Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)
Comments
-
Lordflashheart said:
Correct in terms of how RD views it I suspect, but no valuation firm would provide a figure based on ‘hope value’ - they will only value based on the facts, as their PI is on the line and RICS rules wouldn’t permit it anyway - so a professional valuation would, based on the situation as it is, have a Market Value which is significantly higher than VPAthletico Charlton said:
I suspect the VP would be higher personally and that that is what drives RDs valuation. All about "hope value".Lordflashheart said:
That’s a liability i.e. a cost to whoever is the lessee, or in other words the tenant, who ultimately in this case is TSswordfish said:
You can thank @carly burn for this, posted on this thread on the 8th October:DagenhamAddick said:How much value does the 12 year lease actually have if any. Does anyone know if that value can be calculated at all?
"I believe the total rent liability adds up to £7.578 million over 15 years paid in different instalments. So roughly just over half a million £ a year."
The lease has no value to a 3rd party like, say, me / my bank as a lender
Only long leases have a value to lend against, ideally greater than 125 years - mortgage providers generally will not provide a mortgage on a leasehold property, normally a flat, if it’s less than 70 years
So, he can’t borrow against The Valley - RD could, as a 12 year lease, with I assume no break clauses, has a value to me as a lender if the freehold of The Valley was charged as security
That said, as a tenant covenant (i.e. the financial strength of the tenant) I wouldn’t lend, as CAFC is a poor covenant (loss making, reliant on its owner to survive etc etc)
In other words, if I lent, then CAFC goes bust, there is no longer any rent to cover the loan payments
I would also have a massive Loan to Value problem - when you get a bank valuation, you get 3 values - Market Value, which is value based upon the property with the benefit of the lease - Vacant Possession Value, which is the value of the property if there was no lease i.e. no tenant / no income, and Reinstatement Value, which is cost to rebuild if the place burned down for example
There will be a huge difference between Market Value and Vacant Possession Value, as what alternative use does The Valley have ?? It’s pretty limited isn’t it
Also cost to rebuild will be mind bogglingly expensive
That’s my view - but I am not a valuer- I think a member of CL is a RICS valuer - can’t recall who it is
Your bank won't allow Hope Value for lending because the instruction you send will deliberately carve it out. But a valuer can value Hope Value. For example HMRC require it for IHT purposes.
I am not convinced a market value would have a higher value than VP even stripping out hope. A loss making (for many years) covenant is adding practically no real value to a purchaser, and in fact if a purchaser is not a special purchaser after the club too then frankly most would buy in the hope we were not there for long.
All immaterial sadly as RD is wealthy enough to just quote whatever number he wants and sit tight; realistic or not; as he won't be reliant on debt.0 -
The arse is about to fall out of the property market and not just here. All advanced economies will hit recession and it will be a slow long recovery, I think the 35 mill was overpriced then and it's certainly going to be unachievable now.JamesSeed said:
He's 75 isn't he? Probably wouldn't be interested in any deal like that, as he might not be around to see any benefit.lancashire lad said:Surely there is room for a negotiation with RD along the lines of the Valley/SP is worth x in it's current usage but with outline planning would be worth y. Buy it for x and then if things change and planning can be granted agree a deal where RD receives a percentage of the difference in the values
No, I think he quite likes his 500k a year income from his property, and he probably feels that Sparrows Lane is an increasing asset at a time when people are talking about reducing regulations on land development.
I can't see why he'd be looking for anything less than the £35m he turned down in 2019 unfortunately.2 -
Gone Palace I believe.supaclive said:Finance Directors only quit for -
A) a much better, happier job; or
they are the first to work out it's all going tits up
Either way TS has some serious issues now
So probably A.0 -
But from the strong rumours around the club, members of staff are looking to move on due to the toxicity there.carly burn said:
Gone Palace I believe.supaclive said:Finance Directors only quit for -
A) a much better, happier job; or they are the first to work out it's all going tits up
Either way TS has some serious issues now
So probably A.4 -
Maybe we could get an intern to take it on for a bit and save some £. Plus maybe MS was good at maths at school when not practicing his "hard" shot.2
-
Was having a browse through my timeline on LinkedIn and came across this article. Thought it was quite appropriate in light of the circumstances
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/news/how-to-heal-from-a-toxic-job-6038986
1 -
many say that in January we will need a Striker and maybe a LB and CH, the choices are not great, take the Striker the choices are:
1: Loan of a young striker from a prem club who will be like RS in that he is learning and will make mistakes
2: Loan in an experienced striker who is not getting games, problem high wages but could be effective
3: Train on and promote our of our own
4: Buy a striker from a L1/L2 club who has a proven record but his club are not performing.
