SE7 takeover CAFC- CM Radio London Interview Page 130

[seriouslyred]

Mar 1, 2023 20:28:53 GMT clarky said:

Mar 1, 2023 19:12:48 GMT seriouslyred said:

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?

It appears that there was a £300K deposit and that the interim SMT were funded externally.

January was perhaps cash positive given EFL media monies, Man Utd game as well as player sales.

It seems to be Sandgaard who refused to sign and complete the SPA, and he's the one who will have to source funding the losses.

Put another way, anybody who gives money to CAFC whilst leaving Sandgaard as defacto CEO hasn't recognised that he's part of the problem.

During my time helping to set up CASTrust some ten years ago I met a number of current and ex-directors of CAFC. All of them had operated at Championship and EPL level - none of them came out with the garbage we've heard over the last couple of years.

This has the potential to go badly wrong over the summer.

[Deleted]

Mar 1, 2023 22:38:22 GMT seriouslyred said:

Mar 1, 2023 20:28:53 GMT clarky said:

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?

It appears that there was a £300K deposit and that the interim SMT were funded externally.

January was perhaps cash positive given EFL media monies, Man Utd game as well as player sales.

It seems to be Sandgaard who refused to sign and complete the SPA, and he's the one who will have to source funding the losses.

Put another way, anybody who gives money to CAFC whilst leaving Sandgaard as defacto CEO hasn't recognised that he's part of the problem.

During my time helping to set up CASTrust some ten years ago I met a number of current and ex-directors of CAFC. All of them had operated at Championship and EPL level - none of them came out with the garbage we've heard over the last couple of years.

This has the potential to go badly wrong over the summer.

If it was deposited then in my crazy brain surely the funds would have been safeguarded in a escrow account.

And surely Charlie must expect to take a small hit if the deal fell through. Is it any different to being gazumped in a house sale?

[reamsofverse]

Well before then Kev. Every day Sandgaard remains at the club is a day too long.

[Mundell]

Mar 1, 2023 22:41:39 GMT @mildred said:

Mar 1, 2023 22:38:22 GMT seriouslyred said:

It appears that there was a £300K deposit and that the interim SMT were funded externally.

January was perhaps cash positive given EFL media monies, Man Utd game as well as player sales.

It seems to be Sandgaard who refused to sign and complete the SPA, and he's the one who will have to source funding the losses.

Put another way, anybody who gives money to CAFC whilst leaving Sandgaard as defacto CEO hasn't recognised that he's part of the problem.

During my time helping to set up CASTrust some ten years ago I met a number of current and ex-directors of CAFC. All of them had operated at Championship and EPL level - none of them came out with the garbage we've heard over the last couple of years.

This has the potential to go badly wrong over the summer.

If it was deposited then in my crazy brain surely the funds would have been safeguarded in a escrow account.

And surely Charlie must expect to take a small hit if the deal fell through. Is it any different to being gazumped in a house sale?

There’s an important distinction here between money being paid FOR the club and money being paid TO the club. Any deposit would have been paid directly to Thomas Sandgaard (perhaps to Sandgaard LLC) and may have been held by a solicitor or bank. That £300,000 was being paid FOR the club and ought to be relatively simple to deal with. 

clarky ‘s insightful point is that it’s possible that any money paid by the consortium TO the club, i.e. in settlement of its bills, including any payments made to Rodwell, Warrick and Holden, may have been in contravention of EFL rules. This begs the questions whether any such payments were actually made and how the SPA (even if signed) was supposed to work prior to EFL approval being received. 

[Deleted]

Mar 1, 2023 22:57:57 GMT Mundell said:

Mar 1, 2023 22:41:39 GMT @mildred said:

If it was deposited then in my crazy brain surely the funds would have been safeguarded in a escrow account.

And surely Charlie must expect to take a small hit if the deal fell through. Is it any different to being gazumped in a house sale?

There’s an important distinction here between money being paid FOR the club and money being paid TO the club. Any deposit would have been paid directly to Thomas Sandgaard (perhaps to Sandgaard LLC) and may have been held by a solicitor or bank. That £300,000 was being paid FOR the club and ought to be relatively simple to deal with. 

clarky ‘s insightful point is that it’s possible that any money paid by the consortium TO the club, i.e. in settlement of its bills, including any payments made to Rodwell, Warrick and Holden, may have been in contravention of EFL rules. This begs the questions whether any such payments were actually made and how the SPA (even if signed) was supposed to work prior to EFL approval being received. 

Whoa I wish I never asked.

But ….if both sets of lawyers were that hot the surely basic employee/employer relationships and exclusivity contracts would not get so confused. I mean if I give you 300k surely I set out in plain speak what it is for??Please don’t respond I don’t care.
I like it best when we can rip into the players than this all so confusing legal speak

[reamsofverse]

Sandgaard spoke to Cawley but hasn't confirmed anything in writing.

Spiegel tweeted that he's thrilled to be on board and then swiftly deleted it.

Methven put out a statement today and 20 minutes later also deleted it.

What a great time it is to be a Charlton fan.

[Deleted]

Mar 1, 2023 23:45:09 GMT reamsofverse said:

Sandgaard spoke to Cawley but hasn't confirmed anything in writing.

Spiegel tweeted that he's thrilled to be on board and then swiftly deleted it.

Methven put out a statement today and 20 minutes later also deleted it.

What a great time it is to be a Charlton fan.

Been out all day and only just caught up with 3 new pages on this thread. There’s too much and it’s too complicated to try to dissect now, but I will just throw in two observations. Take them or leave them.

