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

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

13334363839170

Comments

  • KettsJohn
    KettsJohn Posts: 1,210
    Certainly TS 5 year strategy of getting to the premier league seems to have altered. No money spent on players. Of course we have received money for Burstow and Pope sell on fee. Seems to have been focusing on savings in terms of staffing at the club. All a little concerning bearing in mind how he was very confident of driving us up the league's. The narrative has certainly changed. I really hope he knows what he is doing.
  • DOUCHER
    DOUCHER Posts: 7,900
    DOUCHER said:
    Apparently he’s increasing revenues by emptying the ground. Does he saw people in half and then produce them from cupboards as well?
    I guess what we don’t see is the revenue generated from Charlton Tv.  Some of the stay away will buy that each week instead of going as it is cheaper and easy to get around with VPN. 

    I have always wondered if the business sense, I assume he feels all the income is accretive but how much revenue is lost is the question.  Any thoughts?
    There is revenue from Charlton TV but it seems unlikely it stacks up as a business proposition on its own merits. The net revenue isn’t all Charlton’s and there are operating costs. The ex-pros are great on it and may well be worth the money but they aren’t working for nothing. That’s before you get to the ticket revenue it is cannibalising.

    I am not saying I believe you can avoid the technological change, by the way, or that it’s not a good thing for fans, just that I doubt it works financially or that the numbers are particularly impressive in practice. In any event, it’s not a game-changer and ticket revenue will be down year on year as the season progresses.
    i'm sure you're views are well founded airman but wouldn't it also be fair that you were often very critical of the ownership in the early to mid 90's in voice of the valley and look how that turned out so maybe, just maybe, things could turn out a lot better than you think   
    Pretty strange overall interpretation of VOTV in the mid 1990s. Even stranger if that was the case that the same board then asked me to set up and manage its comms team in the PL…

    I was certainly sceptical about Roger Alwen’s stewardship pre-1994 and that view was shared by the people who nudged him aside.
    I wouldn’t say stranger - if you’ve got somebody out there who keeps criticising, one solution is to bring them in, get them on your side and shut them up ??? You could be our new centre forward in a couple of days !!! 
  • cafc999
    cafc999 Posts: 4,967
    Gonna treble the revenue but sells nothing on the online club shop other than extortionate replica kits.
    Apparently that’s all there is in the actual shop? Haven’t been in there personally, but so I was told.
    I can confirm that the "Club Shop" only sells is replica shirts and a few training kit options. 
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    cafc999 said:
    Gonna treble the revenue but sells nothing on the online club shop other than extortionate replica kits.
    Apparently that’s all there is in the actual shop? Haven’t been in there personally, but so I was told.
    I can confirm that the "Club Shop" only sells is replica shirts and a few training kit options. 
    You mean they have finally flogged all those Alan Pardew mugs?
  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,376
    edited September 2022
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,008
    It looks like nothing of importance, just a tidy up.
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    It says that shares can't be transfered, or recognised, if the EFL haven't passed that person as fit and proper.  I think.

    I'll have to have proper read of what it's amending to make proper sense of it.  It's either an oversight in the original or been done for a specific reason.

    My initial thoughts are that it's 95% nothing of any significance. 
  • I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
    It doesn't though does it?

    If TS wanted to sell to ESI III he could just amend them first?

    Although it would prevent a hostile take over so it has some benifit. 
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
    It doesn't though does it?

    If TS wanted to sell to ESI III he could just amend them first?

    Although it would prevent a hostile take over so it has some benifit. 
    It does if it’s a condition of EFL membership to have such a clause. 

    Though I’m not sure that is the case. 
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,291
    Hopefully it will be since the conclusion of the Rochdale case.
  • aliwibble said:
    Hopefully it will be since the conclusion of the Rochdale case.
    It was proposed before that was concluded but yes, it absolutely helps to prevent such a situation.
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    Cafc43v3r said:
    I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
    It doesn't though does it?

    If TS wanted to sell to ESI III he could just amend them first?

    Although it would prevent a hostile take over so it has some benifit. 
    It does if it’s a condition of EFL membership to have such a clause. 

