Time unknown – The London Sport Show – BBC Radio London
Below are some important quotes and facts from an interview
with Charlie Methven
“We were expecting to complete the purchase of
Charlton Athletic last Friday, obviously subject to EFL approval
“We weren’t expecting that [EFL approval] to
take an awful lot longer”
“We were at the point of signature when we were
told that the whole deal was off”
The deal was “laid out in a document signed by
Mr. Sandgaard on December the 20th”
“Which [the deal] carried with it, penalties for
both sides on non-completion”
“We had agreed a price and whilst there were
things that we found in there, which were new things, which we hadn’t
necessarily expected to find, we were always very respectful and careful never
to move the price”
“That agreement is still in force, we are still
in exclusivity and therefore anybody else who is negotiating with Mr.
Sandgaard, right now, particularly anybody who was negotiating with Mr.
Sandgaard prior to this weekend, is in contravention of the law, because they
are deliberately interfering with a contractual agreement.”
“This is to do with the holding company that
owns Charlton Athletic, so none of our legal action, actually concerns Charlton
Athletic directly, it concerns the holding company Clear Ocean Capital, which
is Thomas Sandgaard’s holding company, [lag, presumably a conjunction]
Sandgaard Capital, which is Mr. Sandgaard’s company that in turn owns Clear
Ocean Capital.”
“I personally received a communication from
Sandgaard on Friday, it was a perfectly courteous communication; he and I have
always had courteous relations”
“Saying [the communication], thank you very much
for your time, but I’ve decided to move in a different direction, the deal is
off. That was Friday lunchtime.”
We don’t want to “go legal over this”
“The management team, that were in place, were
going to run the club”
“The investors were going to run the majority of
the club”
“My role was gonna be as the guy who brought the
whole thing together and then a small investor in the whole situation”
“We still have every intention of buying the
club, we are deadly serious, our investors are deadly serious in buying this
club.”
@CAFCFanAdviser posted the following thread of tweets on Tuesday morning:
07:10 - “UPDATE: Yesterday afternoon we were able to have a brief
discussion over Zoom with Thomas Sandgaard regarding some concerns that we as
supporters have at the current time. He gave us the below updates… #cafc"
07:10 - "• Methven Takeover- This takeover did not materialise due to the interested parties exclusivity period ending and agreements not being met. Thomas is aware of Charlie Methven's statement to the South London Press but will not make any further comment at this time. #cafc"
07:11 - "• Plan B - Thomas informed us that he was surprised that the “Plan B” statement taken from Richard Cawley’s article in the South London Press last week was taken as a headline. The plan remains to be searching for investment in the football club. #cafc"
07:11 - "• Marc Spiegel – Following an article published by The Athletic today, Thomas informed us that American businessman Marc Spiegel is one of many people interested in investing in the football club. #cafc"
07:12 - "• Peter Storrie – Thomas Sandgaard confirmed that Peter Storrie would be joining the club in the role of CEO. The appointment of Peter is decision made by Thomas and not that of any potential incoming owner. Peter will be responsible for the day to day running of the club."
07:13 - "• Dean Holden- Thomas confirmed to us that he is keen to see Dean Holden remain in position beyond the expiry of his current contract which ends at the end of the season. Discussions are ongoing with Dean’s agent, but Thomas is hopeful an agreement can be reached soon. #cafc"
07:14 - "Whilst we appreciate this is a brief update, we will be meeting next week for a more in-depth discussion. There were time constraints involved yesterday as Thomas is travelling back to Denmark to plan and attend the funeral of his mother who sadly passed away last Thursday. #cafc"
07:15 - "We will of course update supporters again following that meeting. #cafc"
"I've been in contact with Matt Slater of "The Athletic" since the Methven crew came along and it's fair to say we haven't seen eye to eye up to now on him. But Matt's one of the good guys, and I'm sure that he's posted this detailed reply from the comments column under his article, knowing that I can then freely share on here. I posted my questions several days ago, the reply is this afternoon.
There are several issues he raises which require good answers from those of us who continue to think Methven is a (insert expletive), so please take a good look and post thoughts which I can relay back to him.
A number of questions, Matt.
What stage had they got to with the EFL? Surely under the new tougher regime nothing would have been completed today unless all tests, including source and sufficiency of funds had already been met?
