When MS got is first job, I got the feeling that was the real reason TS got involved with a football club. Think the conversation may have gone something like this:
MS: Pa can I have a new job? The one in this healthcare racket is a bit dull.
TS: Sure son [strums guitar with vigor] , I can make you VP of Office Supplies.
MS: No Pa I like soccer, I know almost everything about it since Enfield Town, and I shoot more HARDEST than everyone, just ask anyone.
TS: OK son, let's go get a club, I've a few spare dollars, can't be any harder than the healthcare ruse we've got going. With the skills we have in this family we can take on all the money in the Far East and blow them out the water.
MS: Gee thanks Pa. Can I start with stats and recruitment, any f*uck ups I make we can balance the losses by sacking half the staff.
TS: Good plan son, we don't need any knowledge or experience I'll blag it as owner, CEO, chief bottle washer and sink unblocker no problems at all. I'll suck up the adoration, then jump for cover when the going gets tough.
MS: Pa I really love you.
TS: I know son, but don’t tell your idiot brother or we’ll have to turn his screen time off again….
If anyone was seriously interested in buying the club, could they buy the land off Roland? You would need to meet Roland's ridiculous valuation, but worth it in the long run if they had ambitions?
Does it actually matter in the short to medium term? I think there are probably two completely different ways to look at it.
If your plan is to try and get promoted through the leagues quickly, before the loses start mounting up, you probably don't need to buy the land now, to achieve that.
If your mega loaded you could buy the land first and wait for Thomas to fold.
Owning the land has no immediate impact of getting to, and stabilising in, the championship and that has got to be the priority for who ever buys us.
I think it matters. Eventually money will have to be spent on the ground, nobody will do that leasehold and RD can demand any price he likes knowing the club has limited options. A prudent buyer wouldn’t get into that scenario in the first place.
I do not think it matters at the moment. I see that the buyers of Coventry are buying the club with out the ground. As a Surrey member I know the club do not own the Oval but have a long lease on it from the Duchy of Cornwall. But the club have in my time spent around £30 million on new stands and spend about £1 million a year on maintenance And we've pay 2% of turn over in rent. So ground ownership is desirable but not essential.
If anyone was seriously interested in buying the club, could they buy the land off Roland? You would need to meet Roland's ridiculous valuation, but worth it in the long run if they had ambitions?
Does it actually matter in the short to medium term? I think there are probably two completely different ways to look at it.
If your plan is to try and get promoted through the leagues quickly, before the loses start mounting up, you probably don't need to buy the land now, to achieve that.
If your mega loaded you could buy the land first and wait for Thomas to fold.
Owning the land has no immediate impact of getting to, and stabilising in, the championship and that has got to be the priority for who ever buys us.
I think it matters. Eventually money will have to be spent on the ground, nobody will do that leasehold and RD can demand any price he likes knowing the club has limited options. A prudent buyer wouldn’t get into that scenario in the first place.
At the risk of being repetitive the trouble with owning CAFC rather than a Cambridge , Fleetwood, Morecambe, Bristol rovers , Burton etc etc - the list is almost endless apart from the Wendies, Pompey and Derby - we will have the highest operating costs regardless of the playing budget which is why Sandgaard keeps saying this.
We have a Championship even Premier League ground / set up / operating costs but we are in the 3rd divisio
Let's face it why would any rich sane and intelligent person buy a football team unless you are a narcissist shit guitar player looking to play in front of thousands of people in a stadium and live your dream......oh !!!
This is a very strange time in the TS ownership timeline I think. With recent results (some good some bad) the comments from BG at the weekend. Not one response or BOOM from him. The silence is deafening and makes me think something is going on surely ?
BG’s comments suggest no positive conversation about the transfer window has happened and he’d be happy to be paid off - what a depressing ongoing load of shit supporting this club is - had the opportunity to go to the back to the valley dinner this week but turned it down and can’t be arsed with the cup matches - doing the bear minimum - attending home league matches - coz everything to do with the club is just depressing - fingers crossed someone somewhere can buy us and return us to some sort of half normal club playing at a decent level
Unless we are within shouting distance of the play offs come 1 January, I can’t see Sangaard spending any money to the strengthen the team. More likely he will do just enough to keep us away from the bottom four, so am only expecting a couple of loanees to turn up. Any fees coming in should we unload someone like Stockley would go straight into the ‘let’s try something daft and run a league one club at break even’ coffers.
