Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Rumours of Unpaid Rent
Comments
-
Plot twist: TS spread the rumour so that when he gets the 2mil Pope money, nobody takes the piss with asking prices.5
-
Could tie in with the theory that Bostock and Marquis rumours being spread to find where the leaks were coming from. Or perhaps to lower expectations in the transfer window.shine166 said:Plot twist: TS spread the rumour so that when he gets the 2mil Pope money, nobody takes the piss with asking prices.5 -
Same Twitter mob who thought transfers were decided solely by TS. I’ll take it with a single grain of salt.11
-
I take everything I read on here & on SM with a pinch of salt. Unless you know something first hand then who do you trust. Remember ESI & how we all wanted the EFL to hurry up & clear them so we could spend big in the January transfer window. Look how that mob turned out.
Fool me once.......but as Roger sang right here in 1974, we wont be fooled again.4 -
Do u own the East Stand?eaststandmike said:If Roland is waiting for his money and got a bit of a sweat on I am glad about it.I had a contract at The Valley for years worth thousands of pounds per annum and as soon as RD took over with the wicked witch regular payments became a thing of the past.Had to start court proceedings twice to get paid it was that bad.
1 -
I’ve just had a look at some of the exchanges.
“Here’s a bad thing about TS”
“How do you know”
“Trust me, reliable source”
“I’ll reserve judgement for now thanks”
“You think TS is the messiah you ain’t gotta clue, Farnell, Southall, Dodger, we’re skint, training ground is shit, you’ll see”
Is pretty much how it all plays out, I don’t know what any of it really means all I know is CAFC Twitter is getting weirder by the minute.7 -
And yea, as was foretold, Twitter didst turn into Facebook3
-
I’m sure some genuinely hear things, but I do wonder who their sources are and why they’re sharing the info. It’ll be from someone’s perspective, potentially for their own benefit just as others get Sandgaard’s view when he messages them on LinkedIn.BR7_addick said:I’ve just had a look at some of the exchanges.
“Here’s a bad thing about TS”
“How do you know”
“Trust me, reliable source”
“I’ll reserve judgement for now thanks”
“You think TS is the messiah you ain’t gotta clue, Farnell, Southall, Dodger, we’re skint, training ground is shit, you’ll see”
Is pretty much how it all plays out, I don’t know what any of it really means all I know is CAFC Twitter is getting weirder by the minute.
Some of them have become so critical of TS that anything and everything is spun negatively. Euell leaving is bad news, but of course had TS forced Euell on Garner and didn’t let him bring in Marshall it would be repeating the mistakes of last summer.
I’m somewhere in the middle but hopeful we have a better summer than last year which allows us to properly challenge for at least the top 6. There’s still plenty of work to be done to improve the squad to give us a chance of doing that.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
Substitute 'social media' with 'Twitter'Valley11 said:I think I wish social media didn’t exist at least four times a day.
I've said it once before, and it may be unpopular, but I'd like to see Twitter inbedded posts banned from CL.4 -
Most of my Twitter blocked list is fellow Charlton fans.10
-
Wouldn't be out of the question for there to be a set off between paying the rent and paying for permanent establishment upgrades paid for by the tenant, from which only the landlord could permanently benefit.J BLOCK said:Spends a shed load of money on the training ground but doesn't pay rent...
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Hang on a minute! That would require the landlord not being a dribbling delusional loon.
Sorry, I'll have a word with myself.
As you were.
The WUM on twatter has had its moment of notoriety which is what it sought initially, shame.1 -
He has not shed out a load of money. he has lent the club a shed load of money, which is repayable
could make the same argument with Roland - every penny he spent was added to the club as debt
If the club doesn't have the funds to pay the rent, Sandgaard needs to lend the club even more money
At this point we are 70 mill in debt ish?0 -
Who?golfaddick said:I take everything I read on here & on SM with a pinch of salt. Unless you know something first hand then who do you trust. Remember ESI & how we all wanted the EFL to hurry up & clear them so we could spend big in the January transfer window. Look how that mob turned out.