now look at it from TS's point of view supposing that we are in or near the playoffs, if we aren't it doesn't matter, for him it will depend on whether he is negotiating to sell or not. If he is negotiating to sell he might want to sell any currently decent players and reduce his losses, but the potential purchaser will not want the only assets of the club to be sold, whatever that is he won't be increasing his losses buy bringing in more players.
If he is not negotiating to sell he will want to reduce his losses but he might take a gamble and spend on a new player which I think will depend on the fan base coming out and supporting the club by increasing attendance, that way his income will increase with the possible bonus of promotion.
I know sod all, this is just my take on the situation
0 -
A lot can happen between now and January. TS wants the club to break even, but what if it never does? How long is he prepared (and able) to pay the bills for?
I don't see him selling soon, as that would be admitting failure
0 -
It is all very strange ! I know that he got pelters for commenting on performances etc but this new silence is deafening !
After 3 wins on the bounce I would have suspected atleast a few BOOM's
3 -
AndyG said:It is all very strange ! I know that he got pelters for commenting on performances etc but this new silence is deafening !
After 3 wins on the bounce I would have suspected atleast a few BOOM's
The quiet non sack people sandgaard is an OK enough individual.
When Charlton win games and he stays quiet, (doesn't assume credibility for it by believing he would be a good football manager) then even better.
I don't mind a background owner who doesn't cause problems, who looks in the mirror and can see zippy - doesn't open his gob at all and just deletes twitter accounts.
An owner like that deserves a complimentary cold pint and a "thanks for saving the club mate".
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Don't encourage him.AndyG said:It is all very strange ! I know that he got pelters for commenting on performances etc but this new silence is deafening !
After 3 wins on the bounce I would have suspected atleast a few BOOM's0 -
Nothing has changed from a business perspective, it is just that results have improved on the footie side. Still waiting in hope, however long that may be, as I think that this owners’ strategy belongs to fantasy island…
our squad is probably in the healthiest state injury wise it has been for a year or few (even with the terrific Leaburn sidelined). Give it a few more knocks and suspensions (odds-on) and suspect this thread will get a whole lot more attention. Attention I feel it deserves!2 -
We won't be buying anyone.
If we sign players in January, which they will certainly be looking to do, they will be loans.17 -
Got my call from Cristos today. Didn’t answer as it was from a number that my call filter didn’t recognise. But he left a message and followed up with an email. Looks like he’s trying to flog me a meal deal for the Coalville match. 🍔🍟 and a🥤1
-
So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.1
-
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.mendonca said:So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
4 -
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.mendonca said:So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.5 -
I think so. If we got the striker in Jan and he got injured after a couple of matches, we are back to square one.mendonca said:So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
So for sustainability, those free transfers, loans and the academy should still be a major focus, done wisely of course.0 -
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)4 - Sponsored links:
-
This all makes perfect sense and agree, however, the reality is that we are in an economic downturn. On TV today (25/10/22) announced food prices up 17% on average. Inflation 10%+ and rising. It would be great if people could afford to pay £30 for a ticket but with travel costs, food, etc. it means a day at the valley becomes too expensive when the other option is to spend on food or heating. I think that a better approach would be to work out a realistic ticket price that would get people back - even if that is only breakeven at the moment. That added to (apparent) improvements on the pitch and we'll start to increase numbers and make the valley look more attractive.swordfish said:Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)4 -
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a related credibility problem arising from actions and statements.swordfish said:Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop with commercial revenue but that’s not clear. Again the rhetoric is likely to be unreliable.*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.15 -
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.kafka said:
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.mendonca said:So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.0 -
I'm sure you're right with your analysis, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say the opposite is happening. Revenue can't be made worse by higher attendances unless the reduced price differential isn't more than offset by an any increase in numbers. Is that what's happening now then, or have I misunderstood.Airman Brown said:
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a credibility problem arising from actions and statements.swordfish said:Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the vote home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop in commercial revenue but that’s not clear.*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.
