"There is a leaked document doing the rounds, showing the split of #cafc ownership if Methven's group completed their takeover.
Worth pointing out that their bid for the club looks dead in the water. Only question now is any kind of legal action (set to become clearer tomorrow)."
"Some of the info is blackeD out but Americans Gabriel Brener and Joshua Friedman would have owned a controlling stake. Methven shown as owning around 24.1% but their side say that was made up of more than individual (would have been likes of Rodwell, Warrick etc and others)."
"Just wondering if you have any comment on the image below? Is this legitimate? Because it is alarming people"
09:41 - Charlie Methven - LinkedIn:
"alarming why?"
"irrelevant anyway"
09:43 - Swisdom: "You've told numerous people you are merely a broker... whereas you'd be the largest individual shareholder. Big fucking difference."
"Why is it irrelevant"
09:45 - Charlie Methven: "Can you five me a call on [removed]. Not sure that LinkedIn is the place for swearing"
09:47 - Swisdom: "I have an appointment but will call later. Swearing is purely out of frustration for my football team that I've invested thousands of thousands of pounds into and it's slowly being destroyed. This scenario doesn't appear to be benefitting anyone at the moment"
09:48 - Charlie Methven: "I can perhaps help you with some elementary mathematics and company law. You may in advance find it helpful to look up the definition of the phrase 'majority shareholder'"
09:49 - Charlie Methven: "As for expenditure, I rather suspect I have spent more on it than you, as things stand!"
"But out of respect for your father I will have (or try to have) a sane and balanced conversation with you."
09:54 - Swisdom: "I'm not interested in willy-waving. I love this club so the money i spend is just one of those things I do. You are in this just to make yourself money and that will affect thousands of fans. Especially if it is in a negative way for the club."
09:56 - Swisdom: "as I have said previously, there is a lot of negative press in your direction, and you are the only one that can answer definitively and pacify people. Yet your only communications come via the press and we are never given the full story. Do you not see what this is doing to the fan base. If your intentions are so wonderful, then you could very easily get the fans on side by being transparent, but none of this is being done in a transparent way."
09:58 - Charlie Methven: "how is it possible to communicate with fans if not through the media?"
09:59 - Swisdom: "Then be transparent about it. Do a sales pitch about. Give them something to look forward to rather than thoughts of dread"
09:59 - Charlie Methven: "Our only effect on the club has been positive: appointing good people; bringing some sanity and stability to what had been chaos."
10:01 - Charlie Methven: "OK...... so it fills you with 'dread' to have sanity and you (together with 200 Twitter people) would rather go back to chaos. That's your choice, and I can't affect it. But I'm in touch with hundreds of CAFC fans and very few view the prospect of the club being professionally run and managed with the 'dread' that you do, Steve!"
10:04 - Charlie Methven: "It is in any case irrelevant. Instead of the dread of having people like Andy Scott, Rodwell etc, you will have Mr Storrie, Mr Spiegel and an agent. Who knows - maybe that will be better than the 'dread' of...... er....... normality. Time will tell."
10:04 - Swisdom: "So tell me more about this brochure with your name on it the talks of stripping all the assets out of our academy. I would suggest those who are fully supportive of you know nothing of this document’s existence."
10:08 - Charlie Methven: "utter, utter bollocks. As anybody at the Academy will say. Our view was (and is) that the Academy needs significant investment. I've never put a brochure together in my life. Why would I, with two of the richest men in the world funding the bid?"
"Anyhow, it's irrelevant, as Sandgaard won't sell to us. He wants more dough."
10:10 - Swisdom: "I thought LinkedIn wasn’t the place for swearing? I’m not saying you compiled the brochure, but there is a brochure in existence and it has your name on it, or within it allegedly."
10:11 - Charlie Methven: "So, as I say, best turn your hysteria on other 'interested parties'. I'm sure that followers of a certain somebody will blacken their names as well.....using whichever tools they can."
"Was told, before we saw Rodwell pitch side, that Ed Warrick's name was also on the directors box list with Rodwell. Will try and keep an eye out for him. Not sure what we can read into this with Methven's mob seemingly out of the running. But interesting nonetheless #cafc"
"Just wondering if you have any comment on the image below? Is this legitimate? Because it is alarming people"
09:41 - Charlie Methven - LinkedIn:
"alarming why?"
"irrelevant anyway"
09:43 - Swisdom: "You've told numerous people you are merely a broker... whereas you'd be the largest individual shareholder. Big fucking difference."
"Why is it irrelevant"
09:45 - Charlie Methven: "Can you five me a call on [removed]. Not sure that LinkedIn is the place for swearing"
09:47 - Swisdom: "I have an appointment but will call later. Swearing is purely out of frustration for my football team that I've invested thousands of thousands of pounds into and it's slowly being destroyed. This scenario doesn't appear to be benefitting anyone at the moment"
09:48 - Charlie Methven: "I can perhaps help you with some elementary mathematics and company law. You may in advance find it helpful to look up the definition of the phrase 'majority shareholder'"
09:49 - Charlie Methven: "As for expenditure, I rather suspect I have spent more on it than you, as things stand!"
"But out of respect for your father I will have (or try to have) a sane and balanced conversation with you."
09:54 - Swisdom: "I'm not interested in willy-waving. I love this club so the money i spend is just one of those things I do. You are in this just to make yourself money and that will affect thousands of fans. Especially if it is in a negative way for the club."
09:56 - Swisdom: "as I have said previously, there is a lot of negative press in your direction, and you are the only one that can answer definitively and pacify people. Yet your only communications come via the press and we are never given the full story. Do you not see what this is doing to the fan base. If your intentions are so wonderful, then you could very easily get the fans on side by being transparent, but none of this is being done in a transparent way."
09:58 - Charlie Methven: "how is it possible to communicate with fans if not through the media?"