1) We, as ordinary fans, with little influence on the outcome of all this, should be very wary of anything that is being leaked from either side or alleged to be being leaked from either side unless we are able to verify it ourselves from personal knowledge or expert experience. No matter how many times a lie is repeated it remains a lie and disinformation on the internet is undoubtedly its biggest danger and problem.
Don’t believe anything you read unless you can verify it.

2) Reams, for all our disagreements over the last couple of weeks, your statement above just about perfectly sums up where we all are. Some of us may be able to prove that certain things that have been said are definitely false, but in my opinion none of us know the complete truth and as a court case apparently seems increasingly unlikely, we probably never will.

I’d just change your final line (although I know it’s actually what you are saying anyway)…

What a shit time it is to be a Charlton fan.

[theslambert]

Mar 1, 2023 23:07:08 GMT @mildred said:

Mar 1, 2023 22:57:57 GMT Mundell said:

There’s an important distinction here between money being paid FOR the club and money being paid TO the club. Any deposit would have been paid directly to Thomas Sandgaard (perhaps to Sandgaard LLC) and may have been held by a solicitor or bank. That £300,000 was being paid FOR the club and ought to be relatively simple to deal with. 

clarky ‘s insightful point is that it’s possible that any money paid by the consortium TO the club, i.e. in settlement of its bills, including any payments made to Rodwell, Warrick and Holden, may have been in contravention of EFL rules. This begs the questions whether any such payments were actually made and how the SPA (even if signed) was supposed to work prior to EFL approval being received. 

Whoa I wish I never asked.

But ….if both sets of lawyers were that hot the surely basic employee/employer relationships and exclusivity contracts would not get so confused. I mean if I give you 300k surely I set out in plain speak what it is for??Please don’t respond I don’t care.
I like it best when we can rip into the players than this all so confusing legal speak

Non-refundable deposit I believe is what has been stated. So if the deal went though it would have been less £300k already paid, if the deal fell through, the money would belong to Clear Ocean Capital/Sandgaard. 

Poor deal making on Methven's part really.

[Deleted]

www.castrust.org/

The question I want answering is why was their statement taken down. I am sorry but I trust Methven as much as I trust Sandgaard.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2023 9:16:40 GMT @dickplumb said:

www.castrust.org/

The question I want answering is why was their statement taken down. I am sorry but I trust Methven as much as I trust Sandgaard.

Excellent DP. 

Although some of the ideas and theories discussed yesterday were interesting enough, they were ultimately all based on completely unreliable information and are therefore all themselves completely unreliable. 

A dodgy looking piece of writing (I’ll call it the dodgy dossier form now on) which disappeared shortly afterwards and is still missing.

IGNORE IT - as I said yesterday, don’t believe a word of it unless you can verify it with other information you KNOW to be correct and which comes from a source you know, trust AND WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR of that information, not just someone passing it on to you.

[reamsofverse]

Mar 2, 2023 9:45:49 GMT @ubedizzy said:

Mar 2, 2023 9:16:40 GMT @dickplumb said:

www.castrust.org/

The question I want answering is why was their statement taken down. I am sorry but I trust Methven as much as I trust Sandgaard.

Excellent DP. 

Although some of the ideas and theories discussed yesterday were interesting enough, they were ultimately all based on completely unreliable information and are therefore all themselves completely unreliable. 

A dodgy looking piece of writing (I’ll call it the dodgy dossier form now on) which disappeared shortly afterwards and is still missing.

IGNORE IT - as I said yesterday, don’t believe a word of it unless you can verify it with other information you KNOW to be correct and which comes from a source you know, trust AND WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR of that information, not just someone passing it on to you.

Change the record or have another day off.

Nobody reads a word you type anyway.

[squareball]

After all that we are left with claims and counterclaims. Pretty much as we were so as expected nothing new except that we now know that papers were never served as suggested and EW didn’t have the authority to decide himself but only with consultation with TS. What a surprise that they differ!
Doesn’t sound from the fleeting statement that CM and his group ( did any billionaires ever speak a word to confirm that they were part of it?) have much of a case and are just going to try get their money back.
It’s been a crazy rollercoaster ride.

[reamsofverse]

I was given some very interesting information not so along ago about the bullying culture that we were told was rife at the club and why Maloney hopped it back over to the States a bit sharpish. It's pretty damning, Keohane and Sandgaard wouldn't want it to come out in the public domain as their reputations would be in tatters, not that they aren't already. I have even been offered evidence which up until this point I have declined.

I really don't know why anybody would want to be involved with either of them by investing or buying the club.

[squareball]

Their reputation is long since in tatters. Gotta feel for the staff working in such an environment.

[Mundell]

Matt Slater in today's Athletic. Undoubtedly, many of Matt's sources will be similar to those quoted here and elsewhere, but my take is that nevertheless his account adds some credibility to the narrative. He may have independent sources, he's likely not to want to speculate (at least not without being explicit this is what he's doing) and, perhaps most importantly, he's got no axe to grind. His represents the closest to an objective assessment as we've got. 

Charlton owner Thomas Sandgaard asked to make ‘reasonable settlement’ after breaking terms over takeover

The Anglo-American group that wanted to buy Charlton Athletic last month has urged the League One club’s owner Thomas Sandgaard to make a “reasonable settlement” for breaking the terms of the deal they agreed before Christmas.

That agreement gave the group, which is led by former Sunderland director Charlie Methven, until March 1 to complete the purchase of 90 per cent of the London-based side.

Methven’s group, known as SE7 Partners, had hoped to take control of the club on February 10 only for Sandgaard to inform the group he was pulling out, citing unspecified breaches of the agreement.

In a statement given to The Athletic to coincide with the end of its exclusivity period, SE7 Partners “reluctantly” set out the timeline of a deal that is now irretrievably broken but explained that its disagreement is with Sandgaard and not the club.