Given that the exclusivity period ended on 31.1 , and assuming Sandgaard wouldnt just trouser the deposit, which seems a tad outlandish to suppose, what grounds for legal action does Methven have? TS was able to start talking to anyone on 1st Feb. That’s the tough harsh world of business as Charlie was fond of lecturing Sunderland fans on.
And more difficult to answer without him saying more, why would TS turn down £8.5m for Charlton? Duchatelet, quite rationally, valued the club at £1 without the real estate and nothing has improved since then.
@Richard H. Hi Richard, I'll answer those questions as best I can.
The group were along way down the road with the EFL and there is no suggestion they would have failed the ODT or been unable to prove source/sufficiency. But, as I'm sure you know, it's up to the club to propose people for the ODT, so as soon as the deal is off, the process stops.
There is a dispute about when the exclusivity period ended and it looks like it may have to be settled in the courts, which is a shame for all parties, the club and the fans. I think it is a mistake to simply accept Sandgaard's interpretation of the exclusivity period agreement. He has chosen to interpret it one way, the prospective buyers are adamant he is ignoring the next sentence in the relevant paragraph. This is the one about extending the period subject to a payment that cover February's cash requirement. That payment is at the discretion of the club CFO, ie Ed Warrick. He did not believe the club needed cash last week. Now, Sandgaard might be wrong and Warrick & co might be wrong, but we don't know that and both sides will have lawyers who are happy to tell their clients they have cases. I understand that the US backers of the Methven group are particularly angry about Sandgaard's actions. As of now, he has not repaid their deposit or legal costs. They also believe he was talking to rival bidders before Feb 1. They are not the only ones who believe this, which could be a problem for Sandgaard.
Sandgaard is turning down £8.5m because he thinks he has somebody else who is willing to pay him £14m. As for Duchatelet's valuation of the club, I couldn't comment. But the same thing can have different values to different people at different times. Having covered pretty much every club takeover in the last decade, £8-10m seems a fair price for a London-based L1 club that was in the PL in recent memory, with a good fanbase, decent academy and reasonable rental agreement for their stadium/training ground. Reuniting club and property would clearly add to the value, as would promotion. The Methven group would not be trying to buy the club if they did not think it was undervalued."
Time Unknown - @Swisdom - Charlton Life: "According to Methven he and his consortium are nothing to do with that Texan sales pitch thst talks of slashing costs and bastardising the academy. Categorically denying any involvement."
18:35 - Charlie Methven - LinkedIn: "The Academy needs an additional 200k a year minimum."
@Swisdom then replies: "A couple of fans have seen a sales package that’s been sent
to potential investors in America. In it it talks of slashing costs in he [sic]
academy I haven’t seen it but the insinuation is it’s related to your consortium.
Are you saying it’s categorically not you?"
Charlie: "Definitely not. Our whole plan is about Academy"
"Another comment from Matt Slater regarding his article on The Athletic:
"I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm certainly no cheerleader for Charlie Methven, but, respectfully, I think some Charlton fans are letting their distaste for Methven obscure a) Sandgaard's very obvious failings and b) the rest of the Methven group. Josh Friedman and Gabriel Brener are credible, connected and wealthy. They're also very unimpressed with Sandgaard's behaviour. They are the guys who were providing most of the purchase cash and most of the future funding. They were investing in Charlton because they think the club is seriously undervalued. But then Sandgaard, at the last minute, pulled out of the deal, and days later admits he has been talking to rival bidders, one of whom was on Twitter last week talking about a momentous deal he's just done. This dispute is going to get ugly and expensive.""
"Prospective Charlton owner Charlie Methven is not walking away from the battle for control at the League One club even though the club’s current owner Thomas Sandgaard insists talks are over.
Methven and his colleagues had an exclusivity period, which he says ran to the end of February.
Sandgaard disagrees and says Methven failed to meet stated deadlines and he was within his rights to talk with other options.
Methven believes the Dane has just seen an opportunity to make more money from another party. He is threatening legal action, although BBC Sport understands official papers have yet to be lodged.
As a result of Sandgaard ending talks, Chief Operating Officer Jim Rodwell, Technical Director Andy Scott and Finance Director Ed Warrick have left the Valley, although manager Dean Holden remains."
