Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard on Talksport today - 17/11/20
Thomas will be speaking to Jim White before 13.00 [very shortly],it maybe a pre-recorded interview.
0
Comments
-
On now0
-
Farnell still involved then...0
-
Jim White is a joke
2 -
Simon Jordan was spot on again and can see through it all.
Jim White is just trying to make a massive drama out of the information he is being feed.
How is Farnell still anywhere near football.13 -
Once again, well said Simon Jordan.2
-
Actually think White is now at the stage where he’s just being a WUM. I really hope TS stops talking to him.1
-
In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.8
-
If Thomas gets his wish and from what he was saying, it won’t be too long before he sets about changing the criteria and suitability necessary to be an owner or even a financial backer. Farnell and his ilk are set to be black balled from the world of football, might take a while for all the pieces to fall into place but Thomas seems set on getting the ball rolling at some point soon.roseandcrown said:Simon Jordan was spot on again and can see through it all.
Jim White is just trying to make a massive drama out of the information he is being feed.
How is Farnell still anywhere near football.16 -
Sponsored links:
-
I wasn’t able to listen. Who has this claim you mention come from? Elliott?ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.0 -
Looking forward to Clive posting the time stamped link!6
-
Is it libellous or inaccurate ?ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.We’ve had fairly big windfalls from the Bonne sale + the Grant sell on and the salary cap reduces the ability to spend so it might be that Sandgaard hasn’t actually needed to invest funds yet. No issues with that from my perspective.3 -
I’d say libellous, unless TS is lying about us being days away from administration before the deal was done, he must have pumped some money in.se9addick said:
Is it libellous or inaccurate ?ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.We’ve had fairly big windfalls from the Bonne sale + the Grant sell on and the salary cap reduces the ability to spend so it might be that Sandgaard hasn’t actually needed to invest funds yet. No issues with that from my perspective.He also had money in escrow before the takeover was completed, so it’s a pretty safe bet that at least £1 of this has been used for general maintenance/ those new lawnmowers he’s purchased. Not to mention shipping costs of the Zynex medical devicesYes we’ve had income from player sales but it’s not even a half truth to assert that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is relying on the clubs cash.2 -
How so? - I didnt get to listencharlton_hero said:Farnell still involved then...1 -
Right but I don’t think that relying on the clubs cash is a negative thing. A club living off of its own means is a sustainable model, that’s exactly what I want.ElliotCAFC said:
I’d say libellous, unless TS is lying about us being days away from administration before the deal was done, he must have pumped some money in.se9addick said:
Is it libellous or inaccurate ?ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.We’ve had fairly big windfalls from the Bonne sale + the Grant sell on and the salary cap reduces the ability to spend so it might be that Sandgaard hasn’t actually needed to invest funds yet. No issues with that from my perspective.He also had money in escrow before the takeover was completed, so it’s a pretty safe bet that at least £1 of this has been used for general maintenance/ those new lawnmowers he’s purchased. Not to mention shipping costs of the Zynex medical devicesYes we’ve had income from player sales but it’s not even a half truth to assert that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is relying on the clubs cash.
