Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)
Comments
-
Who would trust Duchatelet not to try an extort a King's Ransom for the land if we made the PL? Even if new owners don't acquire it upfront it would be wise to get options to buy in place that offer some protection.supaclive said:
He doesn't need the property until we make the Premiership. Why outlay money until it's needed to be spent. Say it takes him 4 years to get us into the Premiership - if he's lucky. He lays out £35m to buy the ground etc now or he waits 4 years and it's still £35m. Cost of money £35m at say a rate of 5% + he could get elsewhere on his investments. 5% for 4 years on £35m.... that's an effective "saving" to him of £7m !billysboots said:
Can’t see it without the property play.supaclive said:
It will be REALLY cheap - because he won't buy the stadium until he reaches the Premiership. At that point, the guaranteed £150m+ makes his investment into acquiring the club, buying players and then buying the ground when we get to the Premier, means it's money well spent.billysboots said:The only way Ashely is going to get involved with us is if he can see real value in the upside. Unless he gets it really cheap I cant see him being interested.
If he refuses to spend lots when we get there and we become a yo yo club like Norwich and Watford until he sells up, again, I don't have a problem.
We are currently just outside the relegation zone of League 1..... yes.... our lowest ever ebb...
You do not need to buy the ground until we make the Premiership. You just need to have an agreed deal with the landlord..... Rich people don't spend £35m if they don't need to but can still lock in the price at that!2 -
I’m sure Charlton could get the ground sponsored, it just wouldn’t be for very much. I have no information about what some of these lower division deals are worth, but if they are say £25-50,000 then they may not be worth the effort. There are some costs attached.swordfish said:
It wasn't in the Championship either.Airman Brown said:Do people think if a serious amount of money was available for naming rights over The Valley that successive regimes would have rejected it? Regimes with such a strong attraction to the club’s traditions and history as Duchatelet’s? Or the spivs?
Charlton struggle to get six figures for shirt sponsorship. Look at the matchday ads on the new boards and figure how many are contras or freebies. Look at the empty kit sponsorship pages in the programme. The market isn't there for Charlton in L1.
Sure, someone like Ashley can plaster the ground with their own ads, but I seriously doubt it is worth any significant amount in cash terms.
Sponsors do seem to be attracted to other Clubs though, many of smaller stature than us, who must find it generates enough revenue to make it worthwhile, so good for them.
It's not a ponderable I'd waste much time on, but isn't there more to it than just league standing to explain the obvious lack of interest as it's so commonplace these days, or so it seems to me?There’s a reason Charlton have partnerships with UoG and RBG, plus companies run by supporters, rather than big private entities, and I assume it’s the nature of suburban London. In provincial town and cities you are more likely to get companies of scale with a local identity.
A lot of L1 clubs go in for stuff like sponsored announcements, which are tacky and probably worth sod all, but I don’t recall seeing electronic boards promoting quite so much nonsense as we have at The Valley (the official EPOS supplier, cost reduction partner, etc). It looks a bit desperate but I don’t think we should just assume it’s poor performance by those responsible.6 -
I did think geography must play a part, but wasn't able to think why. Your assumption makes sense.Airman Brown said:
I’m sure Charlton could get it sponsored, it just wouldn’t be for very much. I have no information about what some of these lower division deals are worth, but if they are say 25-50,000 then they may not be worth the effort.swordfish said:
It wasn't in the Championship either.Airman Brown said:Do people think if a serious amount of money was available for naming rights over The Valley that successive regimes would have rejected it? Regimes with such a strong attraction to the club’s traditions and history as Duchatelet’s? Or the spivs?
Charlton struggle to get six figures for shirt sponsorship. Look at the matchday ads on the new boards and figure how many are contras or freebies. Look at the empty kit sponsorship pages in the programme. The market isn't there for Charlton in L1.
Sure, someone like Ashley can plaster the ground with their own ads, but I seriously doubt it is worth any significant amount in cash terms.
Sponsors do seem to be attracted to other Clubs though, many of smaller stature than us, who must find it generates enough revenue to make it worthwhile, so good for them.