09:59 - Swisdom: "Then be transparent about it. Do a sales pitch about. Give them something to look forward to rather than thoughts of dread"
09:59 - Charlie Methven: "Our only effect on the club has been positive: appointing good people; bringing some sanity and stability to what had been chaos."
10:01 - Charlie Methven: "OK...... so it fills you with 'dread' to have sanity and you (together with 200 Twitter people) would rather go back to chaos. That's your choice, and I can't affect it. But I'm in touch with hundreds of CAFC fans and very few view the prospect of the club being professionally run and managed with the 'dread' that you do, Steve!"
10:04 - Charlie Methven: "It is in any case irrelevant. Instead of the dread of having people like Andy Scott, Rodwell etc, you will have Mr Storrie, Mr Spiegel and an agent. Who knows - maybe that will be better than the 'dread' of...... er....... normality. Time will tell."
10:04 - Swisdom: "So tell me more about this brochure with your name on it the talks of stripping all the assets out of our academy. I would suggest those who are fully supportive of you know nothing of this document’s existence."
10:08 - Charlie Methven: "utter, utter bollocks. As anybody at the Academy will say. Our view was (and is) that the Academy needs significant investment. I've never put a brochure together in my life. Why would I, with two of the richest men in the world funding the bid?"
"Anyhow, it's irrelevant, as Sandgaard won't sell to us. He wants more dough."
10:10 - Swisdom: "I thought LinkedIn wasn’t the place for swearing? I’m not saying you compiled the brochure, but there is a brochure in existence and it has your name on it, or within it allegedly."
10:11 - Charlie Methven: "So, as I say, best turn your hysteria on other 'interested parties'. I'm sure that followers of a certain somebody will blacken their names as well.....using whichever tools they can."
Unknown time - Charlie Methven - LinkedIn:
"Not true sueing for 50 million. All will be made clear in the statement."
17:14 - Charlie Methven: "In the meantime, I'll leave you with this quote from a Charlton fan. 'You're not speaking to that lunatic Steve Wisdom, are you? He is literally one of the main agitators against you on social.'"
17:22 - Swisdom: "When is the statement coming out? This is the same as all the other stuff relating to this “takeover”. Full of inaccuracies, lies and misinformation - this time the Daily Mail but they must have for it from somewhere. This statement needs to be unequivocal and factual or it will just get lost. As for the “agitator” statement - I’m pretty sure I know who said it and I disregard his opinion most of the time so l’ll continue to do so. I am absolutely not an agitator - I’m a supporter who is bored of his football club being used as a plaything"
19:15 - Charlie Methven: "You seem not to enjoy logic, which makes discourse difficult. How is making an offer for a club and having it turned down (illegally, but so what) for a higher offer using it as a 'plaything'? What are you criticising? Making an offer? Having it rejected?"
19:18 - Swisdom: "I wasn’t talking about you. I’m talking about the numerous predecessors who all promise the world and deliver nothing but uncertainty. Whether you would have used it as a plaything remains to be seen."
19:18 - Charlie Methven: "As far as I can tell, your major criticism seems to be 'lack of transparency' Otherwise known as: observing legal commercial behaviour regarding a supposedly confidential deal. Personally, I dislike it far more when would-be owners go round begging for publicity and shooting their mouths off before actually forking out and buying the club."
19:20 - Charlie Methven: "I'm not rich enough to use football clubs as playthings. The only way it works for me is if the exersize [sic] is taken deadly seriously and the club gets promoted and loses less money. Then I sell my stake either to the majority owners or to a good new owner."
19:21 - Swisdom: "Up until now it’s just been misinformation, false soundbites in the media and secrecy. So I’m unlikely to think it would have been any different. The transparency, and a bit of detail would have gone a long way towards getting buy-in from the fans because they are intrinsically involved"
19:22 - Swisdom: "We still don’t know why Thomas pulled the plug on the deal. Lots of rumours but nobody knows what to believe because we’ve been lied to and treated with contempt so often in the last 10 years"
19:22 - Charlie Methven: "it's all moot now, because Sandgaard won't sell to us. But anyone who shows 'transparency' on an undone deal is a charlatan. Rather than words, my advice to you is to look at actions and outcomes."
19:23 - Swisdom: "The only action we are seeing is a downward spiral in every way imaginable."
19:23 - Charlie Methven: "The statement we will release tomorrow will just lay out what happened, with reference to the actual relevant clauses and then..... goodbye and goodnight."
19:24 - Swisdom: "Interestingly, why is Rodwell at the game tonight? And Warrick apparently"
19:24 - Charlie Methven: "Peterborough former directors"
19:26 - Charlie Methven: "Jim former CEO and Ed I think still is in charge of their new stadium project."
19:26 - Swisdom: "I see. Cheers. Listen, in all honesty I am not against a takeover provided it’s for the best for my team. I’m just like many other fans who want progress and positivity. Fans fears could very easily have been put to rest a long time ago"
19:28 - Charlie Methven: "I'm not sure it's easy to lay Charlton fears to rest with.words. Just by solid, boring professionalism. Which is what our management team displayed in the 2 months they ran the club."
19:29 - Swisdom: "That’s potentially debatable but that’s for another day"
"Dean Holden revealed why he was seen in conversation with former Charlton chief operating officer Jim Rodwell before this evening’s game with Peterborough United.
Rodwell was brought into the club as part of the failed Charlie Methven takeover attempt shortly before Christmas. The ex-Sunderland employee was one of three senior appointees to leave The Valley earlier this month following the breakdown of talks between current owner Thomas Sandgaard and Methven’s group.
Holden was spotted chatting with Rodwell before the match and explained: “Jim Rodwell worked at Peterborough for a period of time before he came to Charlton Athletic. I’ve not seen him since [he left].