“Over the last three weeks SE7 and its major investors have continuously offered Mr Sandgaard the opportunity to reverse his breach of exclusivity and complete the deal on the agreed terms, which have never changed,” SE7 Partners said.

“He has refused to do so. So, with the exclusivity period now ending, SE7 has this morning offered again either to complete the deal, or — failing that — for Mr Sandgaard to come to a reasonable settlement which recognises costs incurred and time wasted.

“Failing either option being taken, SE7 has no further recourse save the last resort of taking legal action against Mr Sandgaard.

“It is worth noting that no such legal action would prevent Mr Sandgaard selling Charlton Athletic in the meantime, as has been wrongly alleged. Indeed, SE7 and its investors wish only the very best for this great club in its future and hope that it flourishes under new ownership, even if that is not to be us.”

The Athletic has contacted the club for a response.

The background to this dispute is that Sandgaard, a Danish businessman based in the US, agreed to sell a 90 per cent stake in the club to SE7 Partners on December 20, when the former Premier League club were hovering above the relegation zone and without a league win for two months.

The agreed price was £8.5million, which would be paid in two instalments, with the final payment coming in August. As part of the deal, SE7 Partners paid a five per cent deposit and a new management team consisting of experienced club executive Jim Rodwell, director of football Andy Scott, chief financial officer Ed Warrick and manager Dean Holden was brought in.

Results on the pitch improved almost immediately and the club are now 13th in the table, 10 points clear of the relegation zone.

But negotiations between SE7 and Sandgaard were not progressing as smoothly. Methven’s group, which is backed by two Los Angeles-based investors, Gabriel Brener and Joshua Friedman, sent the sale purchase agreement to Sandgaard a month after the initial heads of terms were agreed.

It was hoped that the deal would be completed by early February, with English Football League approval coming soon after. If, for whatever reason, the EFL did not sanction the deal, the sale would be cancelled and SE7’s money would be returned.

However, on February 2, SE7 claims it received an email from Sandgaard’s lawyers “demanding substantial funding be paid within 24 hours or SE7 Partners would be considered by him (to be) in breach of its obligations”.

This came as a surprise to Methven and his partners as the initial agreement they had with Sandgaard stated that any request for cash prior to completion would be “determined by the interim chief financial officer”, meaning Warrick. He, however, had made it clear to Sandgaard that Charlton did not require any external funding in February, as the club had managed to sell two players on transfer deadline day.

It was also pointed out to Sandgaard that the EFL might object to a cash injection from SE7 before the league had sanctioned the takeover. Furthermore, there appeared to be no mention of Sandgaard himself putting in any money, as would normally be expected of a minority shareholder.

According to SE7, it still believed the deal would proceed, though, which is why it was so shocked when Sandgaard contacted the group of February 10 to “unilaterally terminate the agreement by email and disable the IT accounts for the senior management team,” all of whom departed the club that day.

Furthermore, SE7 claims that Sandgaard had already started negotiations with a new group led by US-based businessman Marc Spiegel. In a now-deleted tweet, Spiegel wrote on February 5 that he had “made a move today that could turn out to be momentous — cross your fingers”. This was followed by another tweet with football and hand-over-mouth emojis. SE7 has described this as a “clear breach of the legally binding exclusivity agreement”.

Three days after the SE7/Sandgaard deal collapsed, Charlton appointed former West Ham and Portsmouth executive Peter Storrie as their new chief executive, with former agent Jon Smith taking over as the club’s technical director.

In a press release to announce those appointments, Sandgaard said he called off the deal with SE7 because “there were key items in the deal, which they didn’t meet, so I had no option”.

He added that he was now “looking at our options moving forwards” and said “we’ve had a variety of parties that have been interested in investing or getting involved with the club”.

Charlton fans had hoped that Sandgaard would bring some stability to the club after several years of fraught relations with the club’s owners, first the deeply unpopular Belgian businessman Roland Duchatelet, and then East Street Investments, which only owned the club for a few months before its investors started fighting each other for control.

But after a positive start, when he promised Premier League football within five years, Sandgaard’s popularity has declined rapidly and Charlton will need to make huge strides on and off the pitch this summer if they are to have a realistic chance of promotion next season.

[webbo]

Presumably there is something in writing that can’t be argued with, otherwise getting Methven involved is another drain on our money and as it turns ou all for nothing.

[jonkool]

Mar 2, 2023 10:50:40 GMT Mundell said:

Matt Slater in today's Athletic. Undoubtedly, many of Matt's sources will be similar to those quoted here and elsewhere, but my take is that nevertheless his account adds some credibility to the narrative. He may have independent sources, he's likely not to want to speculate (at least not without being explicit this is what he's doing) and, perhaps most importantly, he's got no axe to grind. His represents the closest to an objective assessment as we've got. 

Charlton owner Thomas Sandgaard asked to make ‘reasonable settlement’ after breaking terms over takeover

The Anglo-American group that wanted to buy Charlton Athletic last month has urged the League One club’s owner Thomas Sandgaard to make a “reasonable settlement” for breaking the terms of the deal they agreed before Christmas.

That agreement gave the group, which is led by former Sunderland director Charlie Methven, until March 1 to complete the purchase of 90 per cent of the London-based side.

Methven’s group, known as SE7 Partners, had hoped to take control of the club on February 10 only for Sandgaard to inform the group he was pulling out, citing unspecified breaches of the agreement.

In a statement given to The Athletic to coincide with the end of its exclusivity period, SE7 Partners “reluctantly” set out the timeline of a deal that is now irretrievably broken but explained that its disagreement is with Sandgaard and not the club.

