Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Friedman & Bremer
Covered End
Posts: 52,365
I've asked on CL before and no one replied.
Do we have evidence that either of these men are actually part owners of Charlton?
Do we have evidence that either of these men are actually part owners of Charlton?
1
Comments
-
As far as I know neither has uttered a single word about their ownership. I've heard of silent partners but I'd have thought at least 1 of the "big 3" would have made a comment by now.Covered End said:I've asked on CL before and no one replied.
Do we have evidence that either of these men are actually part owners of Charlton?0 -
-
No but I think they were understudies in that famous firm of solicitors Dewey, Cheetham & Howe 😉0
-
So five times seven is thirty five percent we know about.
What about the other sixty five percent?2 -
5% plus could mean five and a half percent for all we know.
An unexplained sixty five percent leaves a huge space to be filled by accurate and inaccurate speculation.
Did the seven ‘plus fivers’ hold a board meeting and a vote to sack Dean Holden?0 -
The only ones that will ever know are the EFL. Perhaps we could put in a Subject Action Request (SAR) and find out.1
-
No.seth plum said:5% plus could mean five and a half percent for all we know.
An unexplained sixty five percent leaves a huge space to be filled by accurate and inaccurate speculation.
Did the seven ‘plus fivers’ hold a board meeting and a vote to sack Dean Holden?
They're not really part of any footballing decisions. That's down to Scott and a smaller part of Rodwell to deal with.
The owners are all pretty much silent and are letting the gang of four crack on with it, the only part owner that we are probably going to hear from is Methven, and we've already heard too much from him.
Friedman and Brener are part owners, the club would be breaking all kinds of rules to name them if they weren't.
Going to just have to get used to hearing very little about or from them. It's not going to change.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
I asked Cawley directly if he'd approached either of them for comment on their involvement and got the radio silence treatment.
I also asked @PragueAddick on more info regarding his Methven piece mentioning both of them worked together at another football club?
And got the same treatment!0 -
Much like Slater-Cash then. And Jimenez, for whom we have a court ruling that he never owned the club.Sage said:
No.seth plum said:5% plus could mean five and a half percent for all we know.
An unexplained sixty five percent leaves a huge space to be filled by accurate and inaccurate speculation.
Did the seven ‘plus fivers’ hold a board meeting and a vote to sack Dean Holden?
They're not really part of any footballing decisions. That's down to Scott and a smaller part of Rodwell to deal with.
The owners are all pretty much silent and are letting the gang of four crack on with it, the only part owner that we are probably going to hear from is Methven, and we've already heard too much from him.
Friedman and Brener are part owners, the club would be breaking all kinds of rules to name them if they weren't.
Going to just have to get used to hearing very little about or from them. It's not going to change.7 -
So if I understand you correctly Scott and Rodwell agreed together to sack Holden (by text?) but did not need to ask the ownership first…but might have told 5+%Methven as a formality as he is local.
I wonder if Scott and Rodwell texted all the 5+% ‘owners’ about their decision to sack Dean Holden.
0 -
Who are the four in the Gang of Four making the football decisions?
Presumably nobody in the Gang of Four has any ownership interests.0 -
Methven, Scott, Rodwell and Warrick i guess?seth plum said:Who are the four in the Gang of Four making the football decisions?
Presumably nobody in the Gang of Four has any ownership interests.0 -
I think we can safely assume that Methven was a decision maker.3
-
Oh yeah, Posh Warrick.
So one of the Gang of Four is a part owner fully involved with the footballing decisions I presume. Or maybe not.
Perhaps Warrick, Scott and Rodwell asked Methven to leave the room whilst they made the footballing decision to sack Holden.0 -
Oh boy. Here we go...0 -
Seth, a decision to sack someone doesn't have to, and normally wouldn't, be made by shareholders - it is part of executive duty for those appointed by the owners to run the business. In this case Scott and/or Rodwell would have delegated powers to make such a decision, irrespective of the shit way they apparently communicated that decision.seth plum said:So if I understand you correctly Scott and Rodwell agreed together to sack Holden (by text?) but did not need to ask the ownership first…but might have told 5+%Methven as a formality as he is local.