“We were working closely, myself, Jim, Andy Scott (former technical director) and the other guys. Then two and half weeks ago, overnight, that was it. I’ve not seen any the guys since then. Jim came to the game with Ed (Warrick, former finance director).
“Ed is a big Peterborough fan. They both live local. Think Jim just wanted to get out of the house and watch a game of football. He came over to say hello pre-game. Just a general chit-chat, really.”"
"Meanwhile a Lifer who wishes to remain anon accessed the Cayman Islands version of Companies House, and found out about Global Football Partners Ltd...precisely FA. Which of course is exactly why you set up companies in the Cayman Islands, BVI etc..."
Tweet transcript: "The Head of Dossiers managed to save Charlie's statement. Clearly it's just a tech issue, so when we get back from lunch we will post it up again for him. We charge no fee for this consultancy service, just 6% stake in #CAFC will do nicely."
Tweet transcript: "Charlie was pbviously trying out a new cool "pop-up statement" format. We're old fashioned so we've converted it to something more traditional for him. You're welcome😉"
The statement reads [text extracted by a robot, could be some mistakes]: "
Charlie Methven-led group issue statement on Charlton Athletic takeover process
1 March 2023 Richard Cawley 0 Comments
The Charlie Methven-led group who were in takeover talks with Charlton Athletic owner Thomas Sandgaard have issued a statement.
It is the first time that SE7 Partners Limited and its associated investors have made a public statement.
We reported recently that negotiations had broken down.
Sandgaard is now believed to be in talks with American Marc Spiegel over selling the League One club, although he has always been intent on keeping a stake.
Methven's party had paid a deposit of around £300,000 for exclusivity to press ahead with a buyout in December which had been due to run until the end of February. And they have waited until the end of that period before going public.
They said: "Following recent allegations made by Thomas Sandgaard, owner of Charlton Athletic, SE7 Partners and its' co- investors have reluctantly decided to make the following statement regarding what - prior to Mr Sandgaard's public utterances was previously a confidential agreement.
"On December 20 2022, SE7 Partners agreed terms with Thomas Sandgaard for the purchase of a majority shareholding in Clear Ocean Capital ("COCL"), the holding company which owns Charlton Athletic FC.
"The agreement was to purchase 90% of COCL. SE7, and certain named co-investors, were given exclusivity to complete the deal -including passing the EFL approval process - until March 1, 2023. An agreed new management team consisting of Jim Rodwell, Andy Scott, Ed Warrick and Dean Holden was appointed to run the club under Mr Sandgaard in the meantime, with the aim of ensuring that relegation to League 2 was avoided (as of December 20, CAFC was in 18th place in League 1 and had not won a match for two months).
"It was envisaged that the ensuing Share Purchase Agreement would be completed around a month later, thus giving the EFL - with whom SE7 had been in regular contact to ensure full compliance - plenty of time for approval. During the envisaged Approval process, SE7 agreed to take responsibility for funding its 90% of Charlton Athletic's financial needs (with a mechanism for repayment in the event EFL approval was withheld). The financial needs of the club were to be as determined by the Interim Chief Financial Officer in consultation with Thomas Sandgaard.
"On February 2- at which point an SPA had been presented by SE7 Partners, but not signed by the vendor - Mr Sandgaard's lawyers sent a communication demanding substantial funding be paid within 24 hours or SE7 would be considered by him in breach of its obligations. The interim CFO immediately responded in writing that according to the cashflow forecast, which was updated daily, there was no such funding requirement for at least 3 weeks. Mr Sandgaard himself tacitly agreed with this conclusion, as he had not funded his 10% share either, even as of February 9 let alone February 3. Furthermore, an external party funding the club absent a signed SPA would likely have contravened EFL rules, endangering the club.
"Irrespective of these factors, contrary to the provision in the agreed Heads of Terms and to the extreme disappointment of SE7 and the management team, on February 10 Mr Sandgaard unilaterally terminated the agreement by email and disabled access and IT accounts for the senior management team.
"Immediately subsequent to these actions, SE7 learned from sources in the market that there had in fact been ongoing negotiations with a third party and that - prior to the attempted termination - an agreement in principle for a higher price had been made with that third party. Indeed, the bidder in question had celebrated that deal with a (subsequently deleted) Tweet on February 6 and had had representatives out in the market trying to raise the requisite finance. All of this represented a clear breach of the legally binding exclusivity agreement.
"Putting all of this to one side, over the last 3 weeks SE7 and its major investors have none the less continuously offered Mr Sandgaard the opportunity to reverse his breach of exclusivity and complete the deal on the agreed terms, which have never changed. 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."
"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."
"Charlton Athletic owner agrees that sale of club unaffected by SE7 Partners dispute
Charlton Athletic owner Thomas Sandgaard has agreed with SE7 Partners’ claim that the collapse of their takeover talks will not prevent the League One club from being sold.
SE7 Partners, led by former Sunderland chief executive Charlie Methven, had entered into a period of exclusivity in December and have threatened legal action after the deal failed to reach completion.
US-based Dane Sandgaard had ended negotiations in early February citing that the interested party had not complied with “very specific terms”.
SE7 Partners said earlier this week that they had “reluctantly decided” to make a statement following Sandgaard’s “public utterances”.
“On December 20, 2022, SE7 Partners agreed terms with Thomas Sandgaard for the purchase of a majority shareholding in Clear Ocean Capital, the holding company which owns Charlton Athletic FC.
“The agreement was to purchase 90 per cent of COCL. SE7, and certain named co-investors, were given exclusivity to complete the deal – including passing the EFL approval process – until March 1, 2023.
“An agreed new management team consisting of Jim Rodwell, Andy Scott, Ed Warrick and Dean Holden was appointed to run the club under Mr Sandgaard in the meantime, with the aim of ensuring that relegation to League Two was avoided (as of December 20, CAFC was in 18th place in League One and had not won a match for two months).
