I have to say I am not surprised the Charlton link has broken down, within hours of it being on or a possibility. I'll try not to go on as I gave my summary around page 600 but just a few points.
1) Most journalists, clearly sports journalists are completely out of the loop here. They are flopping between one position to the next. I would avoid taking much notice of what they say. Usmanov will not release information via them. It may just be incompetence, but given the teams they often support and how quickly people who support Liverpool in our local paper run with the story I don't think we can entirely rule out bitterness and envy being the motive for a lot of the stories. An attempt to goad Evertonians.
2) As I suggested above, papers such as Bloomberg and the FT (or affiliates) look to be getting the news on some occasions. These are reliable sources worth monitoring. Bloomberg last said Usmanov was looking to "financially help Everton" and a senior board member (who was involved with the Abramovic deal) has said they would be looking at how he could do that. They have not corrected that story at any point. A paper in their remit has now rubbished the Charlton reports and has again reiterated he is looking to invest in Everton.
People have to ask themselves who they believe, a world renowned paper for investors with a source close to Usmanov, or a Kopite working for a tabloid with no sources who has reversed his position continual often in a matter of days. I can't tell you which one is right or wrong, but on the balance of probability I know which I would believe to have greater validity.
3) The manner in which the Charlton story was tarnished was significant. It happened a lot quicker than I expected (within 12 hours I believe). I think there's a broader message here, not only about Charlton, but also about reports being used to link him to other clubs.
The fact it quoted a "source close to Usmanov" in journalistic language means it is someone close to him, possibly Usmanov himself but that person is not prepared to be named in the report. Thats what "sources close to x/y/z" mean, someone the journalist knows is reliable and close to the person but is someone who can't go public.
While the source did not go on record to say he was still interested in Everton, the fact it was stated again in the report is significant. The journalist would have asked about Everton (and possibly other teams) to see if they would rule them out. It's likely the source would have said not to rule it out, was happy for Everton to be mentioned but wouldn't want their "sources close to" to be added to it. Suffice to say whoever is close to Usmanov is happy for it to be known he is interested in investing in Everton. Interestingly no mention of AC Milan (which goes along with other distancing).
4) The links from Usmanov from Everton have become strengthened in the last 24 hours. The fact Lewis probably thought he could have some fun and wind up a few Evertonians and it has drastically backfired for him and on him is an added bonus. I maintain my gut feeling that it was likely leaked by Charlton.
5) It's worth monitoring who says what at key moments. There were a number of posters on here pushing that it could be a goer or that it spelt the end of Everton and Usmanov. Yet on the reports have dissipated there is no reversal in any of their rhetoric. I don't think people should stop posting of having opinions, but I'd guard against anyone reading to look at a posters track record when evaluating the strength of their opinion.
I have no inside knowledge on this but have tried to look at events openly. For the most part a lot of what I have suggested has been true. Others have got a lot more right than me (and tend to be on the Usmanov In grouping). It's not because of being an oracle, but clearly however I am interpreting the evidence seems to have some truth to it. It may radically alter, but presently I feel quite confident in my reads of the situation.
