Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)

11718202223170

Comments

  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Why would Thomas put us in administration?  He is the only creditor and there is nothing to administer.
    I don't think he will and it's a hypothetical scenario I'm using to illustrate that going into administration doesn't guarantee a successful outcome.

    Reading some of the comments above, it seems a number of posters are suggesting going into administration can turn out well, but don't point out the potential downside.
  • Oh please, you are not telling me they are suitable for the job and that Sandgaard has not deliberately given them posts because of who they are.
    My Branch Manager was given the post because of his dad being the owner of the company, it's an absolute mess and the poor fella does not know what day of the week it is.
    Was you a supporter of Meire btw?
    Evidence that they are not.

    There are many successful family businesses.
  • swordfish said:
    I don't think he will and it's a hypothetical scenario I'm using to illustrate that going into administration doesn't guarantee a successful outcome.

    Reading some of the comments above, it seems a number of posters are suggesting going into administration can turn out well, but don't point out the potential downside.
    The last time administration was a real option was when the spivs were out of cash, literally and metaphorically.

    Would that have been a better option than them selling to Roland?  Who knows.
  • edited August 2022
    Cafc43v3r said:
    The last time administration was a real option was when the spivs were out of cash, literally and metaphorically.

    Would that have been a better option than them selling to Roland?  Who knows.
    Exactly. Going into Administration guarantees nothing other than points deductions and transfer embargoes. There are potential upsides, but definite downsides.
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    The last time administration was a real option was when the spivs were out of cash, literally and metaphorically.

    Would that have been a better option than them selling to Roland?  Who knows.
    With what has gone on with us since, absolutely no doubt about it. (If you ignore businesses which would have been knocked etc)
  • boggzy said:
    With what has gone on with us since, absolutely no doubt about it. (If you ignore businesses which would have been knocked etc)
    Well it depends who bought us out of administration doesn't it?
  • Administration is a high risk process (and has moral issues for the businesses you also affect). It does give any new owner though the chance to start with more of a clean slate.
  • Administration is a high risk process (and has moral issues for the businesses you also affect). It does give any new owner though the chance to start with more of a clean slate.
    Bar the ex directors loans, which we have never been close to having to repay, the spivs, Roland, ESI and Thomas have all bought, what ever they have bought, debt free.  Haven't they?

    None of them have been burdened with paying back historic debt.
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    I think this is the cause of almost all of the circular arguments that go round and round, make people with both points of view angry with each other and escalate things needlessly.

    It's perfectly reasonable for TS to have Martin here full time and to utilise Raelynn's skills while she is here, assuming she accompanies him.

    I have come to the conclusion that Martin’s input, and ability, has been massively over egged by TS.  I just think that's the way he is.  The story is never consistent and every now and then he credits Martin with stuff thats massively over hyped.

    Raelynn, as far as I know, has no official role other than being the partner of the owner.  Yet she obviously does "stuff" above and beyond that.

    I don't believe people should make on the record statements every 5 minutes, like some people demand, but a bit of clarity about Raelynn and consistency and honesty about Martin would stop half the criticism/arguing in an instant.
    Didn’t he say that MS suggested Garner ?  
  • Crusty54 said:
    Evidence that they are not.

    There are many successful family businesses.
    Not many in football though are there? Very different type of business. Vincent Tan and Chansiri are other examples of loons that have given jobs to their unqualified family members.
  • Sponsored links:


  • thenewbie said:
    The takeover was two years ago now. I would like to think that firm plans would have been in place well before now. It's possible that plans have changed (by necessity or choice) but that's implying that the original plan did not work - which is why I am sticking with my stance that Sandgaard is better off reining in the bravado and braggadocio until he's got something to actually boast about.

    I think you probably have a point that the division as a whole is getting better/harder but my concern is that Sandgaard doesn't seem to be adjusting accordingly.
    Fair enough, but what adjustment is possible? It seems to be widely accepted that our wage bill is the highest two or three in the league, whereas our average attendance is about fifth. So there is a limit to what is sanely possible.

  • wmcf123 said:
    Didn’t he say that MS suggested Garner ?  
    Yes, amongst other things.
  • edited August 2022
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Yes, amongst other things.

    .

  • wmcf123 said:
    Didn’t he say that MS suggested Garner ?  
    MS also suggested that Albie Morgan needed to drive forward from midfield, so that DJ on the overlap could cross the ball into Fraser  ;)
  • edited August 2022
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Bar the ex directors loans, which we have never been close to having to repay, the spivs, Roland, ESI and Thomas have all bought, what ever they have bought, debt free.  Haven't they?

    None of them have been burdened with paying back historic debt.
    That's not quite true, since both the spivs and Roland inherited the balance of the loan on the north stand.

