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

Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)

19899101103104170

Comments

  • edited October 2022
    supaclive said:
    I don't believe TS has the cash to run us
    Some here say he won't spend it running us
    Either way, it isn't great 
    Hence my mid table mediocrity comment 
    And that's actually a positive on where we currently sit.

    Until we get an owner willing to spend probably £15m+ of their own cash on salaries and transfer fees, and quickly, we won't get promoted
    Don't forget that our turnover is a limiting factor in that if we are to operate within EFL rules. 
  • With the original budget when he took over the priority should have been promotion. The money spent on other items, such as cat1 etc could and should have waited until we were in the Championship. If he'd have got the team promoted after 2 years, what would have been wasted?
    Missed a trick with realising the most important thing is your first team being successfull. That brings the crowds, and the sponsorship  no gimmicks required.
    100% this, the success of the first team should drive the rest of the business. 
  • robroy said:
    Clarky said:
    swordfish said:
    supaclive said:
    I don't believe TS has the cash to run us
    Some here say he won't spend it running us
    Either way, it isn't great 
    Hence my mid table mediocrity comment 
    And that's actually a positive on where we currently sit.

    Until we get an owner willing to spend probably £15m+ of their own cash on salaries and transfer fees, and quickly, we won't get promoted
    Don't forget that our turnover is a limiting factor in that if we are to operate within EFL rules. 
    Very much so, and this will be unpopular but it works both ways. We all want TS to spend millions on players and get further in debt but some won't pay his over inflated match day prices to aid the turnover Whilst I think he has got his pricing structure massively wrong it seems unfair to  moan about him dipping further into his pockets when people, rightly or wrongly, won't do the same!
    I doubt that TS will struggle to heat the house this winter and feed his kids. There is a limit to what people can afford, it’s classed as an expensive (and disappointing) luxury I’m afraid.

    Everyone has less pennies in their pockets and they put the prices up, utter madness. The walk up fee of £37 is the same my mate pays for his Man Utd seat. 



    £37 for a match day ticket at old Trafford? Obviously that's in a specific location but still didn't think it could be as low.

    £37 for a match day ticket at Charlton is absolutely horrendous. Anything above £30 is really stupid and it's instantly off putting. 

    Thomas sandguard is stressed and he doesn't enjoy owning the club.

    The stress is getting the worst out of his decision making. His stress shouldn't be anyone else's problem 
  • Dave2l said:
    robroy said:
    Clarky said:
    swordfish said:
    supaclive said:
    I don't believe TS has the cash to run us
    Some here say he won't spend it running us
    Either way, it isn't great 
    Hence my mid table mediocrity comment 
    And that's actually a positive on where we currently sit.

    Until we get an owner willing to spend probably £15m+ of their own cash on salaries and transfer fees, and quickly, we won't get promoted
    Don't forget that our turnover is a limiting factor in that if we are to operate within EFL rules. 
    Very much so, and this will be unpopular but it works both ways. We all want TS to spend millions on players and get further in debt but some won't pay his over inflated match day prices to aid the turnover Whilst I think he has got his pricing structure massively wrong it seems unfair to  moan about him dipping further into his pockets when people, rightly or wrongly, won't do the same!
    I doubt that TS will struggle to heat the house this winter and feed his kids. There is a limit to what people can afford, it’s classed as an expensive (and disappointing) luxury I’m afraid.

    Everyone has less pennies in their pockets and they put the prices up, utter madness. The walk up fee of £37 is the same my mate pays for his Man Utd seat. 



    £37 for a match day ticket at old Trafford? Obviously that's in a specific location but still didn't think it could be as low.

    £37 for a match day ticket at Charlton is absolutely horrendous. Anything above £30 is really stupid and it's instantly off putting. 

    Thomas sandguard is stressed and he doesn't enjoy owning the club.

    The stress is getting the worst out of his decision making. His stress shouldn't be anyone else's problem 
    Yeah, he text me to ask what had gone wrong at Charlton. I then went on to reel off multiple things and mentioned the west stand walk up at £37. He was astounded. 

    I'm sorry TS your time is up, you will have an exit strategy. Now is the time 
  • Sponsored links:


  • JamesSeed said:
    Gribbo said:
    Did anyone ask Jay Wyatt how TS is going to relocate us and sell the land when he doesn't own the land?
    Also, would it be correct that Charlton can owe Castore for kits?

    If Castore manufacture and sell the kits in their franchised shop, why would Charlton pay for any kits?
    Maybe they do, I'm just asking the question.

    (I see Sommerville Addick just said similar before me).
    I ordered a kit for my nephew yesterday from the online shop, called the shop immediately after to try and intercept the dispatch and get his name and number printed on ghe back but the bloke I was speaking to said it gets sent direct from the Castore. 

    Not sure if that has any baring on whether the Club might owe Castore any money but, imo, it says quite a bit about the situation with the shop if its only stocking kit items and only enough for "walk in" purchasers
    My sister ordered me one with Dobson & 4 on the back. It is the wrong size. I rang club and was told that I needed to liaise with Castore. I contacted them over multiple emails only to be told that as it's been printed on the back they can't accept a refund or exchange. Shame as I am unlikely to wear it as too big. 
    eBay? Or maybe someone on here might buy it off you. What size is it?
    It's a medium. Not used. Still got packaging bag. Think it was about £65. Really annoying. I could probably wear it over my Rab jacket, lol. 
  • edited October 2022
    Rob7Lee said:
    I don't believe he is skint. But just like RD he has realised this football lark is a lot harder than he imagined.