I cant see anyone coming in for Stockley that would get anywhere near his wages atm or the fee needed so I guess he will be staying. I think the only players that might go would be Leaburn and Dobson in order to bring some funds in
If anyone was seriously interested in buying the club, could they buy the land off Roland? You would need to meet Roland's ridiculous valuation, but worth it in the long run if they had ambitions?
Does it actually matter in the short to medium term? I think there are probably two completely different ways to look at it.
If your plan is to try and get promoted through the leagues quickly, before the loses start mounting up, you probably don't need to buy the land now, to achieve that.
If your mega loaded you could buy the land first and wait for Thomas to fold.
Owning the land has no immediate impact of getting to, and stabilising in, the championship and that has got to be the priority for who ever buys us.
I think it matters. Eventually money will have to be spent on the ground, nobody will do that leasehold and RD can demand any price he likes knowing the club has limited options. A prudent buyer wouldn’t get into that scenario in the first place.
Of course it matters in the long term but you have either got to have a lot of money or think you can get to the premier league in 3 or 4 years.
In either of those scenarios it's not urgent. Your only guaranteeing the money it cost you on the assets your losing the running cost either way.
So it is urgent then? As Sandgaard doesn’t have a lot of money (in football terms, or the willingness to make the investment necessary) and we aren’t going to be anywhere near the Premier League in 3 or 4 years.
It was a clever move to remove ESI, but he then either needed to invest properly in the structure & team or do a deal for the ground/training ground. Neither has really happened.
BG wants to be sacked, he will get his payoff, and is using the launchpad of interviews putting the onus on the owner and the players not performing. Make no mistake BG will find another job!
Not sure he has enhanced his reputation all that much since being here. Whinging a lot, everyone’s fault but his and chucking his toys out for impact as soon as the heat goes on. Not exactly selling himself to his next employer however bad a roll of the dice he has had from TS.
I honestly dont get the reasoning behind the ground ownership. There are plenty of clubs from all sports that play in facilities that they lease. Yes it would be great to have the valley back under the clubs ownership but unless I'm missing something would that just make it even more expensive for someone to buy the club ? I'm no expert but would there be tax advantages on the lease payments ?
We're not losing matches regularly yet and I don't think our owner, who's still funding the Club, will want to pay off Garner's contract.
On his 'radio silence' which I think traces back to the time of Garner's appointment and is due in part to the negative fan reaction to it, I'm all for it. I'd rather that than listen to him spouting more BS!
I'm hoping it might be a sign he's otherwise distracted with ownership discussions, but I'm not making any such assumptions.
Thomas was naive when he got the club, and wrongly thought we could reach the golden gates of The Premier League at the drop of a hat, and then purchase the freehold of The Valley & SL, now we all knew it was a daft naive idea, but now here we are again wanting a sale to the next patsy who dances to RD's tune.. Till the land is sold along with the club as should have been done originally, then we are never going anywhere, so RD as usual is having the last laugh at our expense, and needs to sell the Freehold at a realistic price..
Thing is I don’t see any likely scenario where Duchatelet needs to sell The Valley and Sparrows. He wants too much for it but as he doesn’t need the money or to sell, I can’t see him budging. Land in London isn’t ever going down in value. It’s a solid investment.
Depends on the time horizon. House prices are predicted to fall for 2 years. Industrial valuations are already down significantly from March. Land value is the most volatile typically and with massive inflation impact on build costs/materials combined with lower house prices and higher financing costs, land values will be pummelled shortly. Of course in the long run they will come back and be higher again and none of it really matters if you have an aging owner with no debt to pay and no need for the cash plus an irrational view on life though. Inflation at 10% or whatever means his Charlton losses now he has turned off the increase will be reducing nominally but the meagre income (on a yield basis V's his valn) isn't worth holding for.
It’ll recover though. We can be certain of that. He’s not in need of money so it’s a sound investment to sit on the assets. If he was looking to cash in because he needed money I think he would have done so by now. He’s 76 and seems to live quite a grounded lifestyle for someone with his wealth. I doubt he’s running low on money or ever will. He’ll pass on those real estate assets and business assets. Why would he want to cash in on a low point ?
I honestly dont get the reasoning behind the ground ownership. There are plenty of clubs from all sports that play in facilities that they lease. Yes it would be great to have the valley back under the clubs ownership but unless I'm missing something would that just make it even more expensive for someone to buy the club ? I'm no expert but would there be tax advantages on the lease payments ?