    The spivs got a very good deal since apart from that debt and the ex-director loans they effectively picked up the assets for nothing. I am no fan, obviously, but they were still a better option than Sebastien Sainsbury and co.

    In practice, they just moved a chunk of the bank debt into other borrowing and their accumulated debt became RD's purchase price, so he did pay £18m to acquire the club as well as picking up the balance of the bank debt. His trump card was timing.

    The difference from 2017 onwards is that there were multiple people willing to buy the club, even in L1, but none of them could deal with RD. That is still the problem. It has just been put on the back burner. ESI did take on £44m of debt - TS has restructured that so it is not on the books as debt, but the essential problem remains, which is that RD wants his money back and will try to use the assets to obtain it.
  • edited August 2022
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Why would Thomas put us in administration?  He is the only creditor and there is nothing to administer.
    The ex-director loans come into play in that scenario and they rank above TS as a creditor. So I agree, it would be madness on his part.
  • Still owns the land and property, which is probably more important to RD whilst he believes the silly valuation 
  • do the director loans apply to the freeholds? or the club? I assume its the latter..
  • razil said:
    do the director loans apply to the freeholds? or the club? I assume its the latter..
    Both.
  • Sponsored links:


  • The point about administration, which I agree would have been hazardous, is that he would have had to confront the reality of his valuation. If faced with the possibility of no tenant - and bear in mind that an incoming owner doesn't have to commit to The Valley if the team can play elsewhere as a bargaining position - he would have had to face the fact that he won't get any more than he could from that new owner up front  than by trying to go down the property development route and that the latter would take forever and a day, while he would also be likely to face a resumption of hostilities personally if Charlton were not at The Valley. 
     Out of interest, at what point in time did we get the closest to administration? Was it in the Jimenez era?
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Well it depends who bought us out of administration doesn't it?
    Yes, of course. I'm kind of assuming it wouldn't've been a Southall/Farnell/Bassini wrongun type back then (the crooks buying clubs thing wasn't as big a thing back then), but you never know.
  • edited August 2022
     Out of interest, at what point in time did we get the closest to administration? Was it in the Jimenez era?
    Late 2010 and 2013, arguably, although the maximum point of financial stress was May/June 2012. The club had no cash and was unable to pay basic bills at that time.

    In 1991-92 the club would not have survived without the arrival of Martin Simons, Richard Murray and, to a lesser extent, Mike Stevens.

    Clearly administration was a risk in 2020 but it was largely at the whim of Duchatelet, who had a problem because he was still on the hook for the £7m ex-director loans if it happened. ESI was a problem of his creation.
  • cafcfan said:
    I have chosen @ElfsborgAddick's post (almost) at random because this has been mentioned a lot on various threads. With words like nepotism being bandied about. It's odd though isn't it?

    Many businesses are more than proud to herald that they are a family-run firm.  Ranging from local butchers through to the Issa brothers huge empire. (And where did the oft mentioned Andrew Barclay get his wealth from?)  Probably best though that I don't mention the Maxwell dynasty. My niece is HR director of a family-run and successful engineering company: there are the father and mother and three offspring in senior positions in the business.

    Now, of course, the Sandgaard crew will have no experience of running an English professional football club. But then, how much of said experience did Murray and Varney have when they took over:  none. Varney was some form of admin person in Lewisham council I seem to recall!   He was far from infallible when he first started working for Charlton. Varney was not immune to making mistakes either.

    In my opinion, ideally, Charlton should have an experienced CEO in place. But it hasn't and where would we get one?

    At the end of the day we will succeed or fail. And far more football clubs do the latter.  To stae the bleeding obvious, only three clubs get promoted from Division 3 with 21 doing nothing or worse than nothing!. So the odds are against us as they are for everyone.

    The Sandgaards will succeed or fail. Until we see the outcome we will not know which it will be.  Yes, a whole series of mistakes both on the football field and off it have been made. Let us hope that better decisions are made in the future. Otherwise it will be grim for everyone.  But who can say whether anyone else employed by the club would do better or worse than the current incumbents?
    Well said !! finally some sense of reality breezes into CL
  • There was a silent partner who would only have been revealed if it had happened. If Roland had got a sniff of this person's wealth he would have wanted even more. 


    just when I think I couldn't give a toss anymore, Airman goes and throws this nugget in...
  • There was a silent partner who would only have been revealed if it had happened. If Roland had got a sniff of this person's wealth he would have wanted even more. 


    just when I think I couldn't give a toss anymore, Airman goes and throws this nugget in...

  • ... That's alright then.  (Today's Mirror).


  • Crusty54 said:
    Evidence that they are not.

    There are many successful family businesses.
    You were a supporter of Meire?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!