“Over the last three weeks SE7 and its major investors have continuously offered Mr Sandgaard the opportunity to reverse his breach of exclusivity and complete the deal on the agreed terms, which have never changed,” SE7 Partners said.

“He has refused to do so. So, with the exclusivity period now ending, SE7 has this morning offered again either to complete the deal, or — failing that — for Mr Sandgaard to come to a reasonable settlement which recognises costs incurred and time wasted.

“Failing either option being taken, SE7 has no further recourse save the last resort of taking legal action against Mr Sandgaard.

“It is worth noting that no such legal action would prevent Mr Sandgaard selling Charlton Athletic in the meantime, as has been wrongly alleged. Indeed, SE7 and its investors wish only the very best for this great club in its future and hope that it flourishes under new ownership, even if that is not to be us.”

The Athletic has contacted the club for a response.

The background to this dispute is that Sandgaard, a Danish businessman based in the US, agreed to sell a 90 per cent stake in the club to SE7 Partners on December 20, when the former Premier League club were hovering above the relegation zone and without a league win for two months.

The agreed price was £8.5million, which would be paid in two instalments, with the final payment coming in August. As part of the deal, SE7 Partners paid a five per cent deposit and a new management team consisting of experienced club executive Jim Rodwell, director of football Andy Scott, chief financial officer Ed Warrick and manager Dean Holden was brought in.

Results on the pitch improved almost immediately and the club are now 13th in the table, 10 points clear of the relegation zone.

But negotiations between SE7 and Sandgaard were not progressing as smoothly. Methven’s group, which is backed by two Los Angeles-based investors, Gabriel Brener and Joshua Friedman, sent the sale purchase agreement to Sandgaard a month after the initial heads of terms were agreed.

It was hoped that the deal would be completed by early February, with English Football League approval coming soon after. If, for whatever reason, the EFL did not sanction the deal, the sale would be cancelled and SE7’s money would be returned.

However, on February 2, SE7 claims it received an email from Sandgaard’s lawyers “demanding substantial funding be paid within 24 hours or SE7 Partners would be considered by him (to be) in breach of its obligations”.

This came as a surprise to Methven and his partners as the initial agreement they had with Sandgaard stated that any request for cash prior to completion would be “determined by the interim chief financial officer”, meaning Warrick. He, however, had made it clear to Sandgaard that Charlton did not require any external funding in February, as the club had managed to sell two players on transfer deadline day.

It was also pointed out to Sandgaard that the EFL might object to a cash injection from SE7 before the league had sanctioned the takeover. Furthermore, there appeared to be no mention of Sandgaard himself putting in any money, as would normally be expected of a minority shareholder.

According to SE7, it still believed the deal would proceed, though, which is why it was so shocked when Sandgaard contacted the group of February 10 to “unilaterally terminate the agreement by email and disable the IT accounts for the senior management team,” all of whom departed the club that day.

Furthermore, SE7 claims that Sandgaard had already started negotiations with a new group led by US-based businessman Marc Spiegel. In a now-deleted tweet, Spiegel wrote on February 5 that he had “made a move today that could turn out to be momentous — cross your fingers”. This was followed by another tweet with football and hand-over-mouth emojis. SE7 has described this as a “clear breach of the legally binding exclusivity agreement”.

Three days after the SE7/Sandgaard deal collapsed, Charlton appointed former West Ham and Portsmouth executive Peter Storrie as their new chief executive, with former agent Jon Smith taking over as the club’s technical director.

In a press release to announce those appointments, Sandgaard said he called off the deal with SE7 because “there were key items in the deal, which they didn’t meet, so I had no option”.

He added that he was now “looking at our options moving forwards” and said “we’ve had a variety of parties that have been interested in investing or getting involved with the club”.

Charlton fans had hoped that Sandgaard would bring some stability to the club after several years of fraught relations with the club’s owners, first the deeply unpopular Belgian businessman Roland Duchatelet, and then East Street Investments, which only owned the club for a few months before its investors started fighting each other for control.

But after a positive start, when he promised Premier League football within five years, Sandgaard’s popularity has declined rapidly and Charlton will need to make huge strides on and off the pitch this summer if they are to have a realistic chance of promotion next season.

Have to say if these are the facts it does make my blood boil as all we can see is connivance and no evidence of good practice and stewardship of our club 🤨

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2023 10:33:39 GMT reamsofverse said:

Mar 2, 2023 9:45:49 GMT @ubedizzy said:

Excellent DP. 

Although some of the ideas and theories discussed yesterday were interesting enough, they were ultimately all based on completely unreliable information and are therefore all themselves completely unreliable. 

A dodgy looking piece of writing (I’ll call it the dodgy dossier form now on) which disappeared shortly afterwards and is still missing.

IGNORE IT - as I said yesterday, don’t believe a word of it unless you can verify it with other information you KNOW to be correct and which comes from a source you know, trust AND WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR of that information, not just someone passing it on to you.

Change the record or have another day off.

Nobody reads a word you type anyway.

If that’s true then it would be a shame as it’s really important on any forum, that the passing on of false information is challenged, whether there is bad intent behind that passing on or not. 

I politely questioned your information right at the start about the alleged serving of legal papers against TS and the alleged legal advice he had received from Freshfields as a result of it, which you had said was 200% true and came from the inner circle and a completely trustworthy source. All I got in return were threats, abuse, insults, and false insinuations. I told you that that sort of information between client and lawyer is sacrosanct and protected by a rule called legal privilege, which would never be broken by any lawyer, as they would be struck off if they did so. Again all I got was abuse.

