Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Charlie Methven: Global Football Partners have no plans to ‘flip’ Charlton Athletic

1679111216

Comments

  • Hal1x said:
    BTW Gabriel Brener, one of the three major owners, was at Sparrows Lane today with his son.

    Was having lunch in the staff canteen and being introduced to various players.

    Had a quick chat with him.  Hadn't realised he was originally from Mexico.
    Did he have a chat with Dobbo?, Did he have a big bag like this with him?


    Yes, he did speak to Dobbo and no, I didn't see any such bag.


  • BTW Gabriel Brener, one of the three major owners, was at Sparrows Lane today with his son.

    Was having lunch in the staff canteen and being introduced to various players.

    Had a quick chat with him.  Hadn't realised he was originally from Mexico.
    Did he come across well?
  • Corporate PR professional delivers competent media interview. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Hal1x said:
    BTW Gabriel Brener, one of the three major owners, was at Sparrows Lane today with his son.

    Was having lunch in the staff canteen and being introduced to various players.

    Had a quick chat with him.  Hadn't realised he was originally from Mexico.
    Did he come across well?
    Yes, said he wanted to visit the museum so he's OK by me
    But did he actually visit the museum?, or is he just a crook and shyster who can fool a susceptible hardworking museum curator and spin him a yarn?🤪
    The proof of the pudding will be in the visit 😉
  • edited April 23
    Good luck “flipping” us now (if that were ever the intention!) - doubt our value has been this low in the modern era. 
  • se9addick said:
    Good luck “flipping” us now (if that were ever the intention!) - doubt our value has been this low in the modern era. 
    Fake news.
  • BTW Gabriel Brener, one of the three major owners, was at Sparrows Lane today with his son.

    Was having lunch in the staff canteen and being introduced to various players.

    Had a quick chat with him.  Hadn't realised he was originally from Mexico.
    Was it the sombrero that gave it away ? 
  • edited April 24
    References to our history are largely irrelevant. As of Jan 2020 this became a brand new business.
    Just imagining if these words came out of Methven's mouth...
  • Chunes said:
    References to our history are largely irrelevant. As of Jan 2020 this became a brand new business.
    Just imagining if these words came out of Methven's mouth...
    Yes (the new) 'we' are a minge of a club who are always in the third tier and struggle in the pizza van trophy , we have lived in the shadow of our bigger neighbours who have bigger crowds and play in higher leagues .

  • The Jamaican tie up being mentioned twice I notice.  I don't know much about football in Jamaica or Mount Pleasant football club but is our academy really going to be benefit from that or does it just give CM an excuse to expense his holidays.
    It means the Unity Cup is coming back baby! 


  • Sponsored links:


  • Chunes said:
    I might be wrong but I don't think these new owners came into a club with a gutted infrastructure. It was Roland who left a gutted infrastructure to Sandgaard. And TS, for all his failures, at least invested into rebuilding. The improvements at the training ground speak for themselves, the investments in the medical department, and the ultimately failed effort to gain Category 1 status. Sandgaard still managed to finish higher than this lot, having walked into a club that had been run on a gaffa-taped shoestring. Methven & Co have inherited less of a mess than TS did, and yet so far have managed to perform much worse.
    Isn’t the story that Methven met with/spoke to/contacted Sandgaard and said he could run a football club better/properly?
    You are right, judging by results (and the training ground physical development) so far Sandgaard has a better track record than all the billionaires who own apparently 95% of our shares.
    I am curious as to how somebody with apparently 5% is calling the shots. Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog, or has the dog had it’s tail ‘docked’ and yet the tail still has life in it in London, whilst the dog is out of the picture overseas?
  • seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    I might be wrong but I don't think these new owners came into a club with a gutted infrastructure. It was Roland who left a gutted infrastructure to Sandgaard. And TS, for all his failures, at least invested into rebuilding. The improvements at the training ground speak for themselves, the investments in the medical department, and the ultimately failed effort to gain Category 1 status. Sandgaard still managed to finish higher than this lot, having walked into a club that had been run on a gaffa-taped shoestring. Methven & Co have inherited less of a mess than TS did, and yet so far have managed to perform much worse.
    Isn’t the story that Methven met with/spoke to/contacted Sandgaard and said he could run a football club better/properly?
    You are right, judging by results (and the training ground physical development) so far Sandgaard has a better track record than all the billionaires who own apparently 95% of our shares.
    I am curious as to how somebody with apparently 5% is calling the shots. Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog, or has the dog had it’s tail ‘docked’ and yet the tail still has life in it in London, whilst the dog is out of the picture overseas?
    Is it the case if the ‘5%’ investor calling the shots or more one of the ‘95%’ being the smarter type that believe you don't buy a dog and bark yourself; and that anybody with a front and centre role will probably do a much better job if they’ve put some of their own money on the line ?

