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

Would this all be happening if we were top two or three?

EugenesAxe said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

Bilko said:

I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.

That's a fair point. 

Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets 

Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point. 

Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard? 

I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. IWhat would Sandgaard gain?

RD needed to get the club back off ESI who were shafting it left right and centre, in return Thommy gets a cut when RD ultimately finds a buyer for the whole shebang.

But he's lost an absolute fortune. That cut would have to be pretty large to make it worthwhile, no? In which case Roland would have been better off selling it at a much-reduced price to begin with. 

robroy said:

JamesSeed said:

Would this all be happening if we were top two or three?

TS is the reason why we are not top two or three. You get what you pay for and he’s not paid for anyone. 

He has paid for players. Just not this season. 

cafcfan1990 said:

EugenesAxe said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

Bilko said:

I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.

That's a fair point. 

Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets 

Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point. 

Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard? 

I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. IWhat would Sandgaard gain?

RD needed to get the club back off ESI who were shafting it left right and centre, in return Thommy gets a cut when RD ultimately finds a buyer for the whole shebang.

But he's lost an absolute fortune. That cut would have to be pretty large to make it worthwhile, no? In which case Roland would have been better off selling it at a much-reduced price to begin with. 

Maybe Thomas is a massive mug, he currently seems to be.

cafcfan1990 said:

EugenesAxe said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

Bilko said:

I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.

That's a fair point. 

Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets 

Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point. 

Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard? 

I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. IWhat would Sandgaard gain?

RD needed to get the club back off ESI who were shafting it left right and centre, in return Thommy gets a cut when RD ultimately finds a buyer for the whole shebang.

But he's lost an absolute fortune. That cut would have to be pretty large to make it worthwhile, no? In which case Roland would have been better off selling it at a much-reduced price to begin with. 

I agree. That doesn't seem to fit. 

Bailey said:

Covered End said:

Bailey said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

Bilko said:

I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.

That's a fair point. 

Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets 

Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point. 

Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard? 

I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. What would Sandgaard gain?

I don't think the author declared that Sandgaard gained anything. His point was that Sandgaard appeared from nowhere and pretty dam quick, not knocking that intervention but if I remember correctly Sandgaard gained ownership due to the fact that those who allegedly owned ESI actually did not and as such their contract was to own the club wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Please correct me if I'm wrong cos there are people on here far more in the know than me and I am happy to be corrected . 

ESI 1 (Southall/Nimer) owned the club and ESI 2 (Elliot/Farnell) were claiming ownership

Thanks Covered end, that jogged my memory, but back to the original post. No one suggested that Sandgaard stood to gain anything by his sudden appearance but it certainly suited one individual and that was Dutchelet, got rid of an eight million loss and gained half a million rent a year. 

That's obvious, we all know why Roland did what he did. Just struggling to see what was "strange" about the way Sandgaard popped up. It's been discussed and explained several times, easy to see why he was able to come in and take over so quickly.  

EugenesAxe said:

cafcfan1990 said:

EugenesAxe said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Bailey said:

Bilko said:

I must admit I did find it a bit strange when all the takeover talk was taking place with various other parties being mentioned, then up pops TS out of nowhere to get the deal done and quite quickly.

That's a fair point. 

Sandgaard popped out of nowhere because he was willing to meet Roland’s terms on the rent and was willing to buy the club without owning the assets 

Sorry but I believed this involved a third party in ESI. There may be nothing in it but at what point did Dutchelet declare ESI were in default by either not abiding by their contract or defaulting on payments ? Which is the same thing. As I say there may be nothing in it but I think it's a fair point. 

Didn't ESI have to pay a certain figure for the assets? Either way, Roland didn't have to declare ESI were in default, it was obvious they couldn't pay and they were selling the club to Sandgaard. What would Roland have had to gain by not negotiating with Sandgaard? 

I don't think it's a fair point at all to be honest, it makes zero sense. IWhat would Sandgaard gain?

RD needed to get the club back off ESI who were shafting it left right and centre, in return Thommy gets a cut when RD ultimately finds a buyer for the whole shebang.