And yet now, even after that ‘statement’ from yesterday, there is no evidence whatsoever that papers were served and none that there was any legal advice from Freshfields to TS that he didn’t have a leg to stand on as a result of them, is there ? Just as I said. Not even from the consortiums side.

So if people don’t want to read what I write then that’s fine, it’s their prerogative and if you want to continue to post abuse every time I post on here that’s yours. 

Personally I think it’s better to consider all opinions fairly but if you just want people to accept everything you say without question then you’re entitled to your opinion as much as I am mine.

[squareball]

Mar 2, 2023 10:50:40 GMT Mundell said:

Matt Slater in today's Athletic. Undoubtedly, many of Matt's sources will be similar to those quoted here and elsewhere, but my take is that nevertheless his account adds some credibility to the narrative. He may have independent sources, he's likely not to want to speculate (at least not without being explicit this is what he's doing) and, perhaps most importantly, he's got no axe to grind. His represents the closest to an objective assessment as we've got. 

Charlton owner Thomas Sandgaard asked to make ‘reasonable settlement’ after breaking terms over takeover

The Anglo-American group that wanted to buy Charlton Athletic last month has urged the League One club’s owner Thomas Sandgaard to make a “reasonable settlement” for breaking the terms of the deal they agreed before Christmas.

That agreement gave the group, which is led by former Sunderland director Charlie Methven, until March 1 to complete the purchase of 90 per cent of the London-based side.

Methven’s group, known as SE7 Partners, had hoped to take control of the club on February 10 only for Sandgaard to inform the group he was pulling out, citing unspecified breaches of the agreement.

In a statement given to The Athletic to coincide with the end of its exclusivity period, SE7 Partners “reluctantly” set out the timeline of a deal that is now irretrievably broken but explained that its disagreement is with Sandgaard and not the club.

“Over the last three weeks SE7 and its major investors have continuously offered Mr Sandgaard the opportunity to reverse his breach of exclusivity and complete the deal on the agreed terms, which have never changed,” SE7 Partners said.

“He has refused to do so. So, with the exclusivity period now ending, SE7 has this morning offered again either to complete the deal, or — failing that — for Mr Sandgaard to come to a reasonable settlement which recognises costs incurred and time wasted.

“Failing either option being taken, SE7 has no further recourse save the last resort of taking legal action against Mr Sandgaard.

“It is worth noting that no such legal action would prevent Mr Sandgaard selling Charlton Athletic in the meantime, as has been wrongly alleged. Indeed, SE7 and its investors wish only the very best for this great club in its future and hope that it flourishes under new ownership, even if that is not to be us.”

The Athletic has contacted the club for a response.

The background to this dispute is that Sandgaard, a Danish businessman based in the US, agreed to sell a 90 per cent stake in the club to SE7 Partners on December 20, when the former Premier League club were hovering above the relegation zone and without a league win for two months.

The agreed price was £8.5million, which would be paid in two instalments, with the final payment coming in August. As part of the deal, SE7 Partners paid a five per cent deposit and a new management team consisting of experienced club executive Jim Rodwell, director of football Andy Scott, chief financial officer Ed Warrick and manager Dean Holden was brought in.

Results on the pitch improved almost immediately and the club are now 13th in the table, 10 points clear of the relegation zone.

But negotiations between SE7 and Sandgaard were not progressing as smoothly. Methven’s group, which is backed by two Los Angeles-based investors, Gabriel Brener and Joshua Friedman, sent the sale purchase agreement to Sandgaard a month after the initial heads of terms were agreed.

It was hoped that the deal would be completed by early February, with English Football League approval coming soon after. If, for whatever reason, the EFL did not sanction the deal, the sale would be cancelled and SE7’s money would be returned.

However, on February 2, SE7 claims it received an email from Sandgaard’s lawyers “demanding substantial funding be paid within 24 hours or SE7 Partners would be considered by him (to be) in breach of its obligations”.

This came as a surprise to Methven and his partners as the initial agreement they had with Sandgaard stated that any request for cash prior to completion would be “determined by the interim chief financial officer”, meaning Warrick. He, however, had made it clear to Sandgaard that Charlton did not require any external funding in February, as the club had managed to sell two players on transfer deadline day.

It was also pointed out to Sandgaard that the EFL might object to a cash injection from SE7 before the league had sanctioned the takeover. Furthermore, there appeared to be no mention of Sandgaard himself putting in any money, as would normally be expected of a minority shareholder.

According to SE7, it still believed the deal would proceed, though, which is why it was so shocked when Sandgaard contacted the group of February 10 to “unilaterally terminate the agreement by email and disable the IT accounts for the senior management team,” all of whom departed the club that day.

Furthermore, SE7 claims that Sandgaard had already started negotiations with a new group led by US-based businessman Marc Spiegel. In a now-deleted tweet, Spiegel wrote on February 5 that he had “made a move today that could turn out to be momentous — cross your fingers”. This was followed by another tweet with football and hand-over-mouth emojis. SE7 has described this as a “clear breach of the legally binding exclusivity agreement”.

Three days after the SE7/Sandgaard deal collapsed, Charlton appointed former West Ham and Portsmouth executive Peter Storrie as their new chief executive, with former agent Jon Smith taking over as the club’s technical director.

In a press release to announce those appointments, Sandgaard said he called off the deal with SE7 because “there were key items in the deal, which they didn’t meet, so I had no option”.

He added that he was now “looking at our options moving forwards” and said “we’ve had a variety of parties that have been interested in investing or getting involved with the club”.

Charlton fans had hoped that Sandgaard would bring some stability to the club after several years of fraught relations with the club’s owners, first the deeply unpopular Belgian businessman Roland Duchatelet, and then East Street Investments, which only owned the club for a few months before its investors started fighting each other for control.