    Though I’m not sure that is the case. 
    I am not sure it can be because that company aren't a member of the EFL?
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,231
    Just a wash and brush up by Sandgaard
  • After yesterday's nonsense I have lost all faith in Sandgaard.
  • BigRedEvil
    BigRedEvil Posts: 11,071
    He's obviously tightening his belt in terms of what he wants to spend. I suspect he will be looking to sell if we don't get promoted this season 
  • soapy_jones
    soapy_jones Posts: 21,355
    edited September 2022
    Always behind our on the pitch team, crap or not.  However, Sandguards "good will" tokens are being frittered away again and that is sad, because he saved us, make no bones.

    What is his end game? Christ knows but I think Charlton will be in this division for quite a while.  Garner is a bright light in the gloom this morning.


  • Sponsored links:



  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,376
    Are more now coming round to the idea that TS is looking to sell?

    I struggle to see evidence that he wants to be here long term.

    The only way he does that is by us getting promotion against the odds and using the increased TV revenue at Championship level combined with player sales to break even. I expect Leaburn to be sold within the next year or so and there are various others showing potential.

    Even if we do that what’s the aim? To become a Championship/League 1 yoyo club? We won’t “do a Brentford” and make big profits on players without more investment in the team.

    Stay in L1 and revenue will decrease (despite what TS claims) and we’ll be selling the odd youngster on the cheap to keep the club going.
  • Isn’t Garner on one of the lowest wages in this league.  How long before he gets snapped up by a club with ambition! 
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,459
    Is there any obligation preventing TS from selling his lot for a quid? I can't see any. Would Roland get a say on what he does with the football club?

    We're all just praying and hoping that he cares enough about it to not let that happen. But with his finances draining for f**k all reward it must be a closer and closer possibility?
  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,376

  • Is there any obligation preventing TS from selling his lot for a quid? I can't see any. Would Roland get a say on what he does with the football club?

    We're all just praying and hoping that he cares enough about it to not let that happen. But with his finances draining for f**k all reward it must be a closer and closer possibility?
    Whoever paid the £ would still have to take on the liabilities, which is all TS really owns. 
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,729
    Garner has my full support. He is showing what a good manager he is. Sadly, he is joining Powell and Bowyer who didn't get that bit of support from the owner when they were on to something. For all his promises Sandgaard has shown he is the same camp as the crooks and idiots (he is the latter) that have been before.
  • He seemed to come out of nowhere and buy us on a whim, completely naive to the strength and difficulty of English football, backed up by his nonsense of PL footy in 5 years and wasting money on Schwartz.

    He then pivoted away from frittering his money on transfers to focusing his money on Cat1 and failing to achieve that.

    I ways though his budget stretched to 18 months in League One.  It was his stated business plan.

    We are now beyond that. I suspect like most people (even the wealthy) that he does not sit with millions in of spare cash in a bank account so would need to sell assets (Zynex shares most likely) to keep funding us and they are depressed since the club acquisition so he does not want to.

    Would he cut his losses? Would there be a queue to pick us up with the new 15 year lease he has successfully negotiated giving RD even less incentive to sell The Valley and training ground.

    Worrying times.



  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,459
    edited September 2022
    Is there any obligation preventing TS from selling his lot for a quid? I can't see any. Would Roland get a say on what he does with the football club?

    We're all just praying and hoping that he cares enough about it to not let that happen. But with his finances draining for f**k all reward it must be a closer and closer possibility?
    Whoever paid the £ would still have to take on the liabilities, which is all TS really owns. 
     Fully aware of that Stu. We've been here before.
    Just wondered if there was any new mechanism preventing that from happening?
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    Scoham said:
    Are more now coming round to the idea that TS is looking to sell?

    I struggle to see evidence that he wants to be here long term.

    The only way he does that is by us getting promotion against the odds and using the increased TV revenue at Championship level combined with player sales to break even. I expect Leaburn to be sold within the next year or so and there are various others showing potential.

    Even if we do that what’s the aim? To become a Championship/League 1 yoyo club? We won’t “do a Brentford” and make big profits on players without more investment in the team.

    Stay in L1 and revenue will decrease (despite what TS claims) and we’ll be selling the odd youngster on the cheap to keep the club going.
    This is the most worrying point for me. Even if we did manage to sneak up, TS would clearly the use the opportunity to try to break even and not invest in the squad, just like Roland did  It would be just another wasted opportunity and we'd likely end up back where we started.