Don't think any conspiracy, just believe TS is completely out of his depth. Thrown dummy out if pram when things are failing, and when he thinks they should be going well. Won't accept he is wrong and so cannot adapt the strategy or listen to those with experience. Bloke just needs to sell up and run back to the US.
Don't think any conspiracy, just believe TS is completely out of his depth. Thrown dummy out if pram when things are failing, and when he thinks they should be going well. Won't accept he is wrong and so cannot adapt the strategy or listen to those with experience. Bloke just needs to sell up and run back to the US.
I think I’m just hoping there’s a more exciting explanation than Thomas just being an idiot 😩
I think we can all agree that Charlton have been blessed with two egotists and a bunch of crooks and until we get past this period in our history we will all be asking why ?
What do you all want, applause? I’ve noticed on here every so often there’s a pile on in here, is it my turn tonight? just ignore me if you don’t agree.
Apologies, but you typed a load of conspiracy theory nonsense and then asked our opinion (a ? means someone is looking for responses).
You get a few replies saying you're talking nonsense (you asked) and then you accuse the people that replied to your question of piling on.
Maybe re-read what you said and in particular understand that by asking a question, the rest of us assumed you were expecting a response to the question you posed.
The fact is, Sandgaard threw a lot of money around when he entered the scene. He wasted a lot of it but it tells you he came into this to be a success. Something has changed of course, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with Roland.
Don't think any conspiracy, just believe TS is completely out of his depth. Thrown dummy out if pram when things are failing, and when he thinks they should be going well. Won't accept he is wrong and so cannot adapt the strategy or listen to those with experience. Bloke just needs to sell up and run back to the US.
I think I’m just hoping there’s a more exciting explanation than Thomas just being an idiot 😩
Maybe you a right, it is all conjecture and opinion. I just hope we get some luck on the owner front. Club needs investment and stability. Just so we can worry about the football instead.
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
What do you all want, applause? I’ve noticed on here every so often there’s a pile on in here, is it my turn tonight? just ignore me if you don’t agree.
Apologies, but you typed a load of conspiracy theory nonsense and then asked our opinion (a ? means someone is looking for responses).
You get a few replies saying you're talking nonsense (you asked) and then you accuse the people that replied to your question of piling on.
Maybe re-read what you said and in particular understand that by asking a question, the rest of us assumed you were expecting a response to the question you posed.
Yea I get all that, and thanks for the reasoned reply, I just forgot noone on here has any grey areas with their opinions. My mistake.
The fact is, Sandgaard threw a lot of money around when he entered the scene. He wasted a lot of it but it tells you he came into this to be a success. Something has changed of course, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with Roland.
He got bad advice from Roddy. Covid struck badly effecting revenue. Share price fell 75%. Lost his "biggest customer" and may now have to repay monies as well to his "biggest customer".
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
Exactly, where’s my bloody tin hat I’m putting it back on!
Well, well! I've just received an email from the club, thanking me for my attendance at the Exeter game and hoping I enjoyed it as much as they did.....I DIDN'T GO!! I was at home not willing to travel down on a Tuesday to watch what had been, up until Tuesday, a pile of crap. Yes I'm a ST holder, but have been ti just 3 games this season, due to poor performances. Yet this is the first time they've thanked me for going!! Oh and then asked if I want to buy a ticket for next Monday? I'm a ST holder why would I want to buy a ticket! Fuck me they can't even get that right....unbelievable!
We're Charlton not Real Madrid. If poor performances are going to stop you going then you follow the club. You might as well have saved your money, we've been poor for years!
Although having said that we're actually unbeaten at home.
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point.
All this talk of TS spending £20million is laughable, he paid £1million and we had £400k in the bank. He took a loan of £300k. These are only the things we now know about.
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point.
Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard?
I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. What would Sandgaard gain?