Fool me once.......but as Roger sang right here in 1974, we wont be fooled again.2 -
Let’s ‘just say’ there is an element of truth in this.
A bit of left field thought here..….maybe TS is currently pissed off with Duchatalet for some reason and is holding off as a matter of principle as he sees it that is (improvements at Sparrows Lane for example).
Bit of a long shot I know, with only a small percentage of it being the likely.
As a matter of fact, I find the story to be highly unlikely anyway.1 -
Bulk of that is owed to RD, and isn’t it only going to be paid if someone buys The Valley and training ground? Not quite the same as the club itself having debts of £70m.benjest1989 said:He has not shed out a load of money. he has lent the club a shed load of money, which is repayable
could make the same argument with Roland - every penny he spent was added to the club as debt
If the club doesn't have the funds to pay the rent, Sandgaard needs to lend the club even more money
At this point we are 70 mill in debt ish?0 -
Where are you getting that £70m figure from?benjest1989 said:He has not shed out a load of money. he has lent the club a shed load of money, which is repayable
could make the same argument with Roland - every penny he spent was added to the club as debt
If the club doesn't have the funds to pay the rent, Sandgaard needs to lend the club even more money
At this point we are 70 mill in debt ish?0 -
money is lent to the club as it's the most tax efficent way of doing it0
-
Think its less to do with 'tax' and more to do with a possible way of ultimately being repaid versus just holding shares / equity.Rothko said:money is lent to the club as it's the most tax efficent way of doing it
Pretty sure it was stated TS loan is an on interest free basis so he is down by whatever sum he has put in (as indeed is RD and the likes of Murray before that).0 - Sponsored links:
-
A question.
Does Thomas sandgaurd seek attention? Is he genuinely an attention seeker who cannot help himself? Or is that an unjustified insult.
Or, are there some right weird random pot stirring knobheads out there? Who have no life whatsoever?
Or, an unfortunate combination of two separate problems?
I don't know why sandgaurd would want to add fuel to an unnecessary drama or start some rumours.
He should get off Twitter. His fan communication has been appreciated, but it's probably now time to jump off it and minimise unnecessary conflict.2 -
It’s him on LinkedIn talking to individuals via a private message board. He fuels the fire by doing soDave2l said:A question.
Does Thomas sandgaurd seek attention? Is he genuinely an attention seeker who cannot help himself? Or is that an unjustified insult.
Or, are there some right weird random pot stirring knobheads out there? Who have no life whatsoever?
Or, an unfortunate combination of two separate problems?
I don't know why sandgaurd would want to add fuel to an unnecessary drama or start some rumours.
He should get off Twitter. His fan communication has been appreciated, but it's probably now time to jump off it and minimise unnecessary conflict.2 -
I don’t see him as an attention seeker, we wanted an owner who engages with fans, he played his guitar in the oak after a game ffs can’t get much more engaged than that.Dave2l said:A question.
Does Thomas sandgaurd seek attention? Is he genuinely an attention seeker who cannot help himself? Or is that an unjustified insult.
Or, are there some right weird random pot stirring knobheads out there? Who have no life whatsoever?
Or, an unfortunate combination of two separate problems?
I don't know why sandgaurd would want to add fuel to an unnecessary drama or start some rumours.
He should get off Twitter. His fan communication has been appreciated, but it's probably now time to jump off it and minimise unnecessary conflict.
If I had to be needlessly critical I would say he comes off a little dorky at times but who gives a shit, I don’t.12 -
Same group of "fans" seem to start every negative rumour about TS that all invariably end up being bullshit.
Go and support another club because they seem to want us to fail.
