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

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

12021232526170

Comments

  • Seems pretty clear to me that getting cat A status has been a fundamental part of his strategy - why else would roddy have been his first ‘hire’ ? He’s probably also aware fans don’t want to hear the likely reality so has allowed us to ‘dream’ by aiming high re prem etc - I think he’s trying but like so many others, is finding out just how tough it is to do well in English football 
  • DOUCHER said:
    Seems pretty clear to me that getting cat A status has been a fundamental part of his strategy - why else would roddy have been his first ‘hire’ ? He’s probably also aware fans don’t want to hear the likely reality so has allowed us to ‘dream’ by aiming high re prem etc - I think he’s trying but like so many others, is finding out just how tough it is to do well in English football 
    Yes, running a football club is not easy
  • shirty5 said:
    Yes, running a football club is not easy
    Yes, he’s also possibly talked a lot of bollox along the way - we shall see this year 
  • edited August 2022
    DOUCHER said:
    I didn’t say he was but u suggest he now has us by the bollox 
    I don’t think it’s that great for him, to be honest. He could have banked £30m up front with more to come in future based on performance - he’s currently getting £500,000 a year plus potential performance bonuses which TS has shown no evidence he can trigger.

    If TS fails he’ll either lose the rent or have to accept a similar or worse deal to the one he could have had 2017-2020, because the basis of his valuation is a property scheme that won’t fly.
  • I don’t think it’s that great for him, to be honest. He could have banked £30m up front with more to come in future based on performance - he’s currently getting £500,000 a year plus potential performance bonuses which TS has shown no evidence he can trigger.

    If TS fails he’ll either lose the rent or have to accept a similar or worse deal to the one he could have had 2017-2020, because the basis of his valuation is a property scheme that won’t fly.
    No but he seems to be acting stubbornly - something u can afford to do when u have his resources and want to get sone revenge 
  • Be interesting to see RD’s age and how that plays a factor.

    Not suggesting he’s close to leaving this world, but at 75, this may also have an impact for whoever is owner in a few years 
  • Has the ground always been a separate entity to the club?
    If not where did this loophole start. Surely their should have been more securities in place than a 'struggling to get planning permission' headache for those that might be intent on using the Valley for other purposes than football.

    Who's at fault for not contractually linking both together?
    My guess is Murray.
  • edited August 2022
    Has the ground always been a separate entity to the club?
    If not where did this loophole start. Surely their should have been more securities in place than a 'struggling to get planning permission' headache for those that might be intent on using the Valley for other purposes than football.

    Who's at fault for not contractually linking both together?
    My guess is Murray.
    The reason for separating the two companies was to protect the freehold if the football company went bust. It’s been like that since circa 1992 - and there had been a risk of it going bust in 1991. It always had the same owners until 2020 and was variously a subsidiary of the plc from 1994 and Baton from 2010. 

    The planning system offers quite robust protection because of the land designation. Residential is contrary to the local plan and would be a lengthy legal battle, which would go beyond Greenwich. But a crucial point is that The Valley is a problematic site anyway because of the topography, the railway line and the soil conditions. It probably requires excavation under Ransom Walk railway bridge to create suitable access for a viable number of homes. 
  • The reason for separating the two companies was to protect the freehold if the football company went bust. It’s been like that since circa 1992 - and there had been a risk of it going bust in 1991. It always had the same owners until 2020 and was variously a subsidiary of the plc from 1994 and Baton from 2010. 
     I get the intention. Times change.
    it's now clearly being used as a stick to beat us with.
  • cabbles said:
    Be interesting to see RD’s age and how that plays a factor.

    Not suggesting he’s close to leaving this world, but at 75, this may also have an impact for whoever is owner in a few years 
    Nancy Pelosi is 82. And she's just about to kick off world war 3!
  • Sponsored links:


  •  I get the intention. Times change.
    it's now clearly being used as a stick to beat us with.
    I don’t see what would have prevented RD carving it out when he sold the club to ESI anyway.
  • I don’t see what would have prevented RD carving it out when he sold the club to ESI anyway.
     Don't the Chelsea fans group own the pitch at Stamford bridge or something? Could we have put something like that in place before it started to fall into the hands of people who may not have the interests of CAFC as their sole purpose of getting involved?
    Might have made RD seriously consider any offers to buy lock & stock?
  • edited August 2022
     Don't the Chelsea fans group own the pitch at Stamford bridge or something? Could we have put something like that in place before it started to fall into the hands of people who may not have the interests of CAFC as their sole purpose of getting involved?
    Might have made RD seriously consider any offers to buy lock & stock?
    Given the multiple investigations of a move to the peninsula, including in conjunction with the council, I doubt the club was ever open to that. It may in fact have pushed the club into admin because there weren’t a lot of other options in 2010 in particular, while in 2013 the spivs were trying to force relocation as the subsequent court case laid out.
  • Given the multiple investigations of a move to the peninsula, including in conjunction with the council, I doubt the club was ever open to that. It may in fact have pushed the club into admin because there weren’t a lot of other options in 2010 in particular, while in 2013 the spivs were trying to force relocation as the subsequent court case laid out.
    Ever?
    I get when we had gangsters running the club. But in the wholesome, well run years? 
  • edited August 2022
    Ever?
    I get when we had gangsters running the club. But in the wholesome, well run years? 
    The peninsula thing reared its head around 2000 - the board was more focused on raising cash in the City prior to and after that than protecting the ground. There may have been a tension between the two.
  • You were a supporter of Meire?
    It seems you want to live in the past.