“It was envisaged that the purchase would be completed around a month later, in early February thus giving the EFL plenty of time for approval.”
Sandgaard told our paper on Saturday that SE7 Partners had “clearly lost exclusivity on February 1 by not funding 90 per cent” of the club expenses from that point forwards.
SE7 Partners statement said: “During the envisaged approval process, SE7 agreed to take responsibility for funding its 90 per cent of Charlton Athletic’s financial needs (with a mechanism for repayment in the event EFL approval was withheld). The financial needs of the club were to be as determined by the interim chief financial officer in consultation with Thomas Sandgaard.”
SE7 Partners claim on February 2 that Sandgaard’s lawyers contacted them “demanding substantial funding be paid within 24 hours or SE7 would be considered by him in breach of its obligations”.
Their statement adds: “The interim CFO immediately responded in writing that according to the cashflow forecast, which was updated daily, there was no such funding requirement for at least three weeks.”
Sandgaard said: “They got reminded three times in the first few days after we had exceeded the last day of January. As to the 90 per cent they were supposed to fund, I repeatedly reminded them by email.
“They were not only reminded about how much they needed to put in, and they were reminded several times by my attorneys: ‘Hey, this is it guys’.
“Of course I still kept negotiating in good faith because it would have been nice if the deal had completed – it would’ve given me peace of mind and all that.
“They kept not funding it. So eventually on the 10th I said: ‘This is it, we can’t keep doing that’. I even told them back then that I’ll keep funding, I’ll fund it through February. There is no doubt they were out of exclusivity. ”
SE7 Partners claim that Sandgaard had not funded his 10 per cent share and that the EFL might object to a third party funding the club before it has agreed to the takeover.
Sandgaard said: “I keep sending money over to Charlton’s account all the time. Many times a month. I kept funding it every day.”
SE7 Partners’ statement added it was shocked that “on February 10 Mr Sandgaard unilaterally terminated the agreement by email and disabled access and IT accounts for the senior management team.”
Sandgaard said: “On the 10th I told Charlie: ‘We’re done’. And I told him I would confirm it by email. I confirmed it about two hours later. Half an hour later I believe my attorneys confirmed it to their attorneys. And we were done then, on the 10th.”
Charlton’s club fan adviser (@CAFCFanAdviser) tweeted a conversation they claimed to have had with Sandgaard on February 14.
“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.”
Spiegel had posted earlier that month a football with an emoji indicating to keep quiet.
That tweet has since been deleted, along with a February 5 post which said: “Made a move today that could turn out to be momentous. Cross your fingers.”
SE7 Partners claim that “ongoing negotiations with a third party during the exclusivity period” is a “clear breach of the legally binding exclusivity agreement”.
Sandgaard said: “I wasn’t negotiating anything during the exclusivity period. It was after that had run out and they had been reminded several times that I started having initial talks with another group.
“I was still trying to come to an agreement, because I didn’t know what the talks to another group were going to lead to. We kept talking but they kept not wanting to fund anything.”
SE7 Partners’ statement said: “Putting all of this to one side, over the last three weeks SE7 and its major investors have none the less continuously offered Mr Sandgaard the opportunity to reverse his breach of exclusivity and complete the deal on the agreed terms, which have never changed. 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.”
Sandgaard said: “I wasted a lot of time too. So how about that?”
SE7 Partners continued: “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.”
Sandgaard said: ”I would agree with that legal opinion. It has no impact on who I can sell the club to now or in the future.
Fan Advisers Lucy Bishop and Lewis Catt had an introductory meeting with the club’s CEO Peter Storrie on Thursday to discuss issues moving forwards.
The below points were discussed at the meeting which was also attended by the club’s Head of Communications Tom Rubashow.
Update on takeover
LC asked for an update on where the club is on the takeover situation.
PS said as far as he is aware, the issue with Charlie Methven/SE7 Partners is between that group and Thomas Sandgaard and, as both sides have stated publicly, will not impact Charlton Athletic and any sale of the club. He said what is going on with that therefore is outside of his remit and is a legal situation between the two parties.
He said in terms of the current potential takeover, he’s gone through takeovers in the past and they can drag on. He said it's going well at this moment in time but to put a timescale on it is very difficult with due diligence, EFL approvals etc but that he was quite confident it wouldn’t be too long.
He said he spoke to the players on Thursday and updated them on the current situation and the conversations he’s had with the potential new owners, which has all been very positive. He said the potential new owners want to try and get the club out of this division as quickly as possible. He said in League One you lose a lot of money and that is something that no one wants to do for too long. He said the ambition is to pull a squad together that is capable of having a very serious challenge next season. He said everyone knows there is no guarantees in football and League One and that it is a tough league to get out of, but he does feel the conversations have all been very positive towards having a real go next season.
LC asked about the potential new owners stance on The Valley and training ground, given the club is currently disconnected from them.
PS said the first item for the potential new owners is to get the deal done and take control of the club but that they are aware of the situation with The Valley and the training ground. He said there is a reasonable length to go on the lease with The Valley and the training ground, so it isn’t the number one priority as the number one priority for them is to get the takeover deal done.
LB said any new ownership should understand that the training ground and The Valley need to be back with the club and that supporters will need at least a plan to explain how that will be accomplished.
LC said he knows there have been talks between the club and DH but asked if any progress had been made. He said he felt DH had done a good job and getting a contract sorted would help the club’s planning for next season.
PS said the discussions have been ongoing with TS and DH’s agent and that they have been going well and progressing. He said he’s had a lot of conversations with DH about plans moving forward, as part of the planning documents that he has been preparing for next season, particularly for the potential new owners. He said supporters should “watch this space” regarding DH’s contract as a renewal hopefully isn’t too far away.