There are reasons all serious buyers want the freeholds, though. One is the inevitable need for improvements, which a leaseholder is unlikely to make and this landlord certainly won’t. It’s part of the reason Charlton left in 1985. You can see it in the use of temporary buildings at Sparrows Lane, albeit cost is another factor in that.
Charlton borrowed from banks to build the Covered End with The Valley as security. They couldn’t have built the stand without that loan. The ground also acted as security for personal loans from multiple directors.
I’m sure people will argue that The Valley doesn’t need any work, but realistically it needs some investment, requirements change and the Jimmy Seed Stand is 45 years old.
The club has also used the sale of parts of the ground to fund losses - in Valley Grove and Lansdowne Mews, for example - in the past. I don’t like it and these examples were, arguably, a long-term mistake but they are a fallback.
Just as significant, in my opinion, is that you don’t set up a ransom situation for the future. Suppose for example RD got permission to build on part of the car park and made that a condition of sale of the rest to the club, just as the car park was excluded from the 1984 lease with Michael Gliksten and then cited as a key reason to leave. A serious buyer won’t allow that scenario to develop and they won’t countenance having RD in the background, IMO, because he’s difficult.
Look at the mess Coventry have been in for the last decade or so for the perils of not owning your ground. See also Bristol Rovers, who sold Eastville to their tenants and have never recovered.
I honestly dont get the reasoning behind the ground ownership. There are plenty of clubs from all sports that play in facilities that they lease. Yes it would be great to have the valley back under the clubs ownership but unless I'm missing something would that just make it even more expensive for someone to buy the club ? I'm no expert but would there be tax advantages on the lease payments ?
Look at the mess Coventry have been in for the last decade or so for the perils of not owning your ground.
Yet somehow Coventry have managed to get their act together football wise and are a solid Championship club. Makes us look even worse.
What choice does he have? He can’t just walk away, someone would need to take it off his hands, agreeing to spunk millions a year while owning, essentially, nothing.
Is that a deal you’d sign up for? I can’t imagine he’s got much of a queue.
He knows very well that there are 1) people with at least a tentative interest in buying the club and 2) that people he has himself approached to find funding have offered to look for buyers. He has the choice to engage with either.
Where either of these options leads it’s impossible to say - perhaps nowhere - but it is categorically wrong to say he doesn’t have options.
I maybe wrong, but you don’t sound as confident Airman about serious buyers being around as you have done previously.
What choice does he have? He can’t just walk away, someone would need to take it off his hands, agreeing to spunk millions a year while owning, essentially, nothing.
Is that a deal you’d sign up for? I can’t imagine he’s got much of a queue.
He knows very well that there are 1) people with at least a tentative interest in buying the club and 2) that people he has himself approached to find funding have offered to look for buyers. He has the choice to engage with either.
Where either of these options leads it’s impossible to say - perhaps nowhere - but it is categorically wrong to say he doesn’t have options.
I maybe wrong, but you don’t sound as confident Airman about serious buyers being around as you have done previously.
What choice does he have? He can’t just walk away, someone would need to take it off his hands, agreeing to spunk millions a year while owning, essentially, nothing.
Is that a deal you’d sign up for? I can’t imagine he’s got much of a queue.
He knows very well that there are 1) people with at least a tentative interest in buying the club and 2) that people he has himself approached to find funding have offered to look for buyers. He has the choice to engage with either.
Where either of these options leads it’s impossible to say - perhaps nowhere - but it is categorically wrong to say he doesn’t have options.
I maybe wrong, but you don’t sound as confident Airman about serious buyers being around as you have done previously.
Need to be serious sellers too.
Does TS actually have an active interest in selling or is he just passively getting interested parties coming to him.
I honestly dont get the reasoning behind the ground ownership. There are plenty of clubs from all sports that play in facilities that they lease. Yes it would be great to have the valley back under the clubs ownership but unless I'm missing something would that just make it even more expensive for someone to buy the club ? I'm no expert but would there be tax advantages on the lease payments ?
There are reasons all serious buyers want the freeholds, though. One is the inevitable need for improvements, which a leaseholder is unlikely to make and this landlord certainly won’t. It’s part of the reason Charlton left in 1985. You can see it in the use of temporary buildings at Sparrows Lane, albeit cost is another factor in that.
Charlton borrowed from banks to build the Covered End with The Valley as security. They couldn’t have built the stand without that loan. The ground also acted as security for personal loans from multiple directors.
I’m sure people will argue that The Valley doesn’t need any work, but realistically it needs some investment, requirements change and the Jimmy Seed Stand is 45 years old.