The key thing here is that they haven't yet lodged the official papers (perhaps there is no real case, and Methven just wants some 'go away' money)
"Another comment from Matt Slater regarding his article on The Athletic:
"I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm certainly no cheerleader for Charlie Methven, but, respectfully, I think some Charlton fans are letting their distaste for Methven obscure a) Sandgaard's very obvious failings and b) the rest of the Methven group. Josh Friedman and Gabriel Brener are credible, connected and wealthy. They're also very unimpressed with Sandgaard's behaviour. They are the guys who were providing most of the purchase cash and most of the future funding. They were investing in Charlton because they think the club is seriously undervalued. But then Sandgaard, at the last minute, pulled out of the deal, and days later admits he has been talking to rival bidders, one of whom was on Twitter last week talking about a momentous deal he's just done. This dispute is going to get ugly and expensive.""
Charlton owner Thomas Sandgaard is facing a legal claim for up to £50million from a consortium led by former Sunderland director Charlie Methven. Sandgaard entered exclusive negotiations with a potential buyer, American businessman Marc Spiegel, less than two weeks after dumping the previous prospective owners.
Methven’s group had agreed to buy 90 per cent of the club for £8.5m, but Sandgaard withdrew while still in the exclusivity period. The consortium are suing Sandgaard for the loss of potential profits and any new Charlton owner will be named as co-defendant, which could derail the sale.
Tweet transcript: "Hmm. We may have to wait a few days to turn the barrels on Charlie. He has claimed to a source that on 1st March they will show the world that exclusivity really was 2 mths. As to how this could be unclear, he claimed TS lack of attention to detail. But you'd think TS had advice."
Tweet One transcript: "Asked Thomas Sandgaard about the threat of legal action by Charlie Methven's group. He says that there hasn't been any legal action but they have threatened "that they want some compensation plus their non refundable deposit back". #cafc"
Tweet Two transcript: "Sandgaard says "SE7 group clearly lost exclusivity on February 1 by not funding 90% of the club expenses from that point forwards".
TS says on February 10 he "had enough of their negotiating tactics" and told them they were no longer negotiating. #cafc"
Tweet transcript: "We can share with our media friends a transcript of Methven telling a fan he will reveal evidence on 1.3. (Wed.) of the exclusivity period, if you promise to make him produce this evidence to you *on the record*. @mjshrimper@RichCrawleySLP [sic, intended to be @RichCawleySLP]@philcparry #cutthecrap
Below is a conversation @Swisdom had with Charlie through LinkedIn
19:29 - Swisdom: "I hope for your sake you have definitive proof Thomas has made a mistake regarding dates because all you appear to be doing is stopping any serious investor from giving us a ray of hope that next season wont be another massive waste of time and money for thousands of people as the club can't start planning until we know what the fuck is going on."
19:48 - Charlie Methven: "I'm not the problem here.... the exclusivity period is clear and will be divulged once it is not illegal to do so.
19:49 - Swisdom: "So I take it your backers wish to proceed? You know there will be hostility don't you"
"Charlie Methven's group indicating they will go public with their stance on the collapsed #cafc takeover at the end of exclusivity - which they claim to be the end of this month.
Contradicts Thomas Sandgaard's claim that exclusivity ended on February 1. #cafc"
Comments
Time unknown – The London Sport Show – BBC Radio London
Below are some important quotes and facts from an interview with Charlie Methven
@CAFCFanAdviser posted the following thread of tweets on Tuesday morning:
07:10 - “UPDATE: Yesterday afternoon we were able to have a brief discussion over Zoom with Thomas Sandgaard regarding some concerns that we as supporters have at the current time. He gave us the below updates… #cafc"
07:10 - "• Methven Takeover- This takeover did not materialise due to the interested parties exclusivity period ending and agreements not being met. Thomas is aware of Charlie Methven's statement to the South London Press but will not make any further comment at this time. #cafc"
07:11 - "• Plan B - Thomas informed us that he was surprised that the “Plan B” statement taken from Richard Cawley’s article in the South London Press last week was taken as a headline. The plan remains to be searching for investment in the football club. #cafc"
07:11 - "• Marc Spiegel – Following an article published by The Athletic today, Thomas informed us that American businessman Marc Spiegel is one of many people interested in investing in the football club. #cafc"
07:12 - "• Peter Storrie – Thomas Sandgaard confirmed that Peter Storrie would be joining the club in the role of CEO. The appointment of Peter is decision made by Thomas and not that of any potential incoming owner. Peter will be responsible for the day to day running of the club."