Well, well! I've just received an email from the club, thanking me for my attendance at the Exeter game and hoping I enjoyed it as much as they did.....I DIDN'T GO!! I was at home not willing to travel down on a Tuesday to watch what had been, up until Tuesday, a pile of crap. Yes I'm a ST holder, but have been ti just 3 games this season, due to poor performances. Yet this is the first time they've thanked me for going!! Oh and then asked if I want to buy a ticket for next Monday? I'm a ST holder why would I want to buy a ticket! Fuck me they can't even get that right....unbelievable!
We're Charlton not Real Madrid. If poor performances are going to stop you going then you follow the club. You might as well have saved your money, we've been poor for years!
Although having said that we're actually unbeaten at home.
Three wins and three draws at home this season (think it’s five wins if you include cup matches) - pretty good value for ST holders so far!
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point.
Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard?
I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. IWhat would Sandgaard gain?
RD needed to get the club back off ESI who were shafting it left right and centre, in return Thommy gets a cut when RD ultimately finds a buyer for the whole shebang.
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point.
Were ESI in default? Maybe they were but I don't recall. They were simply conmen that sold because they had no money. Why would RD bring in TS to buy the club or TS buy the club for RD, when RD was desperate to sell the club (if he kept the assets) ? If RD wanted to the buy the club back after desperately selling he could have done so himself.
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point.
Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard?
I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. What would Sandgaard gain?
I don't think the author declared that Sandgaard gained anything. His point was that Sandgaard appeared from nowhere and pretty dam quick, not knocking that intervention but if I remember correctly Sandgaard gained ownership due to the fact that those who allegedly owned ESI actually did not and as such their contract was to own the club wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Please correct me if I'm wrong cos there are people on here far more in the know than me and I am happy to be corrected .
All this talk of TS spending £20million is laughable, he paid £1million and we had £400k in the bank. He took a loan of £300k. These are only the things we now know about.
what else has gone on?
We are in serious trouble by the sounds of things
How do you think the wages and bills get paid every month @robroy ?
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point.
Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard?
I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. What would Sandgaard gain?
I don't think the author declared that Sandgaard gained anything. His point was that Sandgaard appeared from nowhere and pretty dam quick, not knocking that intervention but if I remember correctly Sandgaard gained ownership due to the fact that those who allegedly owned ESI actually did not and as such their contract was to own the club wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Please correct me if I'm wrong cos there are people on here far more in the know than me and I am happy to be corrected .
ESI 1 (Southall/Nimer) owned the club and ESI 2 (Elliot/Farnell) were claiming ownership
I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.
That's a fair point.
Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets
Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point.
Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard?
I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. IWhat would Sandgaard gain?
RD needed to get the club back off ESI who were shafting it left right and centre, in return Thommy gets a cut when RD ultimately finds a buyer for the whole shebang.
But he's lost an absolute fortune. That cut would have to be pretty large to make it worthwhile, no? In which case Roland would have been better off selling it at a much-reduced price to begin with.
Would this all be happening if we were top two or three?
TS is the reason why we are not top two or three. You get what you pay for and he’s not paid for anyone.
Anyone that sticks their head above the parapet and calls out something for what it is, is not being negative for the sake of it. Something does not add up.
Look at all of the long standing members of staff just sacked, left or resigned!
Comments
You get a few replies saying you're talking nonsense (you asked) and then you accuse the people that replied to your question of piling on.
Maybe re-read what you said and in particular understand that by asking a question, the rest of us assumed you were expecting a response to the question you posed.
Maybe you a right, it is all conjecture and opinion. I just hope we get some luck on the owner front. Club needs investment and stability. Just so we can worry about the football instead.
My mistake.
Covid struck badly effecting revenue.
Share price fell 75%.
Lost his "biggest customer" and may now have to repay monies as well to his "biggest customer".
Although having said that we're actually unbeaten at home.
what else has gone on?
I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. What would Sandgaard gain?
Maybe they were but I don't recall.
They were simply conmen that sold because they had no money.
Why would RD bring in TS to buy the club or TS buy the club for RD, when RD was desperate to sell the club (if he kept the assets) ?
If RD wanted to the buy the club back after desperately selling he could have done so himself.