Edit - Just realised that you're referring to revenue falling due to a drop in commercial income0 -
Possibly because they have rebuilt their main stand. I don’t think fees are the whole issue - we’ve signed players from L2 because we want to pay L2 wages. There may well be value in some of those players but that’s the reason we recruited in that division.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.kafka said:
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.mendonca said:So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.4 -
Fair point. However the 4 signings we made from league 2 have all been fairly solid signings whereas McGrandles who came from league 1 has been possibly the worst signing.Airman Brown said:
Possibly because they have rebuilt their main stand. I don’t think fees are the whole issue - we’ve signed players from L2 because we want to pay L2 wages. There may well be value in some of those players but that’s the reason we recruited in that division.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.kafka said:
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.mendonca said:So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.1 -
I agree with that, although I suspect Egbo is the only one who might develop into a better player, unsurprisingly given the age of the signings.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Fair point. However the 4 signings we made from league 2 have all been fairly solid signings whereas McGrandles who came from league 1 has been possibly the worst signing.Airman Brown said:
Possibly because they have rebuilt their main stand. I don’t think fees are the whole issue - we’ve signed players from L2 because we want to pay L2 wages. There may well be value in some of those players but that’s the reason we recruited in that division.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.kafka said:
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.mendonca said:So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.0 -
No, I’m saying that the revenue effect of bigger crowds is overestimated and that currently revenue is going backwards largely because of Sandgaard’s policies and interventions, despite the price rises.swordfish said:
I'm sure you're right with your analysis, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say the opposite is happening. Revenue can't be made worse by higher attendances unless the reduced price differential isn't more than offset by an any increase in numbers. Is that what's happening now then, or have I misunderstood.Airman Brown said:
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a credibility problem arising from actions and statements.swordfish said:Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the vote home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop in commercial revenue but that’s not clear.*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.
Edit - Just realised that you're referring to revenue falling due to a drop in commercial incomeSome of the reduced attendances may be due to a higher percentage of season-ticket holders not bothering (which is revenue neutral), but the reduced number of season tickets sold and lower match sales means ticket revenue is likely to be falling.
The changes in paying attendances that are realistically achievable are not going to transform the budget, regardless of the spending rules.
it may be that commercial revenue will grow to offset the reduced ticket revenue but I won’t assume that based on what the club has said because it’s not reliable.1 -
My comments reflect my concerns about how close to that spending limit we might be at the moment. If in danger of breaching it, I believe the EFL have the option to impose a transfer embargo, in which case January onwards would become more challenging.Airman Brown said:
No, I’m saying that the revenue effect of bigger crowds is overestimated and that currently revenue is going backwards largely because of Sandgaard’s policies and interventions, despite the price rises.swordfish said:
I'm sure you're right with your analysis, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say the opposite is happening. Revenue can't be made worse by higher attendances unless the reduced price differential isn't more than offset by an any increase in numbers. Is that what's happening now then, or have I misunderstood.Airman Brown said:
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a credibility problem arising from actions and statements.swordfish said:Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the vote home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop in commercial revenue but that’s not clear.*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.
Edit - Just realised that you're referring to revenue falling due to a drop in commercial incomeSome of the reduced attendances may be due to a higher percentage of season-ticket holders not bothering (which is revenue neutral), but the reduced number of season tickets sold and lower match sales means ticket revenue is likely to be falling.
The changes in paying attendances that are realistically achievable are not going to transform the budget, regardless of the spending rules.
it may be that commercial revenue will grow to offset the reduced ticket revenue but I won’t assume that based on what the club has said because it’s not reliable.
Without having such information to hand, it's hard to know for sure and my thinking is along the lines of every little helps!
I sense that, despite having many other concerns about our direction of travel under TS, you don't share that particular one at present though, which I find reassuring.
0 -
Owner's investing capital counts as turn over. So if Thomas put 10 million in, as capital, to buy said striker the wages wouldn't be a ratio problem.swordfish said:Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
Loans don't count as turnover.
2