The club has also used the sale of parts of the ground to fund losses - in Valley Grove and Lansdowne Mews, for example - in the past. I don’t like it and these examples were, arguably, a long-term mistake but they are a fallback.
Just as significant, in my opinion, is that you don’t set up a ransom situation for the future. Suppose for example RD got permission to build on part of the car park and made that a condition of sale of the rest to the club, just as the car park was excluded from the 1984 lease with Michael Gliksten and then cited as a key reason to leave. A serious buyer won’t allow that scenario to develop and they won’t countenance having RD in the background, IMO, because he’s difficult.
Look at the mess Coventry have been in for the last decade or so for the perils of not owning your ground. See also Bristol Rovers, who sold Eastville to their tenants and have never recovered.
I have a business with 12 leasehold properties, mainly each on 25 year term, within the Act (ie tenant renewal rights) . Freehold is not an option for most businesses as its not the best use of capital. Yes there is less control but improvements still happen and often through regearing leases. It is important that there is healthy dialogue between landlord and tenant though and that, is this situation, is the problem. I would be cautious of getting into bed with the douche - the very thought.
What choice does he have? He can’t just walk away, someone would need to take it off his hands, agreeing to spunk millions a year while owning, essentially, nothing.
Is that a deal you’d sign up for? I can’t imagine he’s got much of a queue.
He knows very well that there are 1) people with at least a tentative interest in buying the club and 2) that people he has himself approached to find funding have offered to look for buyers. He has the choice to engage with either.
Where either of these options leads it’s impossible to say - perhaps nowhere - but it is categorically wrong to say he doesn’t have options.
I maybe wrong, but you don’t sound as confident Airman about serious buyers being around as you have done previously.
Need to be serious sellers too.
Does TS actually have an active interest in selling or is he just passively getting interested parties coming to him.
He'll want to stay in the picture if we do get a new owner... He won't want to be seen as a failure if the immediate successor is a success.
It's a bit like Murray clinging to the club like shit on an arse hair.
What choice does he have? He can’t just walk away, someone would need to take it off his hands, agreeing to spunk millions a year while owning, essentially, nothing.
Is that a deal you’d sign up for? I can’t imagine he’s got much of a queue.
He knows very well that there are 1) people with at least a tentative interest in buying the club and 2) that people he has himself approached to find funding have offered to look for buyers. He has the choice to engage with either.
Where either of these options leads it’s impossible to say - perhaps nowhere - but it is categorically wrong to say he doesn’t have options.
I maybe wrong, but you don’t sound as confident Airman about serious buyers being around as you have done previously.
Need to be serious sellers too.
Does TS actually have an active interest in selling or is he just passively getting interested parties coming to him.
He'll want to stay in the picture if we do get a new owner... He won't want to be seen as a failure if the immediate successor is a success.
It's a bit like Murray clinging to the club like shit on an arse hair.
I can only see him being interested getting external investment - who eventually becomes the majority shareholder with TS as a minority shareholder in order to save face. But where would he find someone like that ?
The only asset of the club is the golden share and the players, and you would need to deal with TS and RD .............
Thing is this site has some of the most dedicated Charlton fans as members yet how many on here would take on the club (even at £0) if they won £100M on the Euromillions. I wouldn't! £200M? Assuming we will lose c£10M pa standing still at any level below the EPL you need someone worth £500M+ to be interested (or a consortium)... and those people are few and far between and even when you do find one they need liquid assets. No point being worth that amount in illiquid shares.
Not sure about that. Whilst a rich owner will obviously help, i think a good owner with an actual plan and competent staff experienced in their field is more important.
Clubs like Luton and Millwall do ok at Championship level without their owners being worth 500m+, because the clubs are well run. Rotherham also aren't doing too badly.
Thing is this site has some of the most dedicated Charlton fans as members yet how many on here would take on the club (even at £0) if they won £100M on the Euromillions. I wouldn't! £200M? Assuming we will lose c£10M pa standing still at any level below the EPL you need someone worth £500M+ to be interested (or a consortium)... and those people are few and far between and even when you do find one they need liquid assets. No point being worth that amount in illiquid shares.
Not sure about that. Whilst a rich owner will obviously help, i think a good owner with an actual plan and competent staff experienced in their field is more important.
Clubs like Luton and Millwall do ok at Championship level without their owners being worth 500m+, because the clubs are well run. Rotherham also aren't doing too badly.
Lutom and Rotherham fixed running costs will be a fraction of ours and both are far out performing. Just like when everyone said on here Barnsley were a great model to follow they will both fall back to their natural levels soon enough.