It's not a ponderable I'd waste much time on, but isn't there more to it than just league standing to explain the obvious lack of interest as it's so commonplace these days, or so it seems to me?There’s a reason Charlton have partnerships with UoG and RBG, plus companies run by supporters, rather than big private entities, and I assume it’s the nature of suburban London. In provincial town and cities you are more likely to get companies of scale with a local identity.
I only realised recently that Reading had signed up to a deal with Select Car Leasing, but haven't seen how much it's worth to them over the 10 year term. It'll be for more than for those clubs with stadium branding deals in place in the lower leagues obviously.
0 -
Think the big numbers are for teams that are generally on TV more, so you can cover a worldwide audience. 7k ish vs Exeter at home and a few thousand on Charlton TV isn’t going to attract big numbers. The only was this would work would be if you can guarantee exposure through other means. So if we had the you tubers every other week at the valley the ground sponsorship may be a bit more lucrative …….swordfish said:
I did think geography must play a part, but wasn't able to think why. Your assumption makes sense.Airman Brown said:
I’m sure Charlton could get it sponsored, it just wouldn’t be for very much. I have no information about what some of these lower division deals are worth, but if they are say 25-50,000 then they may not be worth the effort.swordfish said:
It wasn't in the Championship either.Airman Brown said:Do people think if a serious amount of money was available for naming rights over The Valley that successive regimes would have rejected it? Regimes with such a strong attraction to the club’s traditions and history as Duchatelet’s? Or the spivs?
Charlton struggle to get six figures for shirt sponsorship. Look at the matchday ads on the new boards and figure how many are contras or freebies. Look at the empty kit sponsorship pages in the programme. The market isn't there for Charlton in L1.
Sure, someone like Ashley can plaster the ground with their own ads, but I seriously doubt it is worth any significant amount in cash terms.
Sponsors do seem to be attracted to other Clubs though, many of smaller stature than us, who must find it generates enough revenue to make it worthwhile, so good for them.
It's not a ponderable I'd waste much time on, but isn't there more to it than just league standing to explain the obvious lack of interest as it's so commonplace these days, or so it seems to me?There’s a reason Charlton have partnerships with UoG and RBG, plus companies run by supporters, rather than big private entities, and I assume it’s the nature of suburban London. In provincial town and cities you are more likely to get companies of scale with a local identity.
I only realised recently that Reading had signed up to a deal with Select Car Leasing, but haven't seen how much it's worth to them over the 10 year term. It'll be for more than for those clubs with stadium branding deals in place in the lower leagues obviously.1 -
I think thje biggest advantage of those new boards are that it is very easy to change what they are advertising - even on a match-by-match basis. So when a game, like the Portsmoth game, is on Sky then (if the sales team at CAFC are on the ball) they will be pushing for bigger companies and bigger revenue. May even be something Sky would promote as the advertising would, potentially, tie in with Sky commercial breaks.Airman Brown said:swordfish said:
It wasn't in the Championship either.Airman Brown said:Do people think if a serious amount of money was available for naming rights over The Valley that successive regimes would have rejected it? Regimes with such a strong attraction to the club’s traditions and history as Duchatelet’s? Or the spivs?
Charlton struggle to get six figures for shirt sponsorship. Look at the matchday ads on the new boards and figure how many are contras or freebies. Look at the empty kit sponsorship pages in the programme. The market isn't there for Charlton in L1.
Sure, someone like Ashley can plaster the ground with their own ads, but I seriously doubt it is worth any significant amount in cash terms.
Sponsors do seem to be attracted to other Clubs though, many of smaller stature than us, who must find it generates enough revenue to make it worthwhile, so good for them.
It's not a ponderable I'd waste much time on, but isn't there more to it than just league standing to explain the obvious lack of interest as it's so commonplace these days, or so it seems to me?
A lot of L1 clubs go in for stuff like sponsored announcements, which are tacky and probably worth sod all, but I don’t recall seeing electronic boards promoting quite so much nonsense as we have at The Valley (the official EPOS supplier, cost reduction partner, etc). It looks a bit desperate but I don’t think we should just assume it’s poor performance by those responsible.3 -
What does this even mean though?MarcusH26 said:
Andrew Barclay tweet saying the circumstances would have to change for him
Is he saying unless or until RD reaches out to him to say I’m open to selling the freehold to you then nothing changes?