But after a positive start, when he promised Premier League football within five years, Sandgaard’s popularity has declined rapidly and Charlton will need to make huge strides on and off the pitch this summer if they are to have a realistic chance of promotion next season.

It’s just another hit piece on TS. We don’t need that because we already know he stinks the place out.
What were/are the terms of Methvens billionaires? Are there any as we’ve heard nothing from them?
Were they going to be like his “Sunderland billionaires “ ? Meaning not buying the club at all but merely giving loans with unfavourable terms for the club? Thankfully we’ll never know and personally I am glad he and his offshore account have been given the elbow. The guy is clouded in secrecy and termed “a naked liar” by one scathing article. I know details of a deal aren’t generally made public for obvious reasons but what the heck did we all witness these past few weeks? We really don’t need that and we weren’t born yesterday.
A real billionaire purchaser would just come forward and do a straightforward deal similar to RD. Anything similar to these shenanigans should be avoided.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2023 12:13:25 GMT squareball said:

Mar 2, 2023 10:50:40 GMT Mundell said:

Matt Slater in today's Athletic. Undoubtedly, many of Matt's sources will be similar to those quoted here and elsewhere, but my take is that nevertheless his account adds some credibility to the narrative. He may have independent sources, he's likely not to want to speculate (at least not without being explicit this is what he's doing) and, perhaps most importantly, he's got no axe to grind. His represents the closest to an objective assessment as we've got. 

Charlton owner Thomas Sandgaard asked to make ‘reasonable settlement’ after breaking terms over takeover

The Anglo-American group that wanted to buy Charlton Athletic last month has urged the League One club’s owner Thomas Sandgaard to make a “reasonable settlement” for breaking the terms of the deal they agreed before Christmas.

That agreement gave the group, which is led by former Sunderland director Charlie Methven, until March 1 to complete the purchase of 90 per cent of the London-based side.

Methven’s group, known as SE7 Partners, had hoped to take control of the club on February 10 only for Sandgaard to inform the group he was pulling out, citing unspecified breaches of the agreement.

In a statement given to The Athletic to coincide with the end of its exclusivity period, SE7 Partners “reluctantly” set out the timeline of a deal that is now irretrievably broken but explained that its disagreement is with Sandgaard and not the club.

“Over the last three weeks SE7 and its major investors have continuously offered Mr Sandgaard the opportunity to reverse his breach of exclusivity and complete the deal on the agreed terms, which have never changed,” SE7 Partners said.

“He has refused to do so. So, with the exclusivity period now ending, SE7 has this morning offered again either to complete the deal, or — failing that — for Mr Sandgaard to come to a reasonable settlement which recognises costs incurred and time wasted.

“Failing either option being taken, SE7 has no further recourse save the last resort of taking legal action against Mr Sandgaard.

“It is worth noting that no such legal action would prevent Mr Sandgaard selling Charlton Athletic in the meantime, as has been wrongly alleged. Indeed, SE7 and its investors wish only the very best for this great club in its future and hope that it flourishes under new ownership, even if that is not to be us.”

The Athletic has contacted the club for a response.

The background to this dispute is that Sandgaard, a Danish businessman based in the US, agreed to sell a 90 per cent stake in the club to SE7 Partners on December 20, when the former Premier League club were hovering above the relegation zone and without a league win for two months.

The agreed price was £8.5million, which would be paid in two instalments, with the final payment coming in August. As part of the deal, SE7 Partners paid a five per cent deposit and a new management team consisting of experienced club executive Jim Rodwell, director of football Andy Scott, chief financial officer Ed Warrick and manager Dean Holden was brought in.

Results on the pitch improved almost immediately and the club are now 13th in the table, 10 points clear of the relegation zone.

But negotiations between SE7 and Sandgaard were not progressing as smoothly. Methven’s group, which is backed by two Los Angeles-based investors, Gabriel Brener and Joshua Friedman, sent the sale purchase agreement to Sandgaard a month after the initial heads of terms were agreed.

It was hoped that the deal would be completed by early February, with English Football League approval coming soon after. If, for whatever reason, the EFL did not sanction the deal, the sale would be cancelled and SE7’s money would be returned.

However, on February 2, SE7 claims it received an email from Sandgaard’s lawyers “demanding substantial funding be paid within 24 hours or SE7 Partners would be considered by him (to be) in breach of its obligations”.

This came as a surprise to Methven and his partners as the initial agreement they had with Sandgaard stated that any request for cash prior to completion would be “determined by the interim chief financial officer”, meaning Warrick. He, however, had made it clear to Sandgaard that Charlton did not require any external funding in February, as the club had managed to sell two players on transfer deadline day.

It was also pointed out to Sandgaard that the EFL might object to a cash injection from SE7 before the league had sanctioned the takeover. Furthermore, there appeared to be no mention of Sandgaard himself putting in any money, as would normally be expected of a minority shareholder.

According to SE7, it still believed the deal would proceed, though, which is why it was so shocked when Sandgaard contacted the group of February 10 to “unilaterally terminate the agreement by email and disable the IT accounts for the senior management team,” all of whom departed the club that day.

Furthermore, SE7 claims that Sandgaard had already started negotiations with a new group led by US-based businessman Marc Spiegel. In a now-deleted tweet, Spiegel wrote on February 5 that he had “made a move today that could turn out to be momentous — cross your fingers”. This was followed by another tweet with football and hand-over-mouth emojis. SE7 has described this as a “clear breach of the legally binding exclusivity agreement”.

Three days after the SE7/Sandgaard deal collapsed, Charlton appointed former West Ham and Portsmouth executive Peter Storrie as their new chief executive, with former agent Jon Smith taking over as the club’s technical director.