PS said he has been very impressed with DH. He said DH has done well with the squad in place and he likes his ideas and the discussions he’s had with him planning for next season. He said that DH will want to finish this season strongly.
Remit
PS explained he has come in for TS to restructure the club, have a look at the forecasts and where the club is going for the rest of this year, which he has done with the help of the team in place at the club. He said that process has finished. He said he is working with DH on what the squad will look like for next season. He said he has also been spending time with club staff on the due diligence for the potential new owners. He said that includes forecasts and budgets for next season and will depend on where they want to go once the takeover is completed.
He said because of what has happened at the club in the last few months there have been a lot of changes in terms of personnel. He said part of his role has been to try and settle that all down. He said with that in mind he has been doing weekly management meetings with all senior staff so that everyone is aware of what is going on in each department. He said when you are running a football club it is about staff making their own decisions. He said he’s not going to sit there and make every decision – he said his job is to oversee things and advise wherever he can but that he wants staff to take responsibility. He said he is happy everyone is working together and starting to move forward.
Season tickets
LC said he felt, without any change, this season’s season ticket push would be as challenging as it ever has been.
TR agreed there would be challenges. He said that work had begun on season tickets and that the club would work with supporters on the campaign.
PS said it is well known that the club is losing money and that there is even more of an issue moving forwards with inflation meaning that suppliers’ costs are going up, electricity bills going up substantially in October when the fixed price runs out and the upcoming increase in minimum wage. He said the club needs to increase the income in the club in all areas. He said the club needs to get bigger gates and in football that means improved results are needed. He said there are fans who will renew no matter what but the club needs to get more people through the gates. He said the club needs to increase the commercial side and partnerships and that with a fresh look at it all that the club can get people to come.
LC asked if there had been any discussions on areas in the stadium being closed for the 2023/24 season.
PS said there had previously been internal discussions but he has taken the view that while the club is going through a process of due diligence and a potential takeover, it would be negative of the club to close any areas and didn’t make sense so there won’t be any closures.
Fans’ Forum
PS felt it is important that he attends the next Fans’ Forum, which was initially set for Thursday, March 16th. He explained he was unable to make that date because of an already scheduled booking. He offered to do Monday, March 13th but it was agreed it would make most sense to postpone one week until Thursday, March 23rd.
PS ended the meeting by asking the Fan Advisers about things they felt were wrong at the club currently and how the club could improve moving forwards.
Anything past this post should be of good standard, but because I have exams, this one will be a bulletpoint ramble
Spiegel's prospectus was leaked and we don't like it because it called us "manageable but devoted" and said we wouldn't "exert excess influence over the club"
It was also wrong about a whole load of things, like saying we had 600k fans, MK Dons was in London, etc etc
Spiegel has told the SLP that he didn't want to slag off the fans or Sandgaard and that they aren't looking for funds to run or buy the club. The leaked prospectus "Project Floyd", was for raising funds for "some acquisition plans in the next 12-18 months"
Let the fun begin...
I might edit this post to include more info about the prospectus but i cba to read it and have to learn why Stalin was bad for an exam in 9 days time
Comments
Tweet 1 transcript:
"There is a leaked document doing the rounds, showing the split of #cafc ownership if Methven's group completed their takeover.
Worth pointing out that their bid for the club looks dead in the water. Only question now is any kind of legal action (set to become clearer tomorrow)."
Tweet 2 transcript:
"Some of the info is blackeD out but Americans Gabriel Brener and Joshua Friedman would have owned a controlling stake. Methven shown as owning around 24.1% but their side say that was made up of more than individual (would have been likes of Rodwell, Warrick etc and others)."
Tweet 3 transcript:
"Methven's side say that the former Sunderland co-owner have had a 10 per cent stake (works out as an investment of around £850k)."
"alarming why?"
"irrelevant anyway"
09:43 - Swisdom: "You've told numerous people you are merely a broker... whereas you'd be the largest individual shareholder. Big fucking difference."
"Why is it irrelevant"
09:45 - Charlie Methven: "Can you five me a call on [removed]. Not sure that LinkedIn is the place for swearing"
09:47 - Swisdom: "I have an appointment but will call later. Swearing is purely out of frustration for my football team that I've invested thousands of thousands of pounds into and it's slowly being destroyed. This scenario doesn't appear to be benefitting anyone at the moment"
09:48 - Charlie Methven: "I can perhaps help you with some elementary mathematics and company law. You may in advance find it helpful to look up the definition of the phrase 'majority shareholder'"
09:49 - Charlie Methven: "As for expenditure, I rather suspect I have spent more on it than you, as things stand!"
"But out of respect for your father I will have (or try to have) a sane and balanced conversation with you."
09:54 - Swisdom: "I'm not interested in willy-waving. I love this club so the money i spend is just one of those things I do. You are in this just to make yourself money and that will affect thousands of fans. Especially if it is in a negative way for the club."
09:56 - Swisdom: "as I have said previously, there is a lot of negative press in your direction, and you are the only one that can answer definitively and pacify people. Yet your only communications come via the press and we are never given the full story. Do you not see what this is doing to the fan base. If your intentions are so wonderful, then you could very easily get the fans on side by being transparent, but none of this is being done in a transparent way."
09:58 - Charlie Methven: "how is it possible to communicate with fans if not through the media?"
09:59 - Swisdom: "Then be transparent about it. Do a sales pitch about. Give them something to look forward to rather than thoughts of dread"
09:59 - Charlie Methven: "Our only effect on the club has been positive: appointing good people; bringing some sanity and stability to what had been chaos."
10:01 - Charlie Methven: "OK...... so it fills you with 'dread' to have sanity and you (together with 200 Twitter people) would rather go back to chaos. That's your choice, and I can't affect it. But I'm in touch with hundreds of CAFC fans and very few view the prospect of the club being professionally run and managed with the 'dread' that you do, Steve!"