    She's long gone.
  • edited August 2022
    DOUCHER said:
    No but he seems to be acting stubbornly - something u can afford to do when u have his resources and want to get sone revenge 
    He doesn't want to get some revenge. He just wants his money back to prove he knows best, but is deluded thinking that he'll get it.
  • swordfish said:
    He doesn't want to get some revenge. He just wants his money back to prove he knows best, but is deluded thinking that he'll get it.
    Agree.  He is a fool chasing his losses.
  • For now, but based on the false assumption which he keeps repeating for a reason: that he can triple the revenue and sell the ground out in L1 and, as he has also said, win promotion from the Championship without competing on wages. Whether he has the appetite or the ability to put in £50m or £100m to try to get there, we’ll see.
    But this is an assumption in itself. Just because he wants to sell out the ground and wants to triple the revenue doesn't mean his ownership is contingent on doing it.
  • For now, but based on the false assumption which he keeps repeating for a reason: that he can triple the revenue and sell the ground out in L1 and, as he has also said, win promotion from the Championship without competing on wages. Whether he has the appetite or the ability to put in £50m or £100m to try to get there, we’ll see.

    I agree, he is the owner we have and there is no point endlessly going over alternative scenarios any more than revisiting 2006. But it is important to understand why he is the owner - because like ESI he would rent the ground - and that this puts the club is a weak position going forward, even though it has removed the immediate threat of Southall, Farnell and co, which is clearly a good thing. 

    No one else other than ESI would buy the club without the ground. That is still the case and means that unless Sandgaard turns water into wine, which I doubt he can, we still have.a problem. There is no value in the business.
    But that’s not a problem of his doing, is it, it’s down to RD, The Spivs and to a point Murray and co. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • But that’s not a problem of his doing, is it, it’s down to RD, The Spivs and to a point Murray and co. 
    It doesn't really matter if it was or wasn't his doing, he's the one who has to try and deal with it now. And if he doesn't, there is trouble ahead.
  • Whatever happens next, the Club (which is what we care about right), will be in a better position to be sold under TS's limited form of ownership - Stable squad, contract length of players good, investment in Sparrows Lane, academy recognition. It's not brilliant but it has stabilised since having mysterious crooks attached to the club (which our key players indicated was the reason they ran their contracts down). Lets not conflate this point with chat about League position or Ex director loans, etc.

    If a Billionaire fancies coming in now, he can be as silent or unsilent in his approach to purchasing Charlton. I've often seen and heard of people with too much money spending more on a house just to lay a marker down, show off, or just because they can. 
  • mendonca said:
    Whatever happens next, the Club (which is what we care about right), will be in a better position to be sold under TS's limited form of ownership - Stable squad, contract length of players good, investment in Sparrows Lane, academy recognition. It's not brilliant but it has stabilised since having mysterious crooks attached to the club (which our key players indicated was the reason they ran their contracts down). Lets not conflate this point with chat about League position or Ex director loans, etc.

    If a Billionaire fancies coming in now, he can be as silent or unsilent in his approach to purchasing Charlton. I've often seen and heard of people with too much money spending more on a house just to lay a marker down, show off, or just because they can. 
    The 'club' is only worth what Sandgaard is willing to sell it for.
    Remember this is an asset that sold for less than £5 just a couple of years ago.
    You're basically buying a drain on finances in its current form, regardless of what Sandgaard has supposedly put in.
    There's no 'going rate' in this scenario.It's all down to his discretion and whether he wants to cut his ongoing losses.
  • @carly burn agree, although not if there are silent billionaires lurking around Charlton. 
  • Scoham said:
    TS being interviewed on the pitch tomorrow.

    https://www.charltonafc.com/news/eight-things-do-derby-clash
    Hope he sings all his answers
  • Scoham said:
    TS being interviewed on the pitch tomorrow.

    https://www.charltonafc.com/news/eight-things-do-derby-clash
    The family activity zone does have pheonix nights feel about it.
  • The family activity zone does have pheonix nights feel about it.
    It’s inflatable flith, that’s what it is 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!