    there seems to be a succession of stories of one investor or another putting in an appearance. I find that pretty reassuring that they are taking a keen interest in where their money is going but not publicly calling the shots. Not keeping a close watch on what’s going on is where it can all go badly wrong but unnecessary interference or mixed messages can just as easily turn out to be more costly and damaging. The jury is still out but for me it probably a 6/10 for their ownership approach so far.
  • seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    I might be wrong but I don't think these new owners came into a club with a gutted infrastructure. It was Roland who left a gutted infrastructure to Sandgaard. And TS, for all his failures, at least invested into rebuilding. The improvements at the training ground speak for themselves, the investments in the medical department, and the ultimately failed effort to gain Category 1 status. Sandgaard still managed to finish higher than this lot, having walked into a club that had been run on a gaffa-taped shoestring. Methven & Co have inherited less of a mess than TS did, and yet so far have managed to perform much worse.
    Isn’t the story that Methven met with/spoke to/contacted Sandgaard and said he could run a football club better/properly?
    You are right, judging by results (and the training ground physical development) so far Sandgaard has a better track record than all the billionaires who own apparently 95% of our shares.
    I am curious as to how somebody with apparently 5% is calling the shots. Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog, or has the dog had it’s tail ‘docked’ and yet the tail still has life in it in London, whilst the dog is out of the picture overseas?
    Is it the case if the ‘5%’ investor calling the shots or more one of the ‘95%’ being the smarter type that believe you don't buy a dog and bark yourself; and that anybody with a front and centre role will probably do a much better job if they’ve put some of their own money on the line ?

    there seems to be a succession of stories of one investor or another putting in an appearance. I find that pretty reassuring that they are taking a keen interest in where their money is going but not publicly calling the shots. Not keeping a close watch on what’s going on is where it can all go badly wrong but unnecessary interference or mixed messages can just as easily turn out to be more costly and damaging. The jury is still out but for me it probably a 6/10 for their ownership approach so far.
    Is it clear to you as to who is actually calling the shots?
  • seth plum said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    I might be wrong but I don't think these new owners came into a club with a gutted infrastructure. It was Roland who left a gutted infrastructure to Sandgaard. And TS, for all his failures, at least invested into rebuilding. The improvements at the training ground speak for themselves, the investments in the medical department, and the ultimately failed effort to gain Category 1 status. Sandgaard still managed to finish higher than this lot, having walked into a club that had been run on a gaffa-taped shoestring. Methven & Co have inherited less of a mess than TS did, and yet so far have managed to perform much worse.
    Isn’t the story that Methven met with/spoke to/contacted Sandgaard and said he could run a football club better/properly?
    You are right, judging by results (and the training ground physical development) so far Sandgaard has a better track record than all the billionaires who own apparently 95% of our shares.
    I am curious as to how somebody with apparently 5% is calling the shots. Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog, or has the dog had it’s tail ‘docked’ and yet the tail still has life in it in London, whilst the dog is out of the picture overseas?
    Is it the case if the ‘5%’ investor calling the shots or more one of the ‘95%’ being the smarter type that believe you don't buy a dog and bark yourself; and that anybody with a front and centre role will probably do a much better job if they’ve put some of their own money on the line ?

    there seems to be a succession of stories of one investor or another putting in an appearance. I find that pretty reassuring that they are taking a keen interest in where their money is going but not publicly calling the shots. Not keeping a close watch on what’s going on is where it can all go badly wrong but unnecessary interference or mixed messages can just as easily turn out to be more costly and damaging. The jury is still out but for me it probably a 6/10 for their ownership approach so far.
    Is it clear to you as to who is actually calling the shots?
     Nathan mostly 
  • Articulate, speaks like PR man he is.