It’s not in the gift of TS to influence this as not his to sell.Sounds to me it’s dead in the water and no efforts being made to change that.I still find it odd that he can’t get in front of RD despite the history of the perception he had of PV etc. Easy to park that as the eccentricity of RD but at the end of the day RD is sitting on an asset that he is not exploiting as far as he might.3 -
valleynick66 said:
What does this even mean though?MarcusH26 said:
Andrew Barclay tweet saying the circumstances would have to change for him
Is he saying unless or until RD reaches out to him to say I’m open to selling the freehold to you then nothing changes?
It’s not in the gift of TS to influence this as not his to sell.Sounds to me it’s dead in the water and no efforts being made to change that.I still find it odd that he can’t get in front of RD despite the history of the perception he had of PV etc. Easy to park that as the eccentricity of RD but at the end of the day RD is sitting on an asset that he is not exploiting as far as he might.
I took it to be that unless RD comes to the table with a deal for the ground and SL then Barclay isn't interested.9 -
Agree that's how it likely reads. But how realistic is it that RD needs to be the first to move - if he is genuinely interested in running a football club why wouldn't he nudge it?MarcusH26 said:valleynick66 said:
What does this even mean though?MarcusH26 said:
Andrew Barclay tweet saying the circumstances would have to change for him
Is he saying unless or until RD reaches out to him to say I’m open to selling the freehold to you then nothing changes?
It’s not in the gift of TS to influence this as not his to sell.Sounds to me it’s dead in the water and no efforts being made to change that.I still find it odd that he can’t get in front of RD despite the history of the perception he had of PV etc. Easy to park that as the eccentricity of RD but at the end of the day RD is sitting on an asset that he is not exploiting as far as he might.
I took it to be that unless RD comes to the table with a deal for the ground and SL then Barclay isn't interested.0 -
Barclay is a Chelsea fan and would only be interested if it included The Valley ans Sparrows Lane
alo remember he mase a lot of money in real estate
whilst he has a lot of money would you not be worried hes looking to maximise the land value2 -
Not really; based largely on the views from @airmanbrown that developing the Valley is not easy logistically or planning wise.Swisdom said:Barclay is a Chelsea fan and would only be interested if it included The Valley ans Sparrows Lane
alo remember he mase a lot of money in real estate
whilst he has a lot of money would you not be worried hes looking to maximise the land value
Maybe Barclay showing interest points RD to think he does have a more valuable asset after all - but then even stranger he would not engage.
I'm more inclined to conclude he only had a passing interest and that's that.2 - Sponsored links:
-
What makes the valley ‘logistically’ difficult to develop?
0 -
I imagine he would see Sparrows Lane as the development angle, big plot of land in residential area - no idea how easy it would be to get planning, but a lot of my developer clients would look at Sparrows, and try a buy land adjacent to it to get a really big siteSwisdom said:Barclay is a Chelsea fan and would only be interested if it included The Valley ans Sparrows Lane
alo remember he mase a lot of money in real estate
whilst he has a lot of money would you not be worried hes looking to maximise the land value
The profit in £££’s from building there would be huge
He would then simply buy some land somewhere a lot cheaper and move training ground there
Do Charlton fans have emotional attachment to Sparrows - doubt it (I don’t)
The Valley however, that’s a different ball game when it comes to emotional attachment, and I agree that The Valley has no development angle1 -
Access to lorries and the large sewer in the front of the east stand1
-
I always thought it was partially access - not brilliant from the Woolwich Road and even worse from the village, and also what might be 'under' the current stands. We know there is a bunch of stuff under the East / AC, but what might lurk from pre-1919 days? I'm sure it was used as a general dumping ground post quarry and before football. Could be some costly clean up expense.paulbaconsarnie said:What makes the valley ‘logistically’ difficult to develop?1 -
When the money talks, the bullshit walks.2
-
The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council1
-
Never thought of it like that.valleynick66 said:
Not really; based largely on the views from @airmanbrown that developing the Valley is not easy logistically or planning wise.Swisdom said:Barclay is a Chelsea fan and would only be interested if it included The Valley ans Sparrows Lane
alo remember he mase a lot of money in real estate
whilst he has a lot of money would you not be worried hes looking to maximise the land value
Maybe Barclay showing interest points RD to think he does have a more valuable asset after all - but then even stranger he would not engage.