But he's lost an absolute fortune. That cut would have to be pretty large to make it worthwhile, no? In which case Roland would have been better off selling it at a much-reduced price to begin with. 

Maybe Thomas is a massive mug, he currently seems to be.

No doubt. But there's very few people out there willing to take on a club that loses a load of money with the promise of a few quid towards his losses if things go badly. 

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

robroy said:

All this talk of TS spending £20million is laughable, he paid £1million and we had £400k in the bank. He took a loan of £300k. These are only the things we now know about.

what else has gone on? 

We are in serious trouble by the sounds of things 

Check our accounts and see how much the club loses each year. Who do you think covers those losses?

I’ve seen the accounts. It just does not add up, there are far too many negative stories coming out of the club from multiple sources. 

AFKABartram said:

KentishAddick said:

here we go again

What’s the problem with this? They are clearly Community 500 tickets that are distributed via the Community Trust departments.  

Our fans are not buying tickets. On Tuesday we had 6,000 home fans spread around 24,000 home seats. 

I’m dreading advertising on TV on Monday just how empty our ground is and personally I’d flood the West Stand with freebies so it doesn’t look so bad. 

Such a sad date of affairs that these are just sat on the bar in the Kings Head in Bexley for anyone to take. 

robroy said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

robroy said:

All this talk of TS spending £20million is laughable, he paid £1million and we had £400k in the bank. He took a loan of £300k. These are only the things we now know about.

what else has gone on? 

We are in serious trouble by the sounds of things 

Check our accounts and see how much the club loses each year. Who do you think covers those losses?

I’ve seen the accounts. It just does not add up, there are far too many negative stories coming out of the club from multiple sources. 

I would love to be wrong. 

But sadly there is no smoke without fire. 

I think you’re confusing separate things. It’s undeniable how much Sandgaard has input / lent the club, it’s in the accounts. The negative stories of recent cost cutting etc could equally be true, but will still require Sandgaard to keep pumping money in regardless. 

My views have not changed from what I was saying 6-12 months ago. I was slated by many for all of the below statement - I would guess half of it will now be accepted:

1) TS is a bit of a Wally running a football club. He’s not an idiot. He’s built a successful business in another field - but he doesn’t and never did know how to run a professional sports team. He was always going to be found out - and has indeed shown to be out of his depth. No conspiracy, no Roland link. He doesn’t know what he was doing and coupled with the apparent lack of funds and it’s the most dangerous situation we could have.

The above is why we are sinking on the pitch and that will ultimately dictate our commercial success off it

2) Roland wasn’t a Wally. Roland was a seemingly (I never met him) very unpleasant person. But I haven’t changed my view - he was a nasty piece of work who knew more about running a football club.

That knowledge translated into on field performance. Squad and recruitment wise (and standard of football) was head and shoulders clear of where we are now.

Neither option was perfect - but I would hazard a guess that if RD was still here and had maintained his distance from all of us to just support the team - we would have been better off than we are now.

Lets just hope option 3 transpires.

No Roland. No TS. New start.

AFKABartram said:

robroy said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

robroy said:

All this talk of TS spending £20million is laughable, he paid £1million and we had £400k in the bank. He took a loan of £300k. These are only the things we now know about.

what else has gone on? 

We are in serious trouble by the sounds of things 

Check our accounts and see how much the club loses each year. Who do you think covers those losses?

I’ve seen the accounts. It just does not add up, there are far too many negative stories coming out of the club from multiple sources. 

I would love to be wrong. 

But sadly there is no smoke without fire. 

I think you’re confusing separate things. It’s undeniable how much Sandgaard has input / lent the club, it’s in the accounts. The negative stories of recent cost cutting etc could equally be true, but will still require Sandgaard to keep pumping money in regardless. 

The main problem though is a separate one, just how badly run the club is as a whole. And most of that seems completely unrelated to the financials. 

Totally agree. Sadly, we’ve just had no luck with any owners. 

So we will see the final asset erode - the academy 

Scouts will pick off our next generation of players and finally the only working part of the model will be no more. 

it's been a long time coming but we are finally kettled, it feels like. 

So depressing. 

I've no idea what else we could have done as fans. 

Any hope out there? Obi Wan?