never know. My opinion of you is that you have been deliberately provoking a reaction on here by acting stupid when your not. Even now, this late in the day you still call it CM’s consortium. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 22:53:18 GMT
Thank you for explaining, but Jesus this is getting complicated. So many different bits of information flying around but no certainty anywhere. I’ll wait for tomorrows ‘statement’ from CM but it will probably just be confirmation of the above, much of which TS will disagree with and nothing will have changed. So it looks like no deal with CM’s consortium, no administration, no TS carrying on as he is (because he can’t afford to), so presumably it’s going to be TS retaining majority control and Spiegel or Spiegel and/or others providing investment. Possibly better than it currently is, but whether it’s better or worse than CM’s consortium having 90% I guess we’ll never know. My opinion of you is that you have been deliberately provoking a reaction on here by acting stupid when your not. Even now, this late in the day you still call it CM’s consortium. Sorry, you’ve lost me again. When have I acted stupid ? That’s certainly not something I’d wish to do, and can’t see where I have. Can you explain where you think I have because wherever it is I can assure you there’s been a misunderstanding. As for referring to the proposed takeover group as Methvens consortium, I think I’ve done that all the way through haven’t I ? There’s no hidden meaning to it. It just seems like the simplest and best thing to do. It’s a consortium and it’s fronted by Methven - and that just means he’s the frontman not that he’s the biggest player or anything like that. I know we've often disagreed throughout this saga, but I really don’t understand this latest criticism at all. |
|
|
|
Post by winequaffer on Feb 28, 2023 23:02:26 GMT
Thank you. Yes I have seen the diagram, but to my eye it shows TS retaining 10%, or am I misinterpreting it ? The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. There is a suggestion the person who called CM, was in fact Charlie. He only joined 30/01/2023. Claims to have been past member but seems he cannot recall prev member name. Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Feb 28, 2023 23:13:31 GMT
So Charlie called himself? How is that possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by foxycafc on Feb 28, 2023 23:16:26 GMT
I'm back! Or am I? Was I ever gone?!
Sorry to interrupt the thread, but it seems like I have access to the forum again after being in a strange purgatory-like space along with many others. Could Reams just quickly explain what happened (genuine question)?
|
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Feb 28, 2023 23:34:28 GMT
I'm back! Or am I? Was I ever gone?! Sorry to interrupt the thread, but it seems like I have access to the forum again after being in a strange purgatory-like space along with many others. Could Reams just quickly explain what happened (genuine question)? To the forum you mean? I've no idea I've been out all night, first I have heard about it. |
|
|
|
Post by foxycafc on Feb 28, 2023 23:44:45 GMT
I'm back! Or am I? Was I ever gone?! Sorry to interrupt the thread, but it seems like I have access to the forum again after being in a strange purgatory-like space along with many others. Could Reams just quickly explain what happened (genuine question)? To the forum you mean? I've no idea I've been out all night, first I have heard about it. Yeah me and a few others were locked out out the Into the Valley board for about a day and a bit and could only post in the match threads board, on the last page, as guests. Didn't even have the option to log in or see the ITTV board. Couple nasty comments in there, since we thought you permanently banned us. It's all a blur, but I remember Ackers was there, oh God, oh please God, don't make me go back there. |
|
cafcscp
New Signing
Enter your message here...
Posts: 82
|
Post by cafcscp on Feb 28, 2023 23:54:59 GMT
Thank you. Yes I have seen the diagram, but to my eye it shows TS retaining 10%, or am I misinterpreting it ? The 100% didn't come from the conversation on LinkedIn that I saw. The diagram was mentioned and not denied, in fact Methven mentioned two, not three, of the richest people in the world (but not according to Forbes) being on board. Cawley alluded to the 24.1% figure with Methven"s share being 10%. Cawley also said the deal was dead in the water. A subsequent telephone conversation between Methven and a member of other forum backed up what Reams has been saying and because of TS stubbornness, he apparently refused to take a call from Friedman, they have now walked away and it is now all about getting their money back. Methven referred to the fact that we could well be left with Sandgaard, Storrie, possibly the agent and Spiegel who is alleged to be still looking for investors. And I am sure £5m and not £14m as mentioned which if true would suggest Sandgaard is keeping the majority stake. Varney was mentioned but apparently he is not at the table. Again this is only one side but Methven is speaking again and probably more to follow tomorrow. Friedman should just call TS like my boss did. It’s not like he needs to book an appointment. My boss called and was on the phone for 15 mins or so. I’m not saying they’d thrash out the deal but he’d at least be able to discuss setting up the meeting or if it’s even worth having the meeting. All depends how much you want something I guess. TS contact number can be obtained by adding a chrome add on to LinkedIn btw. |
|
