|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Mar 1, 2023 17:28:27 GMT
Just start counting the days I suppose. To admin? Seriously? Are you still banging on about this after so many people have explained why it won't happen? I give up! |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 17:28:44 GMT
So it looks like we are stuck with somebody who owes a former owner £17m with another £33m to follow and likes to tell porkies. His blonde bit who bullied staff into tears which caused them to leave their jobs, and a geezer who thinks he's Hot shot Hamish!. Hard shot Hamish, please! One of those days KHA. Obviously I meant Hot Shot Hamish who couldn't hit a barn door with his old man's banjo!! |
|
|
|
Post by theslambert on Mar 1, 2023 17:36:00 GMT
TS has no interest in getting what's best for Charlton. He's only interested in what's best for himself. He has let potential Billionaires walk away for the sake of more money for himself. The other guy has even less then Sandgaard how the hell can that be a good thing.Love him or hate him Methven had bought Billionaires to the table. What concerns me is that if they really were that wealthy they would have just bought the club, wouldn't they? What happened during the period of exclusivity to stop them completing, or at least contracting. It's all quite mysterious. Were they really outbid by Spiegel, who doesn't seem to be all that minted? They decided not to fund the club from Feb 1st and "lost exclusivity". |
|
|
|
Post by zenga on Mar 1, 2023 17:42:24 GMT
They decided not to fund the club from Feb 1st and "lost exclusivity". The context being that - as per the statement - it was deemed unnecessary by the CFO (who was responsible for making that call together with TS) for at least 3 weeks since the cash-flow was enough to cover the expenses. Sandgaard didn't put his 10% in either during that period. That is imo the most crucial part in the whole statement. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 17:43:05 GMT
What concerns me is that if they really were that wealthy they would have just bought the club, wouldn't they? What happened during the period of exclusivity to stop them completing, or at least contracting. It's all quite mysterious. Were they really outbid by Spiegel, who doesn't seem to be all that minted? They decided not to fund the club from Feb 1st and "lost exclusivity". But only because they were told they didn't need to as proved by Sandgaard not doing so with his 10% either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2023 17:45:01 GMT
Am I missing something - so he can sell the club to whoever (so that how badly they want to buy us) but he wants his money for wasted time and whatever expenses, etc?
How’s that work? If TS sells the club?? No assets in this jurisdiction
And can you really sue someone for wasted time?? Look out Bexley Boy/Dick Plumb😀
Admittedly I can’t be arsed to read the entire thing as it seems to be retracted now
|
|
|
|
Post by newstreethill on Mar 1, 2023 17:46:17 GMT
What concerns me is that if they really were that wealthy they would have just bought the club, wouldn't they? What happened during the period of exclusivity to stop them completing, or at least contracting. It's all quite mysterious. Were they really outbid by Spiegel, who doesn't seem to be all that minted? I don't think they were necessarily outbid by Spiegel but when TS realised he would get more money whilst probably keeping a larger stake he didn't and still doesn't want to sell to the Americans. Under the circumstances not sure what they can do about that? You'd imagine they'd have been up for negotiating? Would they really walk away over such relatively minor issues if they were minted and very keen to buy? It's also quite odd the Methven withdrew the document so rapidly. That has lawyers advice written all over it. Curiouser and curiouser! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2023 17:47:05 GMT
Haven't commented for a couple of weeks because I was equally disillusioned with the way Sandgaard has trashed a once great club and the way a couple of idiots have tried to derail this forum.
So popped back to see if anything has improved - and it just gets worse on both fronts.
Do we know the true identity of this headbanger "ubedizzy"? The intransigence, belligerence, refusal to listen and total lack of self-awareness seems oddly familiar - anyone seen Sandgaard's chief cheerleader 'lardiman' recently?
Mucho admiration for dick plumb for trying to keep the trolls in check politely and with great civility rather than getting all heavy-handed and banning them.
|
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 17:47:40 GMT
Am I missing something - so he can sell the club to whoever (so that how badly they want to buy us) but he wants his money for wasted time and whatever expenses, etc? How’s that work? If TS sells the club?? No assets in this jurisdiction And can you really sue someone for wasted time?? Look out Bexley Boy/Dick Plumb😀 Admittedly I can’t be arsed to read the entire thing as it seems to be retracted now Same here mildred. I read it but it seemed shabbily put together almost in hope rather than expectation. A poor response to what Sandgaard told Cawley. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 17:51:03 GMT
They decided not to fund the club from Feb 1st and "lost exclusivity". The context being that - as per the statement - it was deemed unnecessary by the CFO (who was responsible for making that call together with TS) for at least 3 weeks since the cash-flow was enough to cover the expenses. Sandgaard didn't put his 10% in either during that period. That is imo the most crucial part in the whole statement. Said the same just above jour post Zenga. If CM has anything then it's this but his statement was unconvincing I have to say. My question now is, if Sandgaard reckons everything he did was above board, where is Spiegel? Why not officially announce his involvement? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2023 17:59:28 GMT
I feel so stupid. I feel I should understand this takeover/investment thread but I don’t.
