Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)
Comments
-
Well it was another dopey statement then Swordfish. It's almost like 'have a nice day' you say it but have no conviction or belief that you actually mean it.swordfish said:
With increased revenue from hospitality, ticket sales and sponsorship is what I read in the CAST article, but assuming he's estimated how much he expects to generate from each source, well that isn't stated.Bailey said:I think it's a waiting game with Sandgaard. There is probably still part of him that thinks this might work out, but he probably