12 -
Napa AddickHenry Irving said:
Where are you getting that £70m figure from?benjest1989 said:He has not shed out a load of money. he has lent the club a shed load of money, which is repayable
could make the same argument with Roland - every penny he spent was added to the club as debt
If the club doesn't have the funds to pay the rent, Sandgaard needs to lend the club even more money
At this point we are 70 mill in debt ish?25 -
I think he has good intentions and the principle of more communication is a good one. Problem is that between trolls and idiots on social media and blunders like Understandgate (and the whole Garner saga really) it becomes very clear why owners are NOT normally so open - it doesn't always end well.shirty5 said:
It’s him on LinkedIn talking to individuals via a private message board. He fuels the fire by doing soDave2l said:A question.
Does Thomas sandgaurd seek attention? Is he genuinely an attention seeker who cannot help himself? Or is that an unjustified insult.
Or, are there some right weird random pot stirring knobheads out there? Who have no life whatsoever?
Or, an unfortunate combination of two separate problems?
I don't know why sandgaurd would want to add fuel to an unnecessary drama or start some rumours.
He should get off Twitter. His fan communication has been appreciated, but it's probably now time to jump off it and minimise unnecessary conflict.1 -
Repaying of a loan would be way more tax efficient than paying salary of dividends on shares. Debt in the company can also be used to offset any one off profits. Of course it is likely irrelevant as getting money out of football is a fools gamevalleynick66 said:
Think its less to do with 'tax' and more to do with a possible way of ultimately being repaid versus just holding shares / equity.Rothko said:money is lent to the club as it's the most tax efficent way of doing it
Pretty sure it was stated TS loan is an on interest free basis so he is down by whatever sum he has put in (as indeed is RD and the likes of Murray before that).
No. We don't own our ground/training ground and would have to buy them back but that is not debt.benjest1989 said:He has not shed out a load of money. he has lent the club a shed load of money, which is repayable
could make the same argument with Roland - every penny he spent was added to the club as debt
If the club doesn't have the funds to pay the rent, Sandgaard needs to lend the club even more money
At this point we are 70 mill in debt ish?
Of course TS has shed out a load of money. He would have to do an amazing job to get the money back or be very lucky. At the moment he is a few million into his hobby with no obvious way of getting it back any time soon/at all. Whether it is put in by debt or equity is irrelevant it is still cash out from TS pocket and into CAFC.0 -
And you’re gullible enough to start a thread about it;)Vfrf said:
Unsubstantiated at this point, but a good bloke, never known him to be a fabricator.0 -
Sorry Sillav, I'll try to do better.sillav nitram said:
And you’re gullible enough to start a thread about it;)Vfrf said:
Unsubstantiated at this point, but a good bloke, never known him to be a fabricator.1 -
Athletico Charlton said:
Repaying of a loan would be way more tax efficient than paying salary of dividends on shares. Debt in the company can also be used to offset any one off profits. Of course it is likely irrelevant as getting money out of football is a fools gamevalleynick66 said:
Think its less to do with 'tax' and more to do with a possible way of ultimately being repaid versus just holding shares / equity.Rothko said:money is lent to the club as it's the most tax efficent way of doing it
Pretty sure it was stated TS loan is an on interest free basis so he is down by whatever sum he has put in (as indeed is RD and the likes of Murray before that).
No. We don't own our ground/training ground and would have to buy them back but that is not debt.benjest1989 said:He has not shed out a load of money. he has lent the club a shed load of money, which is repayable
could make the same argument with Roland - every penny he spent was added to the club as debt
If the club doesn't have the funds to pay the rent, Sandgaard needs to lend the club even more money
At this point we are 70 mill in debt ish?
Of course TS has shed out a load of money. He would have to do an amazing job to get the money back or be very lucky. At the moment he is a few million into his hobby with no obvious way of getting it back any time soon/at all. Whether it is put in by debt or equity is irrelevant it is still cash out from TS pocket and into CAFC.
But he isn't paying himself a salary or dividends so no tax implication and a loan will only repay what he lent in the first place i..e no profit especially as its interest free as I understand.
I guess in accounting terms you are suggesting he can reduce his profits (and therefore tax) if he ultimately has to write off the debt. But that is a long way down the line.
But likely a moot point as you suggest.0