I wonder is someone would try and break it down as if they were explaining it to a 12 year old. No a 6 year old.
And maybe throw in a few smiley faces where appropriate
|
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 18:22:57 GMT
Obsessed? That's your opinion. I have never met him or spoken to him in my life even on social media but don't let the facts get in the way of you talking bollocks eh!
Where have I said I want the club to fold you absolute tit?
Fucking morons coming on here and making shit up accusing me of saying this and saying that.Jog on you WUM.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Mar 1, 2023 18:23:53 GMT
Am I missing something - so he can sell the club to whoever (so that how badly they want to buy us) but he wants his money for wasted time and whatever expenses, etc? How’s that work? If TS sells the club?? No assets in this jurisdiction And can you really sue someone for wasted time?? Look out Bexley Boy/Dick Plumb😀 Admittedly I can’t be arsed to read the entire thing as it seems to be retracted now I am sure you can't sue for wasted time. Wish you could as I have been watching Charlton since 1969 so must be owed thousands! |
|
|
|
Post by revilo on Mar 1, 2023 18:58:52 GMT
Er... Was actually asking Cafc2002 why he is so against Methven. I asked him the exact same thing a couple of days ago and as yet had no response. His comment to you Reams was "your mate Charlie", and the whole 'prove it' attitude of some posters is rediculous. Yes, Methven looks bit of a plum on the show, but it is edited a certain way to amplify certain 'story lines' and traits of people. He would be a minority shareholder, and one that has some experience of running a football club and both the sale and purchase of a club. Everyone shouts and screams that we need people in charge who have some actual footballing knowledge and experience (beyond having a hard shot) and then are against someone who actually meets that criteria. They also complain we have no money and then are against people who (allegedly) have some serious funds behind them stating weird things like 'don't want to sell to a consortium' etc. Yes you did mate, sorry I apologise, I'm just a bit worn down by the cheap shots and underhanded comments aimed at me over somebody I have never met in my life or exchanged a single tweet, text, or phone call with. Sorry fella, I jumped the gun a bit there. What you on about mate, you've got a 3 course meal with him soon haven't you 🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 19:12:23 GMT
No that was a curry with with Sandgaard and Spiegel but I've backed out in case they ask me to do a runner!
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Mar 1, 2023 19:12:48 GMT
So am I reading this correctly. A SPA was agreed whereby the American consortium had to pay 90% of the running costs, but that document was not signed, so probably not legally enforceable. Because the SMT need to pass the EFL tests, and hadn't, by signing the SPA they would have got into trouble with the EFL, similar to what is happening at Birmingham. So any money they put in to cover the running costs will not be legally repayable as the SPA was not signed. Meanwhile they are fighting over the 300k (not circa 1m as has been widely reported) refundable or non refundable deposit and are seeking compensation for wasted time. This has nothing to do with the club and won't stop any future take over or investment as was also reported earlier. Nope! The statement reads that further funding 3rd Feb was not required for another couple of weeks AND that third party funding without a signed doc might fall foul of EFL regulations. Sandgaard used the absence of funding as an excuse to terminate the proceedings. The assertion is that Sandgaard did this in order to avail of a higher offer from elsewhere. It's true that SE7 Partners will not be going to court for performance of the contract so Sandgaard can sell to whoever. But unless real cash and expertise at SMT level is injected then we are destined to stay mid-table or perhaps worse. Many wouldn't choose to work for such a shambolic outfit. Time will tell whether talent exits this summer. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 19:26:05 GMT
So am I reading this correctly. A SPA was agreed whereby the American consortium had to pay 90% of the running costs, but that document was not signed, so probably not legally enforceable. Because the SMT need to pass the EFL tests, and hadn't, by signing the SPA they would have got into trouble with the EFL, similar to what is happening at Birmingham. So any money they put in to cover the running costs will not be legally repayable as the SPA was not signed. Meanwhile they are fighting over the 300k (not circa 1m as has been widely reported) refundable or non refundable deposit and are seeking compensation for wasted time. This has nothing to do with the club and won't stop any future take over or investment as was also reported earlier. Nope! The statement reads that further funding 3rd Feb was not required for another couple of weeks AND that third party funding without a signed doc might fall foul of EFL regulations. Sandgaard used the absence of funding as an excuse to terminate the proceedings. The assertion is that Sandgaard did this in order to avail of a higher offer from elsewhere. It's true that SE7 Partners will not be going to court for performance of the contract so Sandgaard can sell to whoever. But unless real cash and expertise at SMT level is injected then we are destined to stay mid-table or perhaps worse. Many wouldn't choose to work for such a shambolic outfit. Time will tell whether talent exits this summer. I hope Roland Duchatelet's missed payment action against Sandgaard results in the kind of outcome his kind deserve. I was reading earlier about the shit Zynex were in for creating fraudulent invoices. Anyone know if this is true, historical or not? |