07:13 - "• Dean Holden- Thomas confirmed to us that he is keen to see Dean Holden remain in position beyond the expiry of his current contract which ends at the end of the season. Discussions are ongoing with Dean’s agent, but Thomas is hopeful an agreement can be reached soon. #cafc"
07:14 - "Whilst we appreciate this is a brief update, we will be meeting next week for a more in-depth discussion. There were time constraints involved yesterday as Thomas is travelling back to Denmark to plan and attend the funeral of his mother who sadly passed away last Thursday. #cafc"
07:15 - "We will of course update supporters again following that meeting. #cafc"
"I've been in contact with Matt Slater of "The Athletic" since the Methven crew came along and it's fair to say we haven't seen eye to eye up to now on him. But Matt's one of the good guys, and I'm sure that he's posted this detailed reply from the comments column under his article, knowing that I can then freely share on here. I posted my questions several days ago, the reply is this afternoon.
There are several issues he raises which require good answers from those of us who continue to think Methven is a (insert expletive), so please take a good look and post thoughts which I can relay back to him.
A number of questions, Matt.
What stage had they got to with the EFL? Surely under the new tougher regime nothing would have been completed today unless all tests, including source and sufficiency of funds had already been met?
Given that the exclusivity period ended on 31.1 , and assuming Sandgaard wouldnt just trouser the deposit, which seems a tad outlandish to suppose, what grounds for legal action does Methven have? TS was able to start talking to anyone on 1st Feb. That’s the tough harsh world of business as Charlie was fond of lecturing Sunderland fans on.
And more difficult to answer without him saying more, why would TS turn down £8.5m for Charlton? Duchatelet, quite rationally, valued the club at £1 without the real estate and nothing has improved since then.
@Richard H. Hi Richard, I'll answer those questions as best I can.
The group were along way down the road with the EFL and there is no suggestion they would have failed the ODT or been unable to prove source/sufficiency. But, as I'm sure you know, it's up to the club to propose people for the ODT, so as soon as the deal is off, the process stops.
There is a dispute about when the exclusivity period ended and it looks like it may have to be settled in the courts, which is a shame for all parties, the club and the fans. I think it is a mistake to simply accept Sandgaard's interpretation of the exclusivity period agreement. He has chosen to interpret it one way, the prospective buyers are adamant he is ignoring the next sentence in the relevant paragraph. This is the one about extending the period subject to a payment that cover February's cash requirement. That payment is at the discretion of the club CFO, ie Ed Warrick. He did not believe the club needed cash last week. Now, Sandgaard might be wrong and Warrick & co might be wrong, but we don't know that and both sides will have lawyers who are happy to tell their clients they have cases. I understand that the US backers of the Methven group are particularly angry about Sandgaard's actions. As of now, he has not repaid their deposit or legal costs. They also believe he was talking to rival bidders before Feb 1. They are not the only ones who believe this, which could be a problem for Sandgaard.
Sandgaard is turning down £8.5m because he thinks he has somebody else who is willing to pay him £14m. As for Duchatelet's valuation of the club, I couldn't comment. But the same thing can have different values to different people at different times. Having covered pretty much every club takeover in the last decade, £8-10m seems a fair price for a London-based L1 club that was in the PL in recent memory, with a good fanbase, decent academy and reasonable rental agreement for their stadium/training ground. Reuniting club and property would clearly add to the value, as would promotion. The Methven group would not be trying to buy the club if they did not think it was undervalued."
@Swisdom then replies: "A couple of fans have seen a sales package that’s been sent to potential investors in America. In it it talks of slashing costs in he [sic] academy I haven’t seen it but the insinuation is it’s related to your consortium. Are you saying it’s categorically not you?"
Charlie: "Definitely not. Our whole plan is about Academy"
"Another comment from Matt Slater regarding his article on The Athletic:
"I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm certainly no cheerleader for Charlie Methven, but, respectfully, I think some Charlton fans are letting their distaste for Methven obscure a) Sandgaard's very obvious failings and b) the rest of the Methven group. Josh Friedman and Gabriel Brener are credible, connected and wealthy. They're also very unimpressed with Sandgaard's behaviour. They are the guys who were providing most of the purchase cash and most of the future funding. They were investing in Charlton because they think the club is seriously undervalued. But then Sandgaard, at the last minute, pulled out of the deal, and days later admits he has been talking to rival bidders, one of whom was on Twitter last week talking about a momentous deal he's just done. This dispute is going to get ugly and expensive.""