10:04 - Charlie Methven: "It is in any case irrelevant. Instead of the dread of having people like Andy Scott, Rodwell etc, you will have Mr Storrie, Mr Spiegel and an agent. Who knows - maybe that will be better than the 'dread' of...... er....... normality. Time will tell."
10:04 - Swisdom: "So tell me more about this brochure with your name on it the talks of stripping all the assets out of our academy. I would suggest those who are fully supportive of you know nothing of this document’s existence."
10:08 - Charlie Methven: "utter, utter bollocks. As anybody at the Academy will say. Our view was (and is) that the Academy needs significant investment. I've never put a brochure together in my life. Why would I, with two of the richest men in the world funding the bid?"
"Anyhow, it's irrelevant, as Sandgaard won't sell to us. He wants more dough."
10:10 - Swisdom: "I thought LinkedIn wasn’t the place for swearing? I’m not saying you compiled the brochure, but there is a brochure in existence and it has your name on it, or within it allegedly."
10:11 - Charlie Methven: "So, as I say, best turn your hysteria on other 'interested parties'. I'm sure that followers of a certain somebody will blacken their names as well.....using whichever tools they can."
Tweet 1transcript:
"Guess who's back. Jim Rodwell is here at London Road, seen here in conversation with Dean Holden.
#cafc"
18:56
Tweet 2 transcript:
"Was told, before we saw Rodwell pitch side, that Ed Warrick's name was also on the directors box list with Rodwell. Will try and keep an eye out for him. Not sure what we can read into this with Methven's mob seemingly out of the running. But interesting nonetheless #cafc"
"Not true sueing for 50 million. All will be made clear in the statement."
17:14 - Charlie Methven: "In the meantime, I'll leave you with this quote from a Charlton fan. 'You're not speaking to that lunatic Steve Wisdom, are you? He is literally one of the main agitators against you on social.'"
17:22 - Swisdom: "When is the statement coming out? This is the same as all the other stuff relating to this “takeover”. Full of inaccuracies, lies and misinformation - this time the Daily Mail but they must have for it from somewhere. This statement needs to be unequivocal and factual or it will just get lost. As for the “agitator” statement - I’m pretty sure I know who said it and I disregard his opinion most of the time so l’ll continue to do so. I am absolutely not an agitator - I’m a supporter who is bored of his football club being used as a plaything"
19:15 - Charlie Methven: "You seem not to enjoy logic, which makes discourse difficult. How is making an offer for a club and having it turned down (illegally, but so what) for a higher offer using it as a 'plaything'? What are you criticising? Making an offer? Having it rejected?"
19:18 - Swisdom: "I wasn’t talking about you. I’m talking about the numerous predecessors who all promise the world and deliver nothing but uncertainty. Whether you would have used it as a plaything remains to be seen."
19:18 - Charlie Methven: "As far as I can tell, your major criticism seems to be 'lack of transparency' Otherwise known as: observing legal commercial behaviour regarding a supposedly confidential deal. Personally, I dislike it far more when would-be owners go round begging for publicity and shooting their mouths off before actually forking out and buying the club."
19:20 - Charlie Methven: "I'm not rich enough to use football clubs as playthings. The only way it works for me is if the exersize [sic] is taken deadly seriously and the club gets promoted and loses less money. Then I sell my stake either to the majority owners or to a good new owner."
19:21 - Swisdom: "Up until now it’s just been misinformation, false soundbites in the media and secrecy. So I’m unlikely to think it would have been any different. The transparency, and a bit of detail would have gone a long way towards getting buy-in from the fans because they are intrinsically involved"
19:22 - Swisdom: "We still don’t know why Thomas pulled the plug on the deal. Lots of rumours but nobody knows what to believe because we’ve been lied to and treated with contempt so often in the last 10 years"
19:22 - Charlie Methven: "it's all moot now, because Sandgaard won't sell to us. But anyone who shows 'transparency' on an undone deal is a charlatan. Rather than words, my advice to you is to look at actions and outcomes."
19:23 - Swisdom: "The only action we are seeing is a downward spiral in every way imaginable."
19:23 - Charlie Methven: "The statement we will release tomorrow will just lay out what happened, with reference to the actual relevant clauses and then..... goodbye and goodnight."
19:24 - Swisdom: "Interestingly, why is Rodwell at the game tonight? And Warrick apparently"
19:24 - Charlie Methven: "Peterborough former directors"
19:26 - Charlie Methven: "Jim former CEO and Ed I think still is in charge of their new stadium project."
19:26 - Swisdom: "I see. Cheers. Listen, in all honesty I am not against a takeover provided it’s for the best for my team. I’m just like many other fans who want progress and positivity. Fans fears could very easily have been put to rest a long time ago"
19:28 - Charlie Methven: "I'm not sure it's easy to lay Charlton fears to rest with.words. Just by solid, boring professionalism. Which is what our management team displayed in the 2 months they ran the club."
19:29 - Swisdom: "That’s potentially debatable but that’s for another day"
"Dean Holden revealed why he was seen in conversation with former Charlton chief operating officer Jim Rodwell before this evening’s game with Peterborough United.
Rodwell was brought into the club as part of the failed Charlie Methven takeover attempt shortly before Christmas. The ex-Sunderland employee was one of three senior appointees to leave The Valley earlier this month following the breakdown of talks between current owner Thomas Sandgaard and Methven’s group.
Holden was spotted chatting with Rodwell before the match and explained: “Jim Rodwell worked at Peterborough for a period of time before he came to Charlton Athletic. I’ve not seen him since [he left].
“We were working closely, myself, Jim, Andy Scott (former technical director) and the other guys. Then two and half weeks ago, overnight, that was it. I’ve not seen any the guys since then. Jim came to the game with Ed (Warrick, former finance director).