I'm more inclined to conclude he only had a passing interest and that's that.
Yeah selling to a property developer probably would make Roland think twice0 -
I noticed the head kit man was still with them last night so presumably it's the assistants that have left?carly burn said:
0 -
That's a net spend of less than 13m a season for a club that probably generate more than twice that just in season ticket and shirt sales. So he was basically pocketing a large % of the tv money hence why the fans were pissed off.Sensei said:Fascinating table from Bob.
Ashley bought the club in 2007 and sold it in 2021 so he was the only owner during the period that the table has been calculated. If correct then the table suggests Newcastle United have the 10th highest transfer budget deficit at £181,840,000. If true then it completely contradicts the earlier post (forgive me I can't recall who posted it) which contained a graphic stating that Newcastle had a transfer budget surplus during his ownership.
Unless of course he sold loads of players during the period 2007-2010?0 -
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It does not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in the area’s adopted local plan is much more important.Lordflashheart said:The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council1 - Sponsored links:
-
They may have sold £26m worth of shirts and STs but not profit!Chris_from_Sidcup said:
That's a net spend of less than 13m a season for a club that probably generate more than twice that just in season ticket and shirt sales. So he was basically pocketing a large % of the tv money hence why the fans were pissed off.Sensei said:Fascinating table from Bob.
Ashley bought the club in 2007 and sold it in 2021 so he was the only owner during the period that the table has been calculated. If correct then the table suggests Newcastle United have the 10th highest transfer budget deficit at £181,840,000. If true then it completely contradicts the earlier post (forgive me I can't recall who posted it) which contained a graphic stating that Newcastle had a transfer budget surplus during his ownership.
Unless of course he sold loads of players during the period 2007-2010?
Here's an interesting article - doesn't really indicate that Ashley was rinsing the club.
https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/newcastle-united-tumbles-54m-operating-21261726
1 -
Oh 😔Airman Brown said:
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It goes not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in area’s adopted local plan is much more important.Lordflashheart said:The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council0 -
And I wonder if the longer we spend at the bottom of the third tier, the less relevant and important we become to the local authority?Airman Brown said:
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It does not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in the area’s adopted local plan is much more important.Lordflashheart said:The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council0 -
I’m sure the council would prefer we were successful, because it benefits the economy and local prestige, but I don’t think it will affect their attitude to the land designation. It’s also not the case they can just do what they like - there is an exhaustive process including statutory consultation and independent examination for any changes. Of course there is policy pressure for housing which is also a consideration.The Red Robin said:
And I wonder if the longer we spend at the bottom of the third tier, the less relevant and important we become to the local authority?Airman Brown said:
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It does not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in the area’s adopted local plan is much more important.Lordflashheart said:The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council7 -
I’m confident the council will extend the Asset of Community Value status when we next have to reapply (early 2024 if I recall rightly) but ACV status is a symbolic acknowledgment of the importance of the Valley to fabric of the Borough. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth having, it definitely is, it just isn’t designed to protect against the situation where someone wanted to sell or redevelop the land. It’s important people understand that.4
-
Yes the two assistants resigned a couple of weeks ago and have already been replaced by new staff on lower pay.Talal said:
I noticed the head kit man was still with them last night so presumably it's the assistants that have left?carly burn said:1 -
Peasant._MrDick said:
According to this web site https://www.benzinga.com/sec/insider-trades/zyxi/thomas-sandgaard Sandgaard has a net worth of $43m which is a lot less than I thoughtRaplhMilne said:Just as an aside.
Simon Hallet the owner of table topping Plymouth Argyle who are now hitting genuine gates of over 15,000, has a net worth of $83 Millon. I would think this is less than a third of TS.2 -
The site www.castrust.org seems to be downkakaka said:0