"Prospective Charlton owner Charlie Methven is not walking away from the battle for control at the League One club even though the club’s current owner Thomas Sandgaard insists talks are over.
Methven and his colleagues had an exclusivity period, which he says ran to the end of February.
Sandgaard disagrees and says Methven failed to meet stated deadlines and he was within his rights to talk with other options.
Methven believes the Dane has just seen an opportunity to make more money from another party. He is threatening legal action, although BBC Sport understands official papers have yet to be lodged.
As a result of Sandgaard ending talks, Chief Operating Officer Jim Rodwell, Technical Director Andy Scott and Finance Director Ed Warrick have left the Valley, although manager Dean Holden remains."
The key thing here is that they haven't yet lodged the official papers (perhaps there is no real case, and Methven just wants some 'go away' money)
Same as the old takeover thread...
https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comments/10yud0h/ransom_takeover_of_charlton_athletic_has/
Sandgaard faces £50m lawsuit
Charlton owner Thomas Sandgaard is facing a legal claim for up to £50million from a consortium led by former Sunderland director Charlie Methven. Sandgaard entered exclusive negotiations with a potential buyer, American businessman Marc Spiegel, less than two weeks after dumping the previous prospective owners.
Methven’s group had agreed to buy 90 per cent of the club for £8.5m, but Sandgaard withdrew while still in the exclusivity period. The consortium are suing Sandgaard for the loss of potential profits and any new Charlton owner will be named as co-defendant, which could derail the sale.
Tweet transcript: "Hmm. We may have to wait a few days to turn the barrels on Charlie. He has claimed to a source that on 1st March they will show the world that exclusivity really was 2 mths. As to how this could be unclear, he claimed TS lack of attention to detail. But you'd think TS had advice."
Tweet One transcript: "Asked Thomas Sandgaard about the threat of legal action by Charlie Methven's group. He says that there hasn't been any legal action but they have threatened "that they want some compensation plus their non refundable deposit back". #cafc"
Tweet Two transcript: "Sandgaard says "SE7 group clearly lost exclusivity on February 1 by not funding 90% of the club expenses from that point forwards".
TS says on February 10 he "had enough of their negotiating tactics" and told them they were no longer negotiating. #cafc"
Tweet transcript: "Charlton's recently appointed CEO Peter Storrie is here.
Picture by @pedwards72"
Martin Sandgaard is also in attendance on Storrie's right
For future reference the game was a 1-0 loss to top-of-the-table Sheffield Wednesday
Tweet transcript: "We can share with our media friends a transcript of Methven telling a fan he will reveal evidence on 1.3. (Wed.) of the exclusivity period, if you promise to make him produce this evidence to you *on the record*. @mjshrimper @RichCrawleySLP [sic, intended to be @RichCawleySLP] @philcparry #cutthecrap
Posted initially on a now deleted thread on Into The Valley
Richard found Methven's company registered in the Cayman Islands
Below is a conversation @Swisdom had with Charlie through LinkedIn
19:29 - Swisdom: "I hope for your sake you have definitive proof Thomas has made a mistake regarding dates because all you appear to be doing is stopping any serious investor from giving us a ray of hope that next season wont be another massive waste of time and money for thousands of people as the club can't start planning until we know what the fuck is going on."
19:48 - Charlie Methven: "I'm not the problem here.... the exclusivity period is clear and will be divulged once it is not illegal to do so.
19:49 - Swisdom: "So I take it your backers wish to proceed? You know there will be hostility don't you"
There was no further reply
"Just wondering if you have any comment on the image below? Is this legitimate? Because it is alarming people"
Tweet 1 transcript:
"Charlie Methven's group indicating they will go public with their stance on the collapsed #cafc takeover at the end of exclusivity - which they claim to be the end of this month.
Contradicts Thomas Sandgaard's claim that exclusivity ended on February 1. #cafc"
Tweet 2 transcript:
"I use the word 'claim' for both these things, as so far nobody has provided any kind of paperwork to prove anything.
The response, of course, is that this could impact any legal process. #cafc"