|
|
|
Post by foxycafc on Mar 1, 2023 19:29:47 GMT
I feel so stupid. I feel I should understand this takeover/investment thread but I don’t. I wonder is someone would try and break it down as if they were explaining it to a 12 year old. No a 6 year old. And maybe throw in a few smiley faces where appropriate Check your messages |
|
|
|
Post by norfolkrobin on Mar 1, 2023 19:44:27 GMT
I feel so stupid. I feel I should understand this takeover/investment thread but I don’t. I wonder is someone would try and break it down as if they were explaining it to a 12 year old. No a 6 year old. And maybe throw in a few smiley faces where appropriate Yeah pretty much sums up how I feel too,it just seems to have descended into "he said,they said" posturing......meanwhile we're drifting even further away from where we all want to be. Sure I read that DH has a meeting with club tomorrow,talking about a variety of topics,but how can "budgets" be set if TS not sure if he's here for foreseeable? Or are we just to assume? |
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Mar 1, 2023 20:21:35 GMT
I feel so stupid. I feel I should understand this takeover/investment thread but I don’t. I wonder is someone would try and break it down as if they were explaining it to a 12 year old. No a 6 year old. And maybe throw in a few smiley faces where appropriate Yeah pretty much sums up how I feel too,it just seems to have descended into "he said,they said" posturing......meanwhile we're drifting even further away from where we all want to be. Sure I read that DH has a meeting with club tomorrow,talking about a variety of topics,but how can "budgets" be set if TS not sure if he's here for foreseeable? Or are we just to assume? There is nothing coming from TS to suggest he is leaving anytime soon in fact quite the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 20:26:33 GMT
Holden won't stay with the current free agent and loan transfer structure that will remain in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Mar 1, 2023 20:28:53 GMT
So am I reading this correctly. A SPA was agreed whereby the American consortium had to pay 90% of the running costs, but that document was not signed, so probably not legally enforceable. Because the SMT need to pass the EFL tests, and hadn't, by signing the SPA they would have got into trouble with the EFL, similar to what is happening at Birmingham. So any money they put in to cover the running costs will not be legally repayable as the SPA was not signed. Meanwhile they are fighting over the 300k (not circa 1m as has been widely reported) refundable or non refundable deposit and are seeking compensation for wasted time. This has nothing to do with the club and won't stop any future take over or investment as was also reported earlier. Nope! The statement reads that further funding 3rd Feb was not required for another couple of weeks AND that third party funding without a signed doc might fall foul of EFL regulations. Sandgaard used the absence of funding as an excuse to terminate the proceedings. The assertion is that Sandgaard did this in order to avail of a higher offer from elsewhere. It's true that SE7 Partners will not be going to court for performance of the contract so Sandgaard can sell to whoever. But unless real cash and expertise at SMT level is injected then we are destined to stay mid-table or perhaps worse. Many wouldn't choose to work for such a shambolic outfit. Time will tell whether talent exits this summer. Thank you, I think I understand what you are saying but you refer to further funding was not required which suggests there had already been some funding before that, if so, wouldn't that have been paid without a signed document in which case they may have already fallen foul of the EFl regs? |
|
|
|
Post by clarky on Mar 1, 2023 20:34:03 GMT
Holden won't stay with the current free agent and loan transfer structure that will remain in place. Whilst I think that is highly likely he does seem keen to get into talks with TS and having just gone through that situation you would think he would just see out his current contract and be on his way with his head held high. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 1, 2023 21:23:01 GMT
Nope! The statement reads that further funding 3rd Feb was not required for another couple of weeks AND that third party funding without a signed doc might fall foul of EFL regulations. Sandgaard used the absence of funding as an excuse to terminate the proceedings. The assertion is that Sandgaard did this in order to avail of a higher offer from elsewhere. It's true that SE7 Partners will not be going to court for performance of the contract so Sandgaard can sell to whoever. But unless real cash and expertise at SMT level is injected then we are destined to stay mid-table or perhaps worse. Many wouldn't choose to work for such a shambolic outfit. Time will tell whether talent exits this summer. Thank you, I think I understand what you are saying but you refer to further funding was not required which suggests there had already been some funding before that, if so, wouldn't that have been paid without a signed document in which case they may have already fallen foul of the EFl regs? I make you right clarky and though seriouslyred appears to have been fairly decisive with his “Nope!”, I suspect