“Ed is a big Peterborough fan. They both live local. Think Jim just wanted to get out of the house and watch a game of football. He came over to say hello pre-game. Just a general chit-chat, really.”"
"Meanwhile a Lifer who wishes to remain anon accessed the Cayman Islands version of Companies House, and found out about Global Football Partners Ltd...precisely FA. Which of course is exactly why you set up companies in the Cayman Islands, BVI etc...
The below article was published along with a tweet announcing it. Twenty minutes later, it was gone.aa
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlie-methven-led-group-issue-statement-on-charlton-athletic-takeover-process/
Tweet transcript: "The Head of Dossiers managed to save Charlie's statement. Clearly it's just a tech issue, so when we get back from lunch we will post it up again for him. We charge no fee for this consultancy service, just 6% stake in #CAFC will do nicely."
Tweet transcript: "Charlie was pbviously trying out a new cool "pop-up statement" format. We're old fashioned so we've converted it to something more traditional for him. You're welcome😉
The statement reads [text extracted by a robot, could be some mistakes]: "
"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."
"Charlton Athletic owner agrees that sale of club unaffected by SE7 Partners dispute
Charlton Athletic owner Thomas Sandgaard has agreed with SE7 Partners’ claim that the collapse of their takeover talks will not prevent the League One club from being sold.
SE7 Partners, led by former Sunderland chief executive Charlie Methven, had entered into a period of exclusivity in December and have threatened legal action after the deal failed to reach completion.
US-based Dane Sandgaard had ended negotiations in early February citing that the interested party had not complied with “very specific terms”.
SE7 Partners said earlier this week that they had “reluctantly decided” to make a statement following Sandgaard’s “public utterances”.
“On December 20, 2022, SE7 Partners agreed terms with Thomas Sandgaard for the purchase of a majority shareholding in Clear Ocean Capital, the holding company which owns Charlton Athletic FC.
“The agreement was to purchase 90 per cent of COCL. SE7, and certain named co-investors, were given exclusivity to complete the deal – including passing the EFL approval process – until March 1, 2023.
“An agreed new management team consisting of Jim Rodwell, Andy Scott, Ed Warrick and Dean Holden was appointed to run the club under Mr Sandgaard in the meantime, with the aim of ensuring that relegation to League Two was avoided (as of December 20, CAFC was in 18th place in League One and had not won a match for two months).
“It was envisaged that the purchase would be completed around a month later, in early February thus giving the EFL plenty of time for approval.”
Sandgaard told our paper on Saturday that SE7 Partners had “clearly lost exclusivity on February 1 by not funding 90 per cent” of the club expenses from that point forwards.
SE7 Partners statement said: “During the envisaged approval process, SE7 agreed to take responsibility for funding its 90 per cent of Charlton Athletic’s financial needs (with a mechanism for repayment in the event EFL approval was withheld). The financial needs of the club were to be as determined by the interim chief financial officer in consultation with Thomas Sandgaard.”
SE7 Partners claim on February 2 that Sandgaard’s lawyers contacted them “demanding substantial funding be paid within 24 hours or SE7 would be considered by him in breach of its obligations”.
Their statement adds: “The interim CFO immediately responded in writing that according to the cashflow forecast, which was updated daily, there was no such funding requirement for at least three weeks.”
Sandgaard said: “They got reminded three times in the first few days after we had exceeded the last day of January. As to the 90 per cent they were supposed to fund, I repeatedly reminded them by email.
“They were not only reminded about how much they needed to put in, and they were reminded several times by my attorneys: ‘Hey, this is it guys’.
“Of course I still kept negotiating in good faith because it would have been nice if the deal had completed – it would’ve given me peace of mind and all that.
“They kept not funding it. So eventually on the 10th I said: ‘This is it, we can’t keep doing that’. I even told them back then that I’ll keep funding, I’ll fund it through February. There is no doubt they were out of exclusivity. ”
SE7 Partners claim that Sandgaard had not funded his 10 per cent share and that the EFL might object to a third party funding the club before it has agreed to the takeover.
Sandgaard said: “I keep sending money over to Charlton’s account all the time. Many times a month. I kept funding it every day.”
SE7 Partners’ statement added it was shocked that “on February 10 Mr Sandgaard unilaterally terminated the agreement by email and disabled access and IT accounts for the senior management team.”
Sandgaard said: “On the 10th I told Charlie: ‘We’re done’. And I told him I would confirm it by email. I confirmed it about two hours later. Half an hour later I believe my attorneys confirmed it to their attorneys. And we were done then, on the 10th.”
Charlton’s club fan adviser (@CAFCFanAdviser) tweeted a conversation they claimed to have had with Sandgaard on February 14.
“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.”
Spiegel had posted earlier that month a football with an emoji indicating to keep quiet.
That tweet has since been deleted, along with a February 5 post which said: “Made a move today that could turn out to be momentous. Cross your fingers.”
SE7 Partners claim that “ongoing negotiations with a third party during the exclusivity period” is a “clear breach of the legally binding exclusivity agreement”.
Sandgaard said: “I wasn’t negotiating anything during the exclusivity period. It was after that had run out and they had been reminded several times that I started having initial talks with another group.
“I was still trying to come to an agreement, because I didn’t know what the talks to another group were going to lead to. We kept talking but they kept not wanting to fund anything.”
SE7 Partners’ statement said: “Putting all of this to one side, over the last three weeks SE7 and its major investors have none the less continuously offered Mr Sandgaard the opportunity to reverse his breach of exclusivity and complete the deal on the agreed terms, which have never changed. 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.”
Sandgaard said: “I wasted a lot of time too. So how about that?”
SE7 Partners continued: “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.”
Sandgaard said: ”I would agree with that legal opinion. It has no impact on who I can sell the club to now or in the future.
