Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)
Comments
-
Load of tosh. How can supporters be blamed for who came in and got control of the club? If Sandgaard got us promoted in his first year we could have been in the PL by now. Would you seriously be saying it was all down to CARD?msomerton said:
Well Airman. You may not recall the calls for the spivs to get out at the end of and even during the games towards the end of their time.Airman Brown said:
Not sure how protests got us Duchatelet - time travel?msomerton said:I am not convinced by Sandagaard, But all protests have got us, is Duchalet, ESI and Sandagaard so not much point in going down that road.
But I take it you agree with the fact that protests got us ESI and Sandagaard.6 -
I think you need to change your name to grumpy_addick nowadays..Rob7Lee said:For me TS's credits ran out a long long time ago, anyone who can't see he's basically Roland 2 with much more meddling needs to give their head a wobble. You could argue in the last 2 years Roland was much better than TS! LdT was certainly better!
For me, on the playing side, bar possibly the keeper we are lighter in every position than our promotion season under Bowyer.
No one's near Bielik, Aribo or Cullen. I'd argue Sarr was a better CH than what we have currently IMHO, no question Bauer was, Taylor as much as he annoyed me was far superior up top, Pratley was way underrated in my view and better than what we have especially with his experience which we sorely lack.
We may have finished third, but I don't see us getting within 6 places of that finish with what we have now.
It feels like there are better teams as well in League 1 now.
I joked that Garner would be gone by Christmas, I'm less confident now that that was only a joke!
Agree re Bowyer players, plus he could turn a game, and seemed to be able to improve players, don't see a lot of that in other managers
I would revise your prediction to well before Christmas..0 -
But what happens if Sandgaard - who is an unusual character - doesn’t appear on the scene. In all likelihood the club goes into administration and the £7m falls on Roland. Unlike others I am confident that the club gets picked up from admin and RD then has to deal with the new owners - or not - on realistic terms. He doesn’t get to develop the ground to recoup his losses so it’s up to him if he prefers no deal.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So he does nothing, collects rent with little to no risk of the club going bust. He knows someone will almost certainly always come in and save the day.Airman Brown said:
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.MuttleyCAFC said:I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Awful for us though.
a brilliant deal, it’s indisputable.
This is why some of us came to believe admin was an option in 2020. Literally dozens of league clubs have entered into it since the 1980s and all have survived, most without the need for phoenix clubs. No club of Charlton’s size has ever had to go down that route.
The main unprotected creditor was Roland bloody Duchatelet. Why would we want to protect him?
i am not saying it was a good option, just that it may prove to have been the least worst. It is complicated by the stadium split but that’s not a unique issue. Talk of “oblivion” is overstated when you had multiple parties willing to pay tens of millions to acquire the club.
Now accepting the above came with a risk, of whatever scale you choose to believe, you can argue Sandgaard removed it. But he has not resolved the problem. The club is much less likely to go into administration under him than ESI because he is the main creditor, so arguably his ownership, while well intended, has made the strategic position worse.
The ESI deal was not a secure one for RD - I agree he is in a better position with TS. But is the latter’s deal any good for the club?17 -
So without TS, or some other white knight, ESI would have either had to place us into Administration, their option, or their creditors would have forced it, unlikely as the main one was RD Have I understood that correctly?Airman Brown said:
But what happens if Sandgaard - who is an unusual character - doesn’t appear on the scene. In all likelihood the club goes into administration and the £7m falls on Roland. Unlike others I am confident that the club gets picked up from admin and RD then has to deal with the new owners - or not - on realistic terms. He doesn’t get to develop the ground to recoup his losses so it’s up to him if he prefers no deal.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So he does nothing, collects rent with little to no risk of the club going bust. He knows someone will almost certainly always come in and save the day.Airman Brown said:
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.MuttleyCAFC said:I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Awful for us though.
a brilliant deal, it’s indisputable.
This is why some of us came to believe admin was an option in 2020. Literally dozens of league clubs have entered into it since the 1980s and all have survived, most without the need for phoenix clubs. No club of Charlton’s size has ever had to go down that route.
The main unprotected creditor was Roland bloody Duchatelet. Why would we want to protect him?
i am not saying it was a good option, just that it may prove to have been the least worst. It is complicated by the stadium split but that’s not a unique issue. Talk of “oblivion” is overstated when you had multiple parties willing to pay tens of millions to acquire the club.