    Therefore he's not prepared to continually pump cash into what is in essence a failing business (in that it loses money hand over fist), he also may be looking and thinking he doesn't want to spend most of his wealth on a football club.

    One of his biggest mistakes is to believe he can be competitive and break even, the two just don't compute in this division. His option is to continually lose cash or increase income, he's chosen the latter without fully understanding it's impossible.

    I honestly think I could do a better job than him on minimising the loses........

    His best hope based on what I believe he wants is to be extremely clever in the transfer market, loans in particular and he'll also need some luck on players coming through. So far though he seems to be doing the opposite.

    Our promotion season sets what he needs to do, 2 or 3 high level loans and getting in players of the Taylor Ilk on free's. We had a number of players that year who could and did go on to play at a higher level. Currently I don't see any of our players being capable of playing in the Championship.
    No one has said he is skint. What is being said is he does not have the wealth to fund the losses of a EFL football club.
    lets say he has about £150 in assets like shares property then how many years can he afford to throw £6 to£8 away on a football club before he has squandered his wealth.
  • Rob7Lee said:
    msomerton said:
    Rob7Lee said:
    I don't believe he is skint. But just like RD he has realised this football lark is a lot harder than he imagined.

    Therefore he's not prepared to continually pump cash into what is in essence a failing business (in that it loses money hand over fist), he also may be looking and thinking he doesn't want to spend most of his wealth on a football club.

    One of his biggest mistakes is to believe he can be competitive and break even, the two just don't compute in this division. His option is to continually lose cash or increase income, he's chosen the latter without fully understanding it's impossible.

    I honestly think I could do a better job than him on minimising the loses........

    His best hope based on what I believe he wants is to be extremely clever in the transfer market, loans in particular and he'll also need some luck on players coming through. So far though he seems to be doing the opposite.

    Our promotion season sets what he needs to do, 2 or 3 high level loans and getting in players of the Taylor Ilk on free's. We had a number of players that year who could and did go on to play at a higher level. Currently I don't see any of our players being capable of playing in the Championship.
    Rob7Lee said:
    I don't believe he is skint. But just like RD he has realised this football lark is a lot harder than he imagined.

    Therefore he's not prepared to continually pump cash into what is in essence a failing business (in that it loses money hand over fist), he also may be looking and thinking he doesn't want to spend most of his wealth on a football club.

    One of his biggest mistakes is to believe he can be competitive and break even, the two just don't compute in this division. His option is to continually lose cash or increase income, he's chosen the latter without fully understanding it's impossible.

    I honestly think I could do a better job than him on minimising the loses........

    His best hope based on what I believe he wants is to be extremely clever in the transfer market, loans in particular and he'll also need some luck on players coming through. So far though he seems to be doing the opposite.

    Our promotion season sets what he needs to do, 2 or 3 high level loans and getting in players of the Taylor Ilk on free's. We had a number of players that year who could and did go on to play at a higher level. Currently I don't see any of our players being capable of playing in the Championship.
    No one has said he is skint. What is being said is he does not have the wealth to fund the losses of a EFL football club.
    lets say he has about £150 in assets like shares property then how many years can he afford to throw £6 to£8 away on a football club before he has squandered his wealth.
    With respect, if he has £150m in asset and has investsed it wisely he won't need to touch the capital if he needs 6-8m a year for Charlton.

    I believe it's more likely he doesn't want to, rather than can't, much the same as RD in the end.
    Except if he gets a return of £10 pounds on his assets, he will need to reinvest some, he will need to pay interest on whatever mortgage he has on his home or homes etc. so would you for example stop paying your mortgage to fund a ego project.
    it all comes down to how much can you afford to spend before it drastically impinges on the rest of your lifestyle and business.
  • se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
  • We will not achieve anything until we get an owner who surrounds himself with proper football people, not arse lickers, bully boys and idiots.
    Great Post!
  • se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Maybe for not much longer ....
  • Sponsored links:


  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    Whats she’s a ‘Dr’ of exactly?
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    Whats she’s a ‘Dr’ of exactly?
    She has a PhD in Counselling Psychology: https://www.linkedin.com/in/raelynnmaloneyphd/
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
    She’s posted on social media on her birthday in the past thanking her darling with pictures of the two of them snuggled up.
    unless they’ve recently split?
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
    I was in the Directors Box for the Cambridge match and sat right behind them. Judging by the way she was hanging off him and showing affection 😘 I would say that they are most definitely a couple
  • supaclive said:
    From one extreme ( applying/finding more coaches for Cat 1) to the other.....

    Sounds like no-one is safe from his penny pinching.

    Oh, there is one exception, of course....
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
     You sure about that?
  • Bearing in mind that the academy is part-funded by grants and Valley Gold, £140k would be a sizeable slice of Charlton's commitment.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!