Care to enlighten those of us who are not twit's please..
No names named or anything , just that there's a new interested party with access to funds to deal with both TS and Roland but TS remains an obstacle to a sale
So there's now 2 obstacles (RD and TS) in the way of someone parting with approx. £20m to buy an entity that'll lose them £8m a year, unless they spend £10m+(?) at Christmas, in order to have an outside chance of going up.
Care to enlighten those of us who are not twit's please..
No names named or anything , just that there's a new interested party with access to funds to deal with both TS and Roland but TS remains an obstacle to a sale
So there's now 2 obstacles (RD and TS) in the way of someone parting with approx. £20m to buy an entity that'll lose them £8m a year, unless they spend £10m+(?) at Christmas, in order to have an outside chance of going up.
Yup , I do find the £20m figure very very steep but I don't have any recent takeovers to go off of other clubs to know what the going rate would be.
Any potential new owner of our club must not only be willing to financially invest in the club to provide a team that is capable of returning and staying in the Championship. To do that they must have a detailed costed plan and understand that breaking even in L1 is a pipe dream and therefore enough investment must be made available to build a winning 1st team and increased support for the academy.. While the majority of clubs are selling clubs a new owner must seek to retain emerging talent for longer but we must understand that player sales will always be part of our club but at a price that allows for further investment.
So, if I read this right, not having Twitter, we are in a "possible" takeover situation AGAIN, Note the word possible, in the light of this should this be the point when this thread becomes Members Only?
I read that as Sandgaard and Roland asking the impossible
I don't think there's too much sand left in TS's hourglaass. I wonder, if a potential transaction requires The Valley to be part of the deal to facilitate a TS exit, how cooperative RD would be, and what the relationship between the two of them is like. I wouldn't be hopeful that RD will play ball now any more than previously.
A takeover saga will at least make the rest of the season interesting. Bring it on, hopefully this one has a bottomless pit of money he wants to waste on us
I read that as Sandgaard and Roland asking the impossible
I don't think there's too much sand left in TS's hourglaass. I wonder, if a potential transaction requires The Valley to be part of the deal to facilitate a TS exit, how cooperative RD would be, and what the relationship between the two of them is like. I wouldn't be hopeful that RD will play ball now any more than previously.
Dushitelet will want mega bucks, he's always been about the land.
Unfortunately unless we have a billionaire fan that nobody knows about there will always be a divide between an owner and our fans. 99% of any potential owners will see us as a punt investment and there is no getting away from that. Our only hope is that they are not conmen. Put yourself (difficult I know) in the shoes of someone or group that want to buy a club and invest untold millions they are not doing it for the love of CAFC are they ? I'm not saying it wont happen but I do think we have to accept that there will always be stuff that the fans wont like
Care to enlighten those of us who are not twit's please..
No names named or anything , just that there's a new interested party with access to funds to deal with both TS and Roland but TS remains an obstacle to a sale
So there's now 2 obstacles (RD and TS) in the way of someone parting with approx. £20m to buy an entity that'll lose them £8m a year, unless they spend £10m+(?) at Christmas, in order to have an outside chance of going up.
All Sandgaard’s asking price tells me is that he’s not desperate to sell, yet.
The longer this rolls on with him sinking millions in without getting anywhere breakeven, the more reasonable the price becomes. That could be a wait of a couple of months, it could six months, it could be another year…
That’s a great article. A big driver of Charlton’s commercial income in the PL was the local authority (using the lounges for meetings and events of various kinds) plus the Thames Gateway Bridge public enquiry. The latter was a one-off and the councils just don’t have the money to pay for facility hire in the way they did then. It’s also the case that outsourcing means the full revenue is no longer in the Charlton accounts, only the payment the club receives, which means it’s not strictly like for like.
That’s a great article. A big driver of Charlton’s commercial income in the PL was the local authority (using the lounges for meetings and events of various kinds) plus the Thames Gateway Bridge public enquiry. The latter was a one-off and the councils just don’t have the money to pay for facility hire in the way they did then. It’s also the case that outsourcing means the full revenue is no longer in the Charlton accounts, only the payment the club receives, which means it’s not strictly like for like.
Interesting, I was wondering why the commercials dropped off so significantly (apart from the drop in leagues), also strange that they get weaker upon promotion in 2012/13 and never really recovered, is that the point when the shop/food was outsourced?
That’s a great article. A big driver of Charlton’s commercial income in the PL was the local authority (using the lounges for meetings and events of various kinds) plus the Thames Gateway Bridge public enquiry. The latter was a one-off and the councils just don’t have the money to pay for facility hire in the way they did then. It’s also the case that outsourcing means the full revenue is no longer in the Charlton accounts, only the payment the club receives, which means it’s not strictly like for like.