I wonder if Scott and Rodwell texted all the 5+% ‘owners’ about their decision to sack Dean Holden.2 -
Silence is Holden
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
@Airman Brown
From what you've seen so far, does this apparent ownership model match the one in the infamous brochure?
I.e, a hands off approach from the investors who leave it to a UK based team to make all of the footballong decisions?0 -
Yes but the word is that at least one shareholder, Methven, would have been part of, or even the main decision maker in, the move to sack Dean Holden.bobmunro said:
Seth, a decision to sack someone doesn't have to, and normally wouldn't, be made by shareholders - it is part of executive duty for those appointed by the owners to run the business. In this case Scott and/or Rodwell would have delegated powers to make such a decision, irrespective of the shit way they apparently communicated that decision.seth plum said:So if I understand you correctly Scott and Rodwell agreed together to sack Holden (by text?) but did not need to ask the ownership first…but might have told 5+%Methven as a formality as he is local.
I wonder if Scott and Rodwell texted all the 5+% ‘owners’ about their decision to sack Dean Holden.0 -
What is good about our fan base in my opinion, is that we’re prepared to interrogate the detail in order to identify the devil.2
-
In his role as part of the SMT. Which is separate to his role as a shareholder. Methven is both a shareholder and an executive. Friedman, Brener, etc are NOT.seth plum said:
Yes but the word is that at least one shareholder, Methven, would have been part of, or even the main decision maker in, the move to sack Dean Holden.bobmunro said:
Seth, a decision to sack someone doesn't have to, and normally wouldn't, be made by shareholders - it is part of executive duty for those appointed by the owners to run the business. In this case Scott and/or Rodwell would have delegated powers to make such a decision, irrespective of the shit way they apparently communicated that decision.seth plum said:So if I understand you correctly Scott and Rodwell agreed together to sack Holden (by text?) but did not need to ask the ownership first…but might have told 5+%Methven as a formality as he is local.
I wonder if Scott and Rodwell texted all the 5+% ‘owners’ about their decision to sack Dean Holden.1 -
The man who rides two horses at once.0
-
Is this Methven?1 -
However every previous decision to remove a manager at Charlton has been made by the major shareholders IIRC. I can’t think of an exception.bobmunro said:
Seth, a decision to sack someone doesn't have to, and normally wouldn't, be made by shareholders - it is part of executive duty for those appointed by the owners to run the business. In this case Scott and/or Rodwell would have delegated powers to make such a decision, irrespective of the shit way they apparently communicated that decision.seth plum said:So if I understand you correctly Scott and Rodwell agreed together to sack Holden (by text?) but did not need to ask the ownership first…but might have told 5+%Methven as a formality as he is local.
I wonder if Scott and Rodwell texted all the 5+% ‘owners’ about their decision to sack Dean Holden.
This structure is clearly different, but not I suggest in a good way.0 -
.....and eventually falls off.seth plum said:The man who rides two horses at once.1 -
Wasn’t it initially reported as “the family of” Friedman and Bremer? For all we know it could be one of their kids who’s into “soccer” who’s decided to own a bit of an English soccer club.0
-
I agree but in that case his role should come with a job title, shouldn’t it? Otherwise it lacks definition, which is obviously the intention.thenewbie said:
In his role as part of the SMT. Which is separate to his role as a shareholder. Methven is both a shareholder and an executive. Friedman, Brener, etc are NOT.seth plum said:
Yes but the word is that at least one shareholder, Methven, would have been part of, or even the main decision maker in, the move to sack Dean Holden.bobmunro said:
Seth, a decision to sack someone doesn't have to, and normally wouldn't, be made by shareholders - it is part of executive duty for those appointed by the owners to run the business. In this case Scott and/or Rodwell would have delegated powers to make such a decision, irrespective of the shit way they apparently communicated that decision.seth plum said:So if I understand you correctly Scott and Rodwell agreed together to sack Holden (by text?) but did not need to ask the ownership first…but might have told 5+%Methven as a formality as he is local.
I wonder if Scott and Rodwell texted all the 5+% ‘owners’ about their decision to sack Dean Holden.5