“My opinion is the same as theirs.”"
https://mobile.twitter.com/_PeterVarney/status/1633505943303385089
He sounds just what we need 🤔
Fan Advisers Lucy Bishop and Lewis Catt had an introductory meeting with the club’s CEO Peter Storrie on Thursday to discuss issues moving forwards.
The below points were discussed at the meeting which was also attended by the club’s Head of Communications Tom Rubashow.
Update on takeover
LC asked for an update on where the club is on the takeover situation.
PS said as far as he is aware, the issue with Charlie Methven/SE7 Partners is between that group and Thomas Sandgaard and, as both sides have stated publicly, will not impact Charlton Athletic and any sale of the club. He said what is going on with that therefore is outside of his remit and is a legal situation between the two parties.
He said in terms of the current potential takeover, he’s gone through takeovers in the past and they can drag on. He said it's going well at this moment in time but to put a timescale on it is very difficult with due diligence, EFL approvals etc but that he was quite confident it wouldn’t be too long.
He said he spoke to the players on Thursday and updated them on the current situation and the conversations he’s had with the potential new owners, which has all been very positive. He said the potential new owners want to try and get the club out of this division as quickly as possible. He said in League One you lose a lot of money and that is something that no one wants to do for too long. He said the ambition is to pull a squad together that is capable of having a very serious challenge next season. He said everyone knows there is no guarantees in football and League One and that it is a tough league to get out of, but he does feel the conversations have all been very positive towards having a real go next season.
LC asked about the potential new owners stance on The Valley and training ground, given the club is currently disconnected from them.
PS said the first item for the potential new owners is to get the deal done and take control of the club but that they are aware of the situation with The Valley and the training ground. He said there is a reasonable length to go on the lease with The Valley and the training ground, so it isn’t the number one priority as the number one priority for them is to get the takeover deal done.
LB said any new ownership should understand that the training ground and The Valley need to be back with the club and that supporters will need at least a plan to explain how that will be accomplished.
Dean Holden
Please note, Thursday's meeting was before Dean Holden signed a new three-year contract with the club on Saturday.
LC said he knows there have been talks between the club and DH but asked if any progress had been made. He said he felt DH had done a good job and getting a contract sorted would help the club’s planning for next season.
PS said the discussions have been ongoing with TS and DH’s agent and that they have been going well and progressing. He said he’s had a lot of conversations with DH about plans moving forward, as part of the planning documents that he has been preparing for next season, particularly for the potential new owners. He said supporters should “watch this space” regarding DH’s contract as a renewal hopefully isn’t too far away.
PS said he has been very impressed with DH. He said DH has done well with the squad in place and he likes his ideas and the discussions he’s had with him planning for next season. He said that DH will want to finish this season strongly.
Remit
PS explained he has come in for TS to restructure the club, have a look at the forecasts and where the club is going for the rest of this year, which he has done with the help of the team in place at the club. He said that process has finished. He said he is working with DH on what the squad will look like for next season. He said he has also been spending time with club staff on the due diligence for the potential new owners. He said that includes forecasts and budgets for next season and will depend on where they want to go once the takeover is completed.
He said because of what has happened at the club in the last few months there have been a lot of changes in terms of personnel. He said part of his role has been to try and settle that all down. He said with that in mind he has been doing weekly management meetings with all senior staff so that everyone is aware of what is going on in each department. He said when you are running a football club it is about staff making their own decisions. He said he’s not going to sit there and make every decision – he said his job is to oversee things and advise wherever he can but that he wants staff to take responsibility. He said he is happy everyone is working together and starting to move forward.
Season tickets
LC said he felt, without any change, this season’s season ticket push would be as challenging as it ever has been.
TR agreed there would be challenges. He said that work had begun on season tickets and that the club would work with supporters on the campaign.
PS said it is well known that the club is losing money and that there is even more of an issue moving forwards with inflation meaning that suppliers’ costs are going up, electricity bills going up substantially in October when the fixed price runs out and the upcoming increase in minimum wage. He said the club needs to increase the income in the club in all areas. He said the club needs to get bigger gates and in football that means improved results are needed. He said there are fans who will renew no matter what but the club needs to get more people through the gates. He said the club needs to increase the commercial side and partnerships and that with a fresh look at it all that the club can get people to come.
LC asked if there had been any discussions on areas in the stadium being closed for the 2023/24 season.
PS said there had previously been internal discussions but he has taken the view that while the club is going through a process of due diligence and a potential takeover, it would be negative of the club to close any areas and didn’t make sense so there won’t be any closures.
Fans’ Forum
PS felt it is important that he attends the next Fans’ Forum, which was initially set for Thursday, March 16th. He explained he was unable to make that date because of an already scheduled booking. He offered to do Monday, March 13th but it was agreed it would make most sense to postpone one week until Thursday, March 23rd.
PS ended the meeting by asking the Fan Advisers about things they felt were wrong at the club currently and how the club could improve moving forwards.
Turkey Takeover Time
I'll let you lot come up with the Turkey puns whilst I update the thread
For now, I'll leave you with the only Turkey-related meme I know
Spiegel's prospectus was leaked and we don't like it because it called us "manageable but devoted" and said we wouldn't "exert excess influence over the club"
It was also wrong about a whole load of things, like saying we had 600k fans, MK Dons was in London, etc etc
Spiegel has told the SLP that he didn't want to slag off the fans or Sandgaard and that they aren't looking for funds to run or buy the club. The leaked prospectus "Project Floyd", was for raising funds for "some acquisition plans in the next 12-18 months"
Let the fun begin...
I might edit this post to include more info about the prospectus but i cba to read it and have to learn why Stalin was bad for an exam in 9 days time
Tüfekçi retweets the ITV's reporting of the infamous LIAR ⬇️ banner
"They [Tüfekçi's consortium] are monitoring. They would be interested if they could actually speak to Thomas..."