Interesting, I was wondering why the commercials dropped off so significantly (apart from the drop in leagues), also strange that they get weaker upon promotion in 2012/13 and never really recovered, is that the point when the shop/food was outsourced?
Shop was outsourced in 2012. I think the catering and hospitality was in 2014.
All the talk of JFC is fine, but until I’ve seen him play a few consecutive games I’m treating him almost like a new signing. Have no idea if his injuries have adversely affected him long term, but from the odd cup performances it’s possible. Can’t really tell until he gets a run in the team, which may of course never happen.
TS is probably asking for silly money for the club, likely the 'real' valuation + his losses so far added on top. Its again with the Roland-style "Im entitled to get every penny Ive spent back" attitude, blocking progress.
I was told this week that JfC is due a large pay rise after his next league appearance. That’s why he is only in contention in the cups. Simple as that.
Source - some guy as close to the situation as you can get.
Assuming it’s accurate why did we trigger the contract extension? Because we expected to sell in the transfer window and recoup some of of the costs of his salary whilst injured?
Seems a strange commercial tactic given we are led to believe player wages are known amongst and between clubs and agents. Can’t see how that was ever likely to pan out to our advantage. Don’t forget TS dues seemingly rely on Gallen on this side of things so seems a bit random.
And didn’t Garner in an article with Cawley rebuff this suggestion?
Garner not going to come out and say he can’t play him due to the finances around his contract is he??
All the talk of JFC is fine, but until I’ve seen him play a few consecutive games I’m treating him almost like a new signing. Have no idea if his injuries have adversely affected him long term, but from the odd cup performances it’s possible. Can’t really tell until he gets a run in the team, which may of course never happen.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting A compelling and comprehensive if utterly depressing account of how TS has gone from saviour to mug in double quick time. I had such high hopes. I suspect in his naivete and narcissism he did too!
I was told this week that JfC is due a large pay rise after his next league appearance. That’s why he is only in contention in the cups. Simple as that.
Source - some guy as close to the situation as you can get.
Assuming it’s accurate why did we trigger the contract extension? Because we expected to sell in the transfer window and recoup some of of the costs of his salary whilst injured?
Seems a strange commercial tactic given we are led to believe player wages are known amongst and between clubs and agents. Can’t see how that was ever likely to pan out to our advantage. Don’t forget TS dues seemingly rely on Gallen on this side of things so seems a bit random.
And didn’t Garner in an article with Cawley rebuff this suggestion?
Garner not going to come out and say he can’t play him due to the finances around his contract is he??
If it is true then we should not play him as we need the money to stay in the budget to go towards paying a striker. If it’s not true then Garner does not want him in his team. His call.
Well, one thing we’ve all learned if we didn’t know the meaning of the word already is “Narcissist“ I didn’t know what it meant until we got TS as an owner and it started going wrong!!
I was told this week that JfC is due a large pay rise after his next league appearance. That’s why he is only in contention in the cups. Simple as that.
Source - some guy as close to the situation as you can get.
Assuming it’s accurate why did we trigger the contract extension? Because we expected to sell in the transfer window and recoup some of of the costs of his salary whilst injured?
Seems a strange commercial tactic given we are led to believe player wages are known amongst and between clubs and agents. Can’t see how that was ever likely to pan out to our advantage. Don’t forget TS dues seemingly rely on Gallen on this side of things so seems a bit random.
And didn’t Garner in an article with Cawley rebuff this suggestion?
Garner not going to come out and say he can’t play him due to the finances around his contract is he??
But saying the opposite (lying?) is a little different. Surely he could have side stepped it and said nothing.
But my main point is I find it an odd contract stipulation / criteria. I don't see JFC attracting a fee when we ourselves have picked up players for free so if we were anxious to avoid increased costs we would have cancelled the contract surely & let JFC negotiate a contract elsewhere?
It may exist but perhaps Garner isn't convinced he is the player for him regardless.
I was told this week that JfC is due a large pay rise after his next league appearance. That’s why he is only in contention in the cups. Simple as that.
Source - some guy as close to the situation as you can get.
Assuming it’s accurate why did we trigger the contract extension? Because we expected to sell in the transfer window and recoup some of of the costs of his salary whilst injured?
Seems a strange commercial tactic given we are led to believe player wages are known amongst and between clubs and agents. Can’t see how that was ever likely to pan out to our advantage. Don’t forget TS dues seemingly rely on Gallen on this side of things so seems a bit random.