    Constantly distancing himself from the football side, which as people have said, has been a disaster on the mens side.

    Implied the women's team funding was too big for a league 1 side while saying funding/structure of women's game was unclear. Sounds like they are hoping for a restrucure of the women's game/pyramid/funding before committing to further costs.

    Stating it was desirable and possible that the women's team will possibly play all their games at the Valley suggests a major investment in the playing surface is coming.

    A lot of praise and hopes for the future being pinned on Nathan Jones.  He gives me optimism too but not sure I buy this "he was the first choice in September" line. Very convinient to say that now.

    A lot of the rest was vague.

    A 3 year plan but we're a year in already: what milestones have we hit or can we expect next season?

    Success on the pitch breeds bigger gates which breeds more success.  Yes, it's a virtuous cycle but what are they going to do differently to kick start that cycle?  Buy early and spend money. All good but words.

    Not buying the claim that buying "big" in January was prep for this summer. It was desperation and some of them were loans.

    I'm all for reaching out to the local, black, community but that is a slow and long term project, not a three year fix. Ditto the Jamaican academy link, no harm in trying but we already have a great academy.

    CM is, IMHO, trying hard to come over as a far more modest and likable chap than he was on Netflix and I believe it might well be something he has learnt from.  He doesn't seem an egotist or delussional but it is an official club puff piece to sell season tickets and reassure the punters, not a Panorama investigaton.

    The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
    I believe the pitch is being relayed.  I can't remember who told me and I may be wrong but I think it is.  Additionally the Women can't play at VCD any more and were struggling to find a suitable venue that would tick all the boxes for the league.
  • seth plum said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    I might be wrong but I don't think these new owners came into a club with a gutted infrastructure. It was Roland who left a gutted infrastructure to Sandgaard. And TS, for all his failures, at least invested into rebuilding. The improvements at the training ground speak for themselves, the investments in the medical department, and the ultimately failed effort to gain Category 1 status. Sandgaard still managed to finish higher than this lot, having walked into a club that had been run on a gaffa-taped shoestring. Methven & Co have inherited less of a mess than TS did, and yet so far have managed to perform much worse.
    Isn’t the story that Methven met with/spoke to/contacted Sandgaard and said he could run a football club better/properly?
    You are right, judging by results (and the training ground physical development) so far Sandgaard has a better track record than all the billionaires who own apparently 95% of our shares.
    I am curious as to how somebody with apparently 5% is calling the shots. Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog, or has the dog had it’s tail ‘docked’ and yet the tail still has life in it in London, whilst the dog is out of the picture overseas?
    Is it the case if the ‘5%’ investor calling the shots or more one of the ‘95%’ being the smarter type that believe you don't buy a dog and bark yourself; and that anybody with a front and centre role will probably do a much better job if they’ve put some of their own money on the line ?

    there seems to be a succession of stories of one investor or another putting in an appearance. I find that pretty reassuring that they are taking a keen interest in where their money is going but not publicly calling the shots. Not keeping a close watch on what’s going on is where it can all go badly wrong but unnecessary interference or mixed messages can just as easily turn out to be more costly and damaging. The jury is still out but for me it probably a 6/10 for their ownership approach so far.
    Is it clear to you as to who is actually calling the shots?
    Has to be Alfie May.
  • Corporate PR professional delivers competent media interview. 
    Snake oil salesmen always do. 90% waffle, 5% bollocks and 5% OK. Note his inability to answer the question about the group's strategy for the club.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!