he hadn’t registered the point you were trying to make. In essence, your argument is that it appears the SPA as stated was not compliant with EFL rules, at least not until the consortium had been approved. In turn, this might mean that the consortium can’t have made a contribution to the club’s running costs, prior to the beginning of February, simply because this would have been a breach of those rules. This clearly has a bearing on any liability Sandgaard might now face. I don’t think there’s any reason the consortium couldn’t have lent CAFC the funding required, but I assume this would need to have been formally documented. It’s all a bit of a muddle. If, as is being reported, Methven has now taken his statement down that adds further to the mystery. I’d just add two more speculative observations. First, an assumption being made is that all investors would have contributed equally (pro rata) to future funding so that the Methven group might have needed to find £1.5-2.0m p.a., for example. That might have been the case, but it doesn’t necessarily follow. If Methven’s 24.9% was for management (Methven, Rodwell, Scott, Warrick and perhaps even Holden et al), it’s just possible that this equity allocation was being used to incentivise that group to ‘create value and sell’ with all funding via loans from Friedman and Brener paid back before the equity investors received any return. I’m not suggesting this is likely, but it’s certainly possible and fits with the ‘culture’ of private equity investing. Second, there is no mention in Methven’s (deleted) narrative of monies owed to Duchatelet. On one level this doesn’t help us much, but it is consistent with the view that IF Sandgaard has a significant debt to Duchatelet it is on a personal level (i.e. he owes the money) rather than via CAFC Ltd or even Clear Ocean Capital. |
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on Mar 1, 2023 21:23:51 GMT
Nope! The statement reads that further funding 3rd Feb was not required for another couple of weeks AND that third party funding without a signed doc might fall foul of EFL regulations. Sandgaard used the absence of funding as an excuse to terminate the proceedings. The assertion is that Sandgaard did this in order to avail of a higher offer from elsewhere. It's true that SE7 Partners will not be going to court for performance of the contract so Sandgaard can sell to whoever. But unless real cash and expertise at SMT level is injected then we are destined to stay mid-table or perhaps worse. Many wouldn't choose to work for such a shambolic outfit. Time will tell whether talent exits this summer. Thank you, I think I understand what you are saying but you refer to further funding was not required which suggests there had already been some funding before that, if so, wouldn't that have been paid without a signed document in which case they may have already fallen foul of the EFl regs? Difficult to say whether there was previous funding. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, January was actually quite lucrative for the club with the Man U money, transfer money and the EFL central payment coming in. I guess this is one of those question marks on the whole proposed takeover that would take a court case to resolve. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 1, 2023 21:47:27 GMT
TS has no interest in getting what's best for Charlton. He's only interested in what's best for himself. He has let potential Billionaires walk away for the sake of more money for himself. The other guy has even less then Sandgaard how the hell can that be a good thing.Love him or hate him Methven had bought Billionaires to the table. What concerns me is that if they really were that wealthy they would have just bought the club, wouldn't they? What happened during the period of exclusivity to stop them completing, or at least contracting. It's all quite mysterious. Were they really outbid by Spiegel, who doesn't seem to be all that minted? I’m not directing this comment specifically at you newstreethill but the sentiment being expressed here seems to be a fairly common one and yet, with respect, it represents a profound misunderstanding of the way in which many very wealthy people operate. For an investor like Josh Friedman buying a stake in Charlton Athletic is a kind of game. Is it possible to buy the club, manage it well, create value and sell for a profit? There is an acquisition price at which the answer to that question is yes and at that price a deal will be struck. However, if the price rises the club is no longer attractive, period. That judgment is completely unemotional. What Friedman and the other investors can or can’t afford doesn’t come into it. It’s completely irrelevant and the fact they weren’t prepared to pay more tells us nothing about their wealth or their attitude to future running costs. It seems the consortium members are p***** off, but that’s not because they’d developed some emotional attachment to Charlton which might have led them to pay more to complete the acquisition. It’s because they had what they felt was a ‘good deal’ and because, in their view, Sandgaard acted in bad faith, walking out of the deal they’d agreed and breaching their exclusivity agreement in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 1, 2023 22:08:52 GMT
I so much wanted the American investment seeing how well it has worked at Wrexham. Talk here is while RR and RM are the faces of the club there is a multi-millionaire on board as well. Then they have the Disney backing and it was also revealed this week they have made £225k from their games being shown live.