Now accepting the above came with a risk, of whatever scale you choose to believe, you can argue Sandgaard removed it. But he has not resolved the problem. The club is much less likely to go into administration under him than ESI because he is the main creditor, so arguably his ownership, while well intended, has made the strategic position worse.
The ESI deal was not a secure one for RD - I agree he is in a better position with TS. But is the latter’s deal any good for the club?0 -
The galaxy-brained plan: keep Charlton in L1 for long enough that, when we eventually do go up after a sudden funding splurge, fans are so excited to be in the Championship they sell the place out every week2
-
In the past and who can tell in the future but
If you get to the stage when administration is the best option you are playing with fire. After the last two decades of mainly woe we just can't make the one step forward without the one or it feels like 2 steps back.
Charlton fans/Supporters/critics have won the protest bingo including the Coffin carrying which went global thanks to the Videos of Matt Wright and Matt White and others etc.
Can't see any positives in doing protests against the Sandgaard's. The empty seats are talking to the owner.
It's sad that we are an established League 1 side now and that Ben Garner has suddenly realised that Thomas Sandgaard talks a good game but isn't doing enough to make this plan come to fruition.
1 -
The club is waiting for Roland to die.
I don't wish the bloke any harm. I hope he passes away like normal and when the time is right.
It will then move on and the frustration of all off field bollocks problems, will be minimised at least a little bit!
Could be 5 years, could be 15
2 -
What baffles me is why our potential suitors don't step up to the plate here and now.
I'll relate a sorry tale that's always stuck with me. I've a friend, well to do and he moves in well to do circles. Not football Club buying wealth, and he's a spurs fan anyway, but he told me once about an old school friend of his, highly intelligent and successful in the City in his twenties, who had some kind of breakdown, probably due to work stresses
Anyway, he lost his job and his money soon ran out with London rents. It wasn't long before he ended up in an institution where my friend visited him and was appalled by both the state of the place and him. Said he found him wondering around half dressed in a drug induced stupor, clearly not knowing if he was coming or going. He really believed there was a fair chance he'd become a suicide risk.
So my friend went to visit his friends extremely wealthy parents, only to find that the bank of mum and dad had kept it's doors closed as far as their son was concerned. He hit the roof and asked why they weren't helping out, only to be told they were saving their money for a rainy day. He, not so politely, pointed out the state he'd found their son in, that he was in the middle of a torrential thunderstorm, and asked how much more f***ing rain they wanted before they stepped in to do something about it
That's how I feel about us. For too long have we been suffering in the footballing doldrums. How much more will it take before these people, supposedly with our best interests at heart, show their hand. Now is the time. Tomorrow never comes. Well it did yesterday, but you take my point.
7 -
I honestly don't believe ESI could have placed us into administration if they tried.Airman Brown said:
But what happens if Sandgaard - who is an unusual character - doesn’t appear on the scene. In all likelihood the club goes into administration and the £7m falls on Roland. Unlike others I am confident that the club gets picked up from admin and RD then has to deal with the new owners - or not - on realistic terms. He doesn’t get to develop the ground to recoup his losses so it’s up to him if he prefers no deal.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So he does nothing, collects rent with little to no risk of the club going bust. He knows someone will almost certainly always come in and save the day.Airman Brown said:
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.MuttleyCAFC said:I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Awful for us though.
a brilliant deal, it’s indisputable.
This is why some of us came to believe admin was an option in 2020. Literally dozens of league clubs have entered into it since the 1980s and all have survived, most without the need for phoenix clubs. No club of Charlton’s size has ever had to go down that route.
The main unprotected creditor was Roland bloody Duchatelet. Why would we want to protect him?
i am not saying it was a good option, just that it may prove to have been the least worst. It is complicated by the stadium split but that’s not a unique issue. Talk of “oblivion” is overstated when you had multiple parties willing to pay tens of millions to acquire the club.
Now accepting the above came with a risk, of whatever scale you choose to believe, you can argue Sandgaard removed it. But he has not resolved the problem. The club is much less likely to go into administration under him than ESI because he is the main creditor, so arguably his ownership, while well intended, has made the strategic position worse.
The ESI deal was not a secure one for RD - I agree he is in a better position with TS. But is the latter’s deal any good for the club?