And didn’t Garner in an article with Cawley rebuff this suggestion?
Garner not going to come out and say he can’t play him due to the finances around his contract is he??
But saying the opposite (lying?) is a little different. Surely he could have side stepped it and said nothing.
But my main point is I find it an odd contract stipulation / criteria. I don't see JFC attracting a fee when we ourselves have picked up players for free so if we were anxious to avoid increased costs we would have cancelled the contract surely & let JFC negotiate a contract elsewhere?
It may exist but perhaps Garner isn't convinced he is the player for him regardless.
It may have been JFC who had the option of the contract extension and it may have cost us more to terminate it than not?
Like many departments at the club, the academy have been impacted by the challenges faced by the club’s kit supplier Castore.
It means some academy teams are still playing or training in last season’s kit. The club are working hard with Castore to get everything in place as soon as possible.
A Castore statement said: “Due to supply chain issues off the back of the pandemic, all sportswear retail partners have experienced delays in clothing and accessories. However, Castore is working tirelessly to get desired product to Charlton as soon as possible.”
A quick internet search will tell you that there is no issue with supply of any of the Rangers or Newcastle kits, home, away, third, fourth, women's, juniors etc. However, they only seem to have home shirts for Charlton, MK Dons and Salford. The smaller clubs don't appear to prioritise. As has been said, the home shirt is available on e-bay for £37.27. Why would you pay more from Castore?
I was told this week that JfC is due a large pay rise after his next league appearance. That’s why he is only in contention in the cups. Simple as that.
Source - some guy as close to the situation as you can get.
Assuming it’s accurate why did we trigger the contract extension? Because we expected to sell in the transfer window and recoup some of of the costs of his salary whilst injured?
Seems a strange commercial tactic given we are led to believe player wages are known amongst and between clubs and agents. Can’t see how that was ever likely to pan out to our advantage. Don’t forget TS dues seemingly rely on Gallen on this side of things so seems a bit random.
And didn’t Garner in an article with Cawley rebuff this suggestion?
Garner not going to come out and say he can’t play him due to the finances around his contract is he??
But saying the opposite (lying?) is a little different. Surely he could have side stepped it and said nothing.
But my main point is I find it an odd contract stipulation / criteria. I don't see JFC attracting a fee when we ourselves have picked up players for free so if we were anxious to avoid increased costs we would have cancelled the contract surely & let JFC negotiate a contract elsewhere?
It may exist but perhaps Garner isn't convinced he is the player for him regardless.
I would guess the contract would have been extended before Garner was appointed. To cancel the contract would mean paying him the value, or at least a chunk of his remaining contract.
He would have to agree agree and presumably he would only do that if someone was prepared to meet his aspirations.
The cheaper option I guess would be to loan him out and cross your fingers someone will pay you something or at least take him in January. The loan fell through but I would guess it will go through in January. If his wages would increase if we play him, it would be madness to do that if Garner wants him off the payroll.
Comments
Yup , I do find the £20m figure very very steep but I don't have any recent takeovers to go off of other clubs to know what the going rate would be.
dismissed as rubbish by Ben Garner ..
https://southnorwoodaddick.com/2022/10/16/project-breakeven-is-unrealistic/
https://southnorwoodaddick.com/2022/10/16/project-breakeven-is-unrealistic/
The longer this rolls on with him sinking millions in without getting anywhere breakeven, the more reasonable the price becomes. That could be a wait of a couple of months, it could six months, it could be another year…
https://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2022-23-blogs/16-10-sandgaard-is-left-looking-like-a-man-with-no-plan/
(Apols if link already posted).
All the talk of JFC is fine, but until I’ve seen him play a few consecutive games I’m treating him almost like a new signing. Have no idea if his injuries have adversely affected him long term, but from the odd cup performances it’s possible. Can’t really tell until he gets a run in the team, which may of course never happen.
If it’s not true then Garner does not want him in his team. His call.
I didn’t know what it meant until we got TS as an owner and it started going wrong!!
Thanks CL for expanding my vocabulary 😉
But my main point is I find it an odd contract stipulation / criteria. I don't see JFC attracting a fee when we ourselves have picked up players for free so if we were anxious to avoid increased costs we would have cancelled the contract surely & let JFC negotiate a contract elsewhere?
It may exist but perhaps Garner isn't convinced he is the player for him regardless.
To cancel the contract would mean paying him the value, or at least a chunk of his remaining contract.
If his wages would increase if we play him, it would be madness to do that if Garner wants him off the payroll.