You can't get a ticket, the hospitality is sold out week in week out, they have the Kings of Leon here for two days at the end of May, which will bring thousands into the club at £80 a ticket. Compare this with Sandgaard who thinks he's some kind of Demi-God.
You have posted two fantastic posts Mundell which says everything I wanted to say but I can't because I am exhausted by it all.
We have to get Sandgaard out of the club. His is getting us in more debt and fans are being lost in their droves. My own support is dangling by the thinnest of threads.
I agree with what you have said about the silly comments about if Friedman and co. They just don't negotiate with small time businessman like Sandgaard is. He's small fry, these guys are in a different league and he needs them more than what they need him.
Spiegel is like a kid in a sweet shop. He's made a list of who is interested in the club and approached Varney, Friedman and Brener. Just goes to show how much he needs the backing. He cannot afford to buy a football club. Putting a tweet out when you have 100m to your name like he did was pathetic. He's offered Sandgaard and the EFL will want to see proof of funds which he has but he ain't blowing it all on Charlton so serious questions need to be asked.
|
|
|
|
Post by earlpurple on Mar 1, 2023 22:22:14 GMT
I so much wanted the American investment seeing how well it has worked at Wrexham. Talk here is while RR and RM are the faces of the club there is a multi-millionaire on board as well. Then they have the Disney backing and it was also revealed this week they have made £225k from their games being shown live. You can't get a ticket, the hospitality is sold out week in week out, they have the Kings of Leon here for two days at the end of May, which will bring thousands into the club at £80 a ticket. Compare this with Sandgaard who thinks he's some kind of Demi-God. You have posted two fantastic posts Mundell which says everything I wanted to say but I can't because I am exhausted by it all. We have to get Sandgaard out of the club. His is getting us in more debt and fans are being lost in their droves. My own support is dangling by the thinnest of threads. I agree with what you have said about the silly comments about if Friedman and co. They just don't negotiate with small time businessman like Sandgaard is. He's small fry, these guys are in a different league and he needs them more than what they need him. Spiegel is like a kid in a sweet shop. He's made a list of who is interested in the club and approached Varney, Friedman and Brener. Just goes to show how much he needs the backing. He cannot afford to buy a football club. Putting a tweet out when you have 100m to your name like he did was pathetic. He's offered Sandgaard and the EFL will want to see proof of funds which he has but he ain't blowing it all on Charlton so serious questions need to be asked.
Maybe I'd rather that doesn't happen then at Charlton. I want to be able to go and watch my team play live.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Mar 1, 2023 22:27:47 GMT
Holden won't stay with the current free agent and loan transfer structure that will remain in place. I suspect Holden will stay for now to keep his profile up as he's done a sound job. However his agent will surely be active looking for more secure opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 1, 2023 22:29:14 GMT
I so much wanted the American investment seeing how well it has worked at Wrexham. Talk here is while RR and RM are the faces of the club there is a multi-millionaire on board as well. Then they have the Disney backing and it was also revealed this week they have made £225k from their games being shown live. You can't get a ticket, the hospitality is sold out week in week out, they have the Kings of Leon here for two days at the end of May, which will bring thousands into the club at £80 a ticket. Compare this with Sandgaard who thinks he's some kind of Demi-God. You have posted two fantastic posts Mundell which says everything I wanted to say but I can't because I am exhausted by it all. We have to get Sandgaard out of the club. His is getting us in more debt and fans are being lost in their droves. My own support is dangling by the thinnest of threads. I agree with what you have said about the silly comments about if Friedman and co. They just don't negotiate with small time businessman like Sandgaard is. He's small fry, these guys are in a different league and he needs them more than what they need him. Spiegel is like a kid in a sweet shop. He's made a list of who is interested in the club and approached Varney, Friedman and Brener. Just goes to show how much he needs the backing. He cannot afford to buy a football club. Putting a tweet out when you have 100m to your name like he did was pathetic. He's offered Sandgaard and the EFL will want to see proof of funds which he has but he ain't blowing it all on Charlton so serious questions need to be asked. It’s very frustrating. Sandgaard appears to be a classic narcissist and he’s clearly damaging the club. It’s surprising that many of the club’s fans still seem willing to cut him so much slack, especially after all the nonsense Duchatelet had to put up with. Plastic guitars on the pitch anyone? |
|