There were many far worse out comes than administration but I don't think that was a realistic scenario, under the circumstances.1 -
I feel faintly encouraged by the vague rumours that Sandgaard is looking to sell. I don't hate him as much as many on here because although he has obviously made massive mistakes, I feel these are mainly due to arrogance, naivety and ignorance rather than spite (Duchatelet) or sheer crookedness (ESI). The very clear signs that he has drawn the line under funding any kind of ambition for the club means we are in for a constant slow decline if he stays. *
I'm wondering (rather optimistically, I realise) if his walk around to the Charlton fans at Wycombe was the first part of his farewell tour? After all, don't all Rock Gods have one of those
* Edit - and frankly he's such a knob that he's become a bit of a embarrassment7 - Sponsored links:
-
I really don't care about the ego side of it, and of all that is going on, that seems the most irrelevant. I quite like some heavy metal, but Addicks to Victory is crap and I wouldn't play it by choice. He could argue that having paid for the club, he can play his song, but with a bit of self awareness, he should probably take into acount that most fans dislike it, and they are the people who are paying to get in. After the utter neglect by Duchatalet, Sandgaard offers the opposite - a real hands on approach, and a quiet replacement of qualified staff by family and friends, and that to me is a lot more relevant than the music/ego business, though I guess you could say taking away people who know the League 1 business and replacing them with your son is equally egoistic.
If he feels he cannot do the job properly, selling would be sensible. However, that someone was enquiring about buying and got knocked back doesn't really speak of an owner selling up. What I do remember is that uder Ducahatelt, I read quite a few posts on CL saying literally 'anyone would be better that the Belgian'. ESI didn't come into place because of those posts, but it is well worth remembering we have had a very real experience of being taken to the brink by chancers, and there are plenty more sharks in the sea. Selling a business with little assets and big overheads may be a challenge, and if it comes to the crunch, he may choose to offload Charlton onto the first pair of chancers who agree to sign up to take over the payments, for a token price. When ESI took over, a lot of people were asking why FA scrutiny had allowed them to do so - has that all changed since then?
Be very careful what you wish for.0 -
If we were competing for promotion it would sound a lot better. Especially if played after a victory.0
-
What we wish for isn’t going to make a difference. TS appears to have ran out of money so is working towards the club breaking even. We know that’s not realistic year on year so sooner than later he’s going to have to sell.ken_shabby said:I really don't care about the ego side of it, and of all that is going on, that seems the most irrelevant. I quite like some heavy metal, but Addicks to Victory is crap and I wouldn't play it by choice. He could argue that having paid for the club, he can play his song, but with a bit of self awareness, he should probably take into acount that most fans dislike it, and they are the people who are paying to get in. After the utter neglect by Duchatalet, Sandgaard offers the opposite - a real hands on approach, and a quiet replacement of qualified staff by family and friends, and that to me is a lot more relevant than the music/ego business, though I guess you could say taking away people who know the League 1 business and replacing them with your son is equally egoistic.
If he feels he cannot do the job properly, selling would be sensible. However, that someone was enquiring about buying and got knocked back doesn't really speak of an owner selling up. What I do remember is that uder Ducahatelt, I read quite a few posts on CL saying literally 'anyone would be better that the Belgian'. ESI didn't come into place because of those posts, but it is well worth remembering we have had a very real experience of being taken to the brink by chancers, and there are plenty more sharks in the sea. Selling a business with little assets and big overheads may be a challenge, and if it comes to the crunch, he may choose to offload Charlton onto the first pair of chancers who agree to sign up to take over the payments, for a token price. When ESI took over, a lot of people were asking why FA scrutiny had allowed them to do so - has that all changed since then?
Be very careful what you wish for.3 -
The pound falling in value could make us an attractive punt from someone with more money than sense, if TS is looking to sell0
-
Mihail was working behind the scenes with Varney by the end. It’s complicated by the ownership structure but the football club had other creditors and couldn’t pay them.Cafc43v3r said:
I honestly don't believe ESI could have placed us into administration if they tried.Airman Brown said:
But what happens if Sandgaard - who is an unusual character - doesn’t appear on the scene. In all likelihood the club goes into administration and the £7m falls on Roland. Unlike others I am confident that the club gets picked up from admin and RD then has to deal with the new owners - or not - on realistic terms. He doesn’t get to develop the ground to recoup his losses so it’s up to him if he prefers no deal.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So he does nothing, collects rent with little to no risk of the club going bust. He knows someone will almost certainly always come in and save the day.Airman Brown said:
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.MuttleyCAFC said:I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Awful for us though.
a brilliant deal, it’s indisputable.
This is why some of us came to believe admin was an option in 2020. Literally dozens of league clubs have entered into it since the 1980s and all have survived, most without the need for phoenix clubs. No club of Charlton’s size has ever had to go down that route.