In a press release to announce those appointments, Sandgaard said he called off the deal with SE7 because “there were key items in the deal, which they didn’t meet, so I had no option”.

He added that he was now “looking at our options moving forwards” and said “we’ve had a variety of parties that have been interested in investing or getting involved with the club”.

Charlton fans had hoped that Sandgaard would bring some stability to the club after several years of fraught relations with the club’s owners, first the deeply unpopular Belgian businessman Roland Duchatelet, and then East Street Investments, which only owned the club for a few months before its investors started fighting each other for control.

But after a positive start, when he promised Premier League football within five years, Sandgaard’s popularity has declined rapidly and Charlton will need to make huge strides on and off the pitch this summer if they are to have a realistic chance of promotion next season.

It’s just another hit piece on TS. We don’t need that because we already know he stinks the place out.
What were/are the terms of Methvens billionaires? Are there any as we’ve heard nothing from them?
Were they going to be like his “Sunderland billionaires “ ? Meaning not buying the club at all but merely giving loans with unfavourable terms for the club? Thankfully we’ll never know and personally I am glad he and his offshore account have been given the elbow. The guy is clouded in secrecy and termed “a naked liar” by one scathing article. I know details of a deal aren’t generally made public for obvious reasons but what the heck did we all witness these past few weeks? We really don’t need that and we weren’t born yesterday.
A real billionaire purchaser would just come forward and do a straightforward deal similar to RD. Anything similar to these shenanigans should be avoided.

100%

And just to add - CM didn’t even mention the billionaires by name when he did his interview on camera. He was very careful not to and just said ‘the financial capacity of the backers is pretty clear to anyone that can look around on Google’.

Hardly cast iron is it.

[earlpurple]

"Promising start" was the season in which we missed the playoffs on goal difference, which we started well once we'd brought in a few players (6 wins in a row) and ended well but did really badly in the middle.

Didn't "blow the league" but at least were close to the playoffs.

The transfer window of the summer of 2021 was terrible though. Clearly the start of where things were going wrong, and we were in the bottom 4 on 19 October after losing at home to Accrington Stanley.

I'll always remember that date as that was the date my Vespa was stolen from Gallon Close.

[reamsofverse]

Mar 2, 2023 12:18:36 GMT @ubedizzy said:

Mar 2, 2023 12:13:25 GMT squareball said:

It’s just another hit piece on TS. We don’t need that because we already know he stinks the place out.
What were/are the terms of Methvens billionaires? Are there any as we’ve heard nothing from them?
Were they going to be like his “Sunderland billionaires “ ? Meaning not buying the club at all but merely giving loans with unfavourable terms for the club? Thankfully we’ll never know and personally I am glad he and his offshore account have been given the elbow. The guy is clouded in secrecy and termed “a naked liar” by one scathing article. I know details of a deal aren’t generally made public for obvious reasons but what the heck did we all witness these past few weeks? We really don’t need that and we weren’t born yesterday.
A real billionaire purchaser would just come forward and do a straightforward deal similar to RD. Anything similar to these shenanigans should be avoided.

100%

And just to add - CM didn’t even mention the billionaires by name when he did his interview on camera. He was very careful not to and just said ‘and the financial capacity of the backers is pretty clear to anyone that can look around on Google ’.

Hardly cast iron is it.

There you go again, deliberately acting dumb just to get a rise. It's been well documented who the Americans are no matter how much you try and belittle it.

Why don't you focus on Spiegel and look at his background, wealth and why he removed his tweet. It will take half the time.

[seriouslyred]

Mar 1, 2023 22:57:57 GMT Mundell said:

Mar 1, 2023 22:41:39 GMT @mildred said:

If it was deposited then in my crazy brain surely the funds would have been safeguarded in a escrow account.

And surely Charlie must expect to take a small hit if the deal fell through. Is it any different to being gazumped in a house sale?

There’s an important distinction here between money being paid FOR the club and money being paid TO the club. Any deposit would have been paid directly to Thomas Sandgaard (perhaps to Sandgaard LLC) and may have been held by a solicitor or bank. That £300,000 was being paid FOR the club and ought to be relatively simple to deal with. 

clarky ‘s insightful point is that it’s possible that any money paid by the consortium TO the club, i.e. in settlement of its bills, including any payments made to Rodwell, Warrick and Holden, may have been in contravention of EFL rules. This begs the questions whether any such payments were actually made and how the SPA (even if signed) was supposed to work prior to EFL approval being received. 

Yes, some clarity emerging from our discussion. But it's unclear whether any funds from SE7 Partners were ever deposited into CAFC.

As highlighted above January was cash positive whilst no February payment made. That leaves an open question as to whether SE7 Partners met 90% of the December payroll.

And would that contravene EFL rules?

SE7 Partners were essentially an interim SMT who would then clear decisions with Sandgaard such as player sales and acquisitions. So they had board level status.

A question for Matt Slater to address perhaps?

But none of that changes the assertion that Sandgaard pulled the rug whilst negotiating with a third party during a period of exclusivity.

[reamsofverse]

Mar 2, 2023 12:11:24 GMT @ubedizzy said:

Mar 2, 2023 10:33:39 GMT reamsofverse said:

Change the record or have another day off.

Nobody reads a word you type anyway.

If that’s true then it would be a shame as it’s really important on any forum, that the passing on of false information is challenged, whether there is bad intent behind that passing on or not. 

