CAST update on those Rodwell talks

 CAST have provided an update on their recent discussions with James Rodwell, who is back with the 'Methven consortium' trying to wrest control of the club from want-away Thomas Sandgaard. If you haven't been keeping up, then I should add that Methven has been sidelined for now and until this week, what updates we have seen, have been coming from Josh Friedman.

It looks like Rodwell and CAST seem sure that there is only one party actively bidding following Marc Spiegel's failure to raise the money needed for his bid. CAST have spoken with Peter Varney in making that assertion and the former Charlton Chief Executive has again reiterated that his prospective backers were only ever interested in a complete deal that included The Valley and Sparrow Lane. Given that there has been zero movement on Duchatelet's ridiculous asking price, Varney acknowledges that his personal involvement in any Charlton takeover is now, most likely, at an end. I fully understand his position but my take here is that Peter is fed-up being asked about his plans. You do have to wonder what was going on pre-Christmas when he implored us all to attend the Brighton match in some sort of show of strength? Duchatelet was no nearer dropping his demands then and it wouldn't have been a bid to increase gate receipts for Sandgaard.

Rodwell was bold enough to suggest that he would become the Chairman if their consortium was successful and he named their group as Josh Friedman, Spencer Friedman (son), Gabriel Brener (the other billionaire) and Global Football Partners (Methven's crew). He went on to say that they have agreed to a share-holding split that doesn't give overall control to any one person or group. If that is true, what it also says in that each have a relatively small investment unless they have a large player budget which seems unlikely. He also tried to suggest Methven's involvement might be limited to the 'holding board' but I am not buying that. The man craves attention and believes he is a great CEO. 

CAST asked them about the offshore set-up in the Cayman Islands and this was dismissed as being 'fiscally responsible,' although if that were simply the case, you would expect most other clubs to be registered there too. That sounds hollow to me.

There was also mention of perhaps one person having a smaller "75k" stake and I was left wondering if mention of this was an attempt to draw a line under the 'Texas prospectus.' If it was, it doesn't allay my doubts as it gives life to the associated email trail which spoke of a "fast burn" and huge cost cutting.

Finally, CAST tell us that he was most uncomfortable being questioned about leaks via social media. This may be because Methven's attempts here in earlier in the year didn't help their case (and he has been sidelined for now) but he did talk about a set-up involving separate 'holding' and 'footballing' boards, one executive and the other operational. He used the term 'shadow' which was the word used in one of the social media leaks who suggested this. However, he denied that they have a 100 Day plan which the leaks were adamant was ready to be shared with supporters. This will be uncomfortable for those given the information (no comment from CAST on this) but maybe Rodwell & Co have just decided to step back from that given the fact that Sandgaard has apparently rejected their latest, improved offer for the club.

I'll say it again, you really do have to question why Sandgaard appears unwilling to take their money? I don't buy that he has had a change of heart given the recent rise in the Zynex share price and, anyway, that fell back dramatically after news to the market that he was ready to sell another big slice of his ownership. He was withdrawn for much of the last season and has been unusually tight-lipped since the heat was turned on him a few months back. All I can think is that he was furious with their negotiating shenanighans in January/February when they tried to apply fan pressure on him to do a deal and their public threat of legal action since which they are still maintaining is in play. 

So where do we go from here? If Sandgaard remains responsible for paying the bills, we are in for a potentially disastrous season. However, the facts remain that he has lost interest in his dream and really wants off the financial hook. Any quibbling over the price now (£2m difference?) will be lost by September and if we are struggling come Christmas, he will be lucky to give the club away.