The main unprotected creditor was Roland bloody Duchatelet. Why would we want to protect him?
i am not saying it was a good option, just that it may prove to have been the least worst. It is complicated by the stadium split but that’s not a unique issue. Talk of “oblivion” is overstated when you had multiple parties willing to pay tens of millions to acquire the club.
Now accepting the above came with a risk, of whatever scale you choose to believe, you can argue Sandgaard removed it. But he has not resolved the problem. The club is much less likely to go into administration under him than ESI because he is the main creditor, so arguably his ownership, while well intended, has made the strategic position worse.
The ESI deal was not a secure one for RD - I agree he is in a better position with TS. But is the latter’s deal any good for the club?
There were many far worse out comes than administration but I don't think that was a realistic scenario, under the circumstances.
it’s academic anyway but I don’t believe the club would have disappeared without TS.5 -
I don’t believe he is “looking to sell” as such - his problem is that he has gone looking for investment and found that his view of what he owns is not taken seriously.7
-
So we’re perhaps in a period where TS is looking for a like minded person or group to invest who share his views of football?
Eventually he’ll realise that’s not possible and be forced to sell.6 -
Been plenty of parties interested.. Not sure he is going to sell just yet, but if it comes to January and we have nothing to play for, and no big money comes in, maybe that might change.Scoham said:So we’re perhaps in a period where TS is looking for a like minded person or group to invest who share his views of football?
Eventually he’ll realise that’s not possible and be forced to sell.8 -
Weggie AddicksWeegie Addick said:CAST met with TS in early August. Write up here where he was explicit re the financial plan and also commented re the Academy / Cat 1.https://www.castrust.org/2022/08/cast-meeting-with-thomas-sandgaard-2/I believe at the outset he had a set amount of ££ to invest in his football project. I suspect we have hit that ceiling hence the focus now on breakeven.It’s a tough gig being a Charlton fan right now. If you care about the future of this club, then stump up a fiver and join the Supporters’ Trust if you’re not already in. We have around 2,700 members - about 10% of a full Valley. Our mission is to protect, preserve and promote CAFC for this and future generations. Regardless of who the owner is.
I have read this report and still do not understand the situation re Cat1 status still being open to join.
My understanding was that we had missed the boat and the next opportunity would be May 2025.
Why was this not picked up or am I incorrect.0 -
Sorry May 20230
- Sponsored links:
-
Is this why Garner is talking about having money to spend in January?DubaiCAFC said:
Been plenty of parties interested.. Not sure he is going to sell just yet, but if it comes to January and we have nothing to play for, and no big money comes in, maybe that might change.Scoham said:So we’re perhaps in a period where TS is looking for a like minded person or group to invest who share his views of football?
Eventually he’ll realise that’s not possible and be forced to sell.0 -
I would imagine when RD dies his son will inherit it all, will still be in his family.Dave2l said:The club is waiting for Roland to die.
I don't wish the bloke any harm. I hope he passes away like normal and when the time is right.
It will then move on and the frustration of all off field bollocks problems, will be minimised at least a little bit!
Could be 5 years, could be 152 -
.0
-
No ITK info on the will of Roland Duchatelet but if it isn't Roderick then Katrien Miere may yet return to carry on the job she started when Roland goes even deeper than his Belgium Bunker.
Katrien Miere owner.1 -
Stig I should think most clubs would sell out if they were to get to the Premier league.Stig said:I think both @MillwallFan and @Airman Brown raise good points about our fan base. Both tell a truth, but the whole truth is likely to be somewhere in-between the two. Our crowds aren't as good in tier 3 as those other clubs MF mentioned, but we can fill our stadium I'm playing top flight football. I think a crucial difference between us and the other teams listed is that we are in London and they aren't. This makes it harder to keep attracting casual and disenchanted fans back to the ground when things are going badly. There are a whole number of reasons for this:- There's more going on so there's more chance people will find other, more fulfilling, pastimes when the chips are down.
- There's not that one-club town mentality that exists in many provincial towns and cities, so it's easier to break away from what your fellow supporters are doing.
- The scale of London and its consequent gravitational pull across the Home Counties means that many fans are likely to have to travel further distances to matches. This travelling distance becomes a drag on attendance when people are getting little personal value from watching matches.
2 -
If we manage to be sold without much drama, I'd be happy. If this turns into some circus show, I won't at all.
We should be happy (well I am) that TS removed the attachment and interest of Charlton in the National media as being an object for crooks. At least the coverage is now back to football and our crap league position with fake attendances displayed.