I politely questioned your information right at the start about the alleged serving of legal papers against TS and the alleged legal advice he had received from Freshfields as a result of it, which you had said was 200% true and came from the inner circle and a completely trustworthy source. All I got in return were threats, abuse, insults, and false insinuations. I told you that that sort of information between client and lawyer is sacrosanct and protected by a rule called legal privilege, which would never be broken by any lawyer, as they would be struck off if they did so. Again all I got was abuse.

And yet now, even after that ‘statement’ from yesterday, there is no evidence whatsoever that papers were served and none that there was any legal advice from Freshfields to TS that he didn’t have a leg to stand on as a result of them, is there ? Just as I said. Not even from the consortiums side.

So if people don’t want to read what I write then that’s fine, it’s their prerogative and if you want to continue to post abuse every time I post on here that’s yours. 

Personally I think it’s better to consider all opinions fairly but if you just want people to accept everything you say without question then you’re entitled to your opinion as much as I am mine.

So you are accusing me of passing on false information are you? Calling me a liar?

[clarky]

Now I might be reading this incorrectly or missing a trick but a quick Google search on Brener reveals his net worth to be $350m. Friedman runs a multi billion hedge fund but can't see anything that suggests he is anywhere near a billionaire in his own right! I am sure this has been covered before and apologise if it has or I have misread the situation as I am not posting this to be antagonistic just curious.

[reamsofverse]

Mar 2, 2023 13:58:59 GMT clarky said:

Now I might be reading this incorrectly or missing a trick but a quick Google search on Brener reveals his net worth to be $350m. Friedman runs a multi billion hedge fund but can't see anything that suggests he is anywhere near a billionaire in his own right! I am sure this has been covered before and apologise if it has or I have misread the situation as I am not posting this to be antagonistic just curious.

To be honest clarky this has been done to death. He is an extremely wealthy man and his buinesses are worth billions of dollars.

Think a line should be drawn under Brener and Friedman now. I am not sure what purpose it serves people asking the same questions because we are going around in circles which is pointless given they won't be buying us any longer.

Let's concentrate on Sandgaard's preferred buyer and why that is because he has 100m to his name I read and that's basically it. Who in the right mind would give TS 15m for the club and then have to spend a whole lot more proofing he has funds to the EFL and there will be of course wages, agents fee's to pay, and new players.

He is not going to give up a quarter of what he's worth to buy a football club. He has no backers or investors. The only people backing him are the one's telling or advising him to back out. Perhaps he has which is why the tweet was deleted.

What does everyone think about Spiegel coming in, a guy who knows nothing about football and with very limited funds.

[squareball]

Mar 2, 2023 14:23:12 GMT reamsofverse said:

Mar 2, 2023 13:58:59 GMT clarky said:

Now I might be reading this incorrectly or missing a trick but a quick Google search on Brener reveals his net worth to be $350m. Friedman runs a multi billion hedge fund but can't see anything that suggests he is anywhere near a billionaire in his own right! I am sure this has been covered before and apologise if it has or I have misread the situation as I am not posting this to be antagonistic just curious.

To be honest clarky this has been done to death. He is an extremely wealthy man and his buinesses are worth billions of dollars.

Think a line should be drawn under Brener and Friedman now. I am not sure what purpose it serves people asking the same questions because we are going around in circles which is pointless given they won't be buying us any longer.

Let's concentrate on Sandgaard's preferred buyer and why that is because he has 100m to his name I read and that's basically it. Who in the right mind would give TS 15m for the club and then have to spend a whole lot more proofing he has funds to the EFL and there will be of course wages, agents fee's to pay, and new players.

He is not going to give up a quarter of what he's worth to buy a football club. He has no backers or investors. The only people backing him are the one's telling or advising him to back out. Perhaps he has which is why the tweet was deleted.

What does everyone think about Spiegel coming in, a guy who knows nothing about football and with very limited funds.

I think Spiegel if he does come in is just a money money guy like the rest of them. I couldn't care less about their worth because they don't have our interest at heart. We don't get to choose anyway.
Thanks for the information. It wasn't all accurate but enough to generate great interest and debate.

[Deleted]

Spiegel doesn’t look to be the answer. By all accounts he has been scratching around to get more investment. If he doesn’t have enough money to run the Club he should leave it alone. In the ideal World I would like someone to come in buy 100 per cent of the Club and also buy the Valley and also SL. He/ She also need to invest some money in trying to get us out of this division.
Is that person out there? It doesn’t seem so.

[newstreethill]

Mar 1, 2023 22:08:52 GMT reamsofverse said:

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.

And even the Tik Tok shirt deal isn't to be sniffed at. With the Disney series proving very popular (I certainly love it) the profile of the club has risen enormously, and it wouldn't surprise me if Tik Tok are paying decent wedge for it.
And to Mundell , I get what you're saying, and you're dead right of course that serious backers are steeley eyed about the price, but estimates of their wealth seem to vary from £100 million (not enough) to £1 billion (plenty). Is there a definitive Forbes list type source for these things? (Apologies if it's been posted already, I haven't been able to read all the posts.)
It's very complicated separating personal wealth from the value of businesses they run or even own. But of course if they own shares then they can sell them, but that can affect the share price, so even that's tricky.
The same applies to Spiegel. If he's the only backer then we're in real trouble.

[valleydobson1]

Mar 2, 2023 14:46:27 GMT @dickplumb said:

Spiegel doesn’t look to be the answer. By all accounts he has been scratching around to get more investment. If he doesn’t have enough money to run the Club he should leave it alone. In the ideal World I would like someone to come in buy 100 per cent of the Club and also buy the Valley and also SL. He/ She also need to invest some money in trying to get us out of this division.
Is that person out there? It doesn’t seem so.

Who tells you Spiegel has been scratching around for investment? He is probably buying 20 per cent no more.