Millwall probably cost less to run and Berylson is worth £500M+ I believe so rather proves my point.
To run us with a sensible plan and competent, experienced staff will still cost an owner £8-10M a year. Every year we are outside the PL (before player trading)
Luton are in their fourth consecutive season in the Championship. I think most of us would be quite happy with that.
I don’t think the difference in fixed costs is as big as you imagine though. Both clubs had operating expenses of £22m-£23m in the Championship in 19/20 and turnover of £15m.
Luton’s wage bill was £14.5m against Charlton’s £12m (even after Southall and co) and I doubt if they run a category two academy.
Luton made a profit of £3.5m after player trading and Charlton made a loss of £1.1m. Now I would argue that if Charlton had spent the same on player wages as Luton they would likely have stayed up and then who knows? It wouldn’t have taken another £5m - £8m. That much we know.
There’s one major point that has been unclear to me for a while now. How drastically has the recent financial affairs at Zynex affected TS and his decision making? Maybe the unforeseen collapse of the share prices has left him in a position he hadn’t expected when he originally took over? I think there’s a strong possibility that it has drastically affected his liquid assets and that he doesn’t have the same confidence in financing us as he had planned. I have a hunch that how well Zynex is or isn’t performing is, and will continue to be, having a major effect on us.
Yes I think nearly all fans believe this to be true.
Yet it’s an opinion rarely mentioned here on the Forum.
Yes, and I've been the one mentioning it over and over and getting trashed for it. It's oddly satisfying to see more and more people coming around to what has been obvious to me for two-plus years and now those who were claiming I had no idea what I was talking about are acting like they knew this all along.
1. TS does not have the money to make this work
2. TS does not have the knowledge to make this work
3. This won't work and never had a real chance at working.
He is definitely preferring a situation where he holds on to share in the club - which combined with the money being asked, is simply not realistic.
Doesn't surprise me that he wants to hang onto a percentage so he can lord it if we did get promoted. Unfortunately no serious bidder would ever consider any deal with him keeping anything.
He is definitely preferring a situation where he holds on to share in the club - which combined with the money being asked, is simply not realistic.
Doesn't surprise me that he wants to hang onto a percentage so he can lord it if we did get promoted. Unfortunately no serious bidder would ever consider any deal with him keeping anything.
You say that, but if he had reached out and listened to experienced advice he might have got the club moving in a forward trajectory. He decided not to and we've been looking over our shoulder ever since. No investor worth their salt would get involved with this club whilst he's involved at the moment.
Comments
On his 'radio silence' which I think traces back to the time of Garner's appointment and is due in part to the negative fan reaction to it, I'm all for it. I'd rather that than listen to him spouting more BS!
I'm hoping it might be a sign he's otherwise distracted with ownership discussions, but I'm not making any such assumptions.
Charlton borrowed from banks to build the Covered End with The Valley as security. They couldn’t have built the stand without that loan. The ground also acted as security for personal loans from multiple directors.
I’m sure people will argue that The Valley doesn’t need any work, but realistically it needs some investment, requirements change and the Jimmy Seed Stand is 45 years old.
The club has also used the sale of parts of the ground to fund losses - in Valley Grove and Lansdowne Mews, for example - in the past. I don’t like it and these examples were, arguably, a long-term mistake but they are a fallback.
Just as significant, in my opinion, is that you don’t set up a ransom situation for the future. Suppose for example RD got permission to build on part of the car park and made that a condition of sale of the rest to the club, just as the car park was excluded from the 1984 lease with Michael Gliksten and then cited as a key reason to leave. A serious buyer won’t allow that scenario to develop and they won’t countenance having RD in the background, IMO, because he’s difficult.
It's a bit like Murray clinging to the club like shit on an arse hair.
The only asset of the club is the golden share and the players, and you would need to deal with TS and RD .............
Clubs like Luton and Millwall do ok at Championship level without their owners being worth 500m+, because the clubs are well run. Rotherham also aren't doing too badly.
Millwall probably cost less to run and Berylson is worth £500M+ I believe so rather proves my point.
To run us with a sensible plan and competent, experienced staff will still cost an owner £8-10M a year. Every year we are outside the PL (before player trading)
Doesn't surprise me that he wants to hang onto a percentage so he can lord it if we did get promoted. Unfortunately no serious bidder would ever consider any deal with him keeping anything.
No investor worth their salt would get involved with this club whilst he's involved at the moment.