That's where I stand, rather than pretend that a dreamy phase of admin would have seen us in a more advanced position at present.7 -
Think this is spot on we’re not as big as some supporters think we are, other than pl days our support is pretty mediocre, most teams that make it to pl will sell out attracting new support but if you start going down league’s it’s just the hard core left as we are seeing now, most teams or our size will sell out at Wembley , if we got there again this season we will take a lot longer to sell our allocationMillwallFan said:
Sorry, but where do you get that from? There’s plenty of genuinely big clubs who have dropped in to the third tier in recent history, and they’ve gone through difficult periods at that level, but big crowds kept coming through the gates. Sunderland, Ipswich, Leeds, Sheffield utd, Derby now, Southampton,Norwich, just to name a few off the top of my head.Dave2l said:J BLOCK said:
I'm not wrongElfsborgAddick said:J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?
Potential huge investment. Our fanbase is certainly big enough. We are an attractive club to buy.
No owner has the bollocks, courage or dedication to give it the required effort.
Its now just someone shooting himself in the foot by only attempting to break even.
Didn't do his homework. A few years ago he seemed confident and it appeared that he at least had a brain.Charlton aren’t in the same league when you compare your fan base with those mentioned above, and plenty others as well. Even in your PL days your crowds had to be bolstered by shipping bus loads of plastics in from the Home Counties.Seriously, the delusion that some of you have (not all, granted) that charlton are somehow a big club or a sleeping giant, it’s not how the rest of the footballing world view you.And no, we’re not either. But we don’t claim to be!5 -
No, but why would he want to ever sell when he’s clearing 500k a year and retains the asset.Scoham said:
So are we now saying RD was right, £50m is a realistic price and that it’s a case of waiting for the buyer to appear?Stu_of_Kunming said:
So he does nothing, collects rent with little to no risk of the club going bust. He knows someone will almost certainly always come in and save the day.Airman Brown said:
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.MuttleyCAFC said:I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Awful for us though.
a brilliant deal, it’s indisputable.1 -
I don’t think anything RD has done is good for the club. I’m saying it was good for him and him alone. The gamble he took was that someone would always step in and save the club pre admin, it was definitely a risk, but it paid off and now he’s in a brilliant position, which is awful for Charlton.Airman Brown said:
But what happens if Sandgaard - who is an unusual character - doesn’t appear on the scene. In all likelihood the club goes into administration and the £7m falls on Roland. Unlike others I am confident that the club gets picked up from admin and RD then has to deal with the new owners - or not - on realistic terms. He doesn’t get to develop the ground to recoup his losses so it’s up to him if he prefers no deal.Stu_of_Kunming said:
So he does nothing, collects rent with little to no risk of the club going bust. He knows someone will almost certainly always come in and save the day.Airman Brown said:
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.MuttleyCAFC said:I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Awful for us though.
a brilliant deal, it’s indisputable.
This is why some of us came to believe admin was an option in 2020. Literally dozens of league clubs have entered into it since the 1980s and all have survived, most without the need for phoenix clubs. No club of Charlton’s size has ever had to go down that route.
The main unprotected creditor was Roland bloody Duchatelet. Why would we want to protect him?
i am not saying it was a good option, just that it may prove to have been the least worst. It is complicated by the stadium split but that’s not a unique issue. Talk of “oblivion” is overstated when you had multiple parties willing to pay tens of millions to acquire the club.
Now accepting the above came with a risk, of whatever scale you choose to believe, you can argue Sandgaard removed it. But he has not resolved the problem. The club is much less likely to go into administration under him than ESI because he is the main creditor, so arguably his ownership, while well intended, has made the strategic position worse.
The ESI deal was not a secure one for RD - I agree he is in a better position with TS. But is the latter’s deal any good for the club?Maybe it wasn’t even a risk, maybe he was so eager to take the deal he also did zero due diligence.2 -
Going into Admin GUARANTEES a points deduction and a transfer embargo whilst the Club operates under it. History guarantees nothing though, so saying no one of our size has gone bust is no guarantee that we wont. Of course I accept that you can argue the balance of probabilities favours a positive outcome though.mendonca said:If we manage to be sold without much drama, I'd be happy. If this turns into some circus show, I won't at all.
We should be happy (well I am) that TS removed the attachment and interest of Charlton in the National media as being an object for crooks. At least the coverage is now back to football and our crap league position with fake attendances displayed.
That's where I stand, rather than pretend that a dreamy phase of admin would have seen us in a more advanced position at present.
6