What is nonsense is for any of the parties who have recently been involved to try and suggest that they would have had a better operating model for us, they wouldn’t.5 -
it's not important if Sandgaard has needed to put money in or not................ the point is that he HAS the money to put in to fund the ambitions he has for the club and has proved that to the EFL................... Farnell and Elliott on the other hand are comparatively potless13
-
Before Thomas took over, we couldn't bring in anybody and things were creaking. It can be argued we now have the strongest squad in the League.18
-
Exactly he may have re-couped cash but he spent first...ElliotCAFC said:
I’d say libellous, unless TS is lying about us being days away from administration before the deal was done, he must have pumped some money in.se9addick said:
Is it libellous or inaccurate ?ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.We’ve had fairly big windfalls from the Bonne sale + the Grant sell on and the salary cap reduces the ability to spend so it might be that Sandgaard hasn’t actually needed to invest funds yet. No issues with that from my perspective.He also had money in escrow before the takeover was completed, so it’s a pretty safe bet that at least £1 of this has been used for general maintenance/ those new lawnmowers he’s purchased. Not to mention shipping costs of the Zynex medical devicesYes we’ve had income from player sales but it’s not even a half truth to assert that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is relying on the clubs cash.0 -
Thomas well said.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Di Jim White ask Thomas that he is 100% certain that there is no legal route that Mr Elliott can embark on now in order to take control of CAFC? That in a nutshell is the only thing I'm interested in?2
-
Of course Sandgaard is having to put money in - the club will be heading for multi-million £ losses this season.8
-
The tone of the interview(er) doesn't seem to have impressed you all that listened?0
-
Sounds too complicated a question for Jim to askDagenhamAddick said:Di Jim White ask Thomas that he is 100% certain that there is no legal route that Mr Elliott can embark on now in order to take control of CAFC? That in a nutshell is the only thing I'm interested in?13 -
But that was the exact plan, allegedly, that CF & PE were going to do.ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.0 -
Sandgaard named Farnell as being part of what's currently going onForeverAddickted said:
How so? - I didnt get to listencharlton_hero said:Farnell still involved then...5 -
Definitely not a negative thing, it’s a sustainable business model and I’m all for it - it’s just not exactly true.se9addick said:
Right but I don’t think that relying on the clubs cash is a negative thing. A club living off of its own means is a sustainable model, that’s exactly what I want.ElliotCAFC said:
I’d say libellous, unless TS is lying about us being days away from administration before the deal was done, he must have pumped some money in.se9addick said:
Is it libellous or inaccurate ?ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.We’ve had fairly big windfalls from the Bonne sale + the Grant sell on and the salary cap reduces the ability to spend so it might be that Sandgaard hasn’t actually needed to invest funds yet. No issues with that from my perspective.He also had money in escrow before the takeover was completed, so it’s a pretty safe bet that at least £1 of this has been used for general maintenance/ those new lawnmowers he’s purchased. Not to mention shipping costs of the Zynex medical devicesYes we’ve had income from player sales but it’s not even a half truth to assert that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is relying on the clubs cash.
What is nonsense is for any of the parties who have recently been involved to try and suggest that they would have had a better operating model for us, they wouldn’t.
The libel comes in because Farnell is using the biggest sports station around to spin that Thomas Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is using player sales to keep the club afloat. That’s defamation of character and could impact the club’s or Sandgaard’s future business.3 -
Call in the Danish Mafia.14
-
The way I took it, White made a ricket when he said TS had put no money in, I assume he meant Elliott.2
-
We also know that he was prepared to splash out on a striker, but we were turned down.Dazzler21 said:
Exactly he may have re-couped cash but he spent first...ElliotCAFC said:
I’d say libellous, unless TS is lying about us being days away from administration before the deal was done, he must have pumped some money in.se9addick said:
Is it libellous or inaccurate ?ElliotCAFC said:In a world full of Jim White’s, thank god for Simon Jordan.Very interested in the libellous claim that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is funding the club with player sales. We’ll see if there’s a lawsuit for that.We’ve had fairly big windfalls from the Bonne sale + the Grant sell on and the salary cap reduces the ability to spend so it might be that Sandgaard hasn’t actually needed to invest funds yet. No issues with that from my perspective.He also had money in escrow before the takeover was completed, so it’s a pretty safe bet that at least £1 of this has been used for general maintenance/ those new lawnmowers he’s purchased. Not to mention shipping costs of the Zynex medical devicesYes we’ve had income from player sales but it’s not even a half truth to assert that Sandgaard hasn’t put any money in and is relying on the clubs cash.
Elliot and Farnell seeking a cut from the Grant and Bonne money.
Good on TS if he has brought stability without investing anything .. gives potential funds for January or if we get promoted establishing ourselves in with a decent squad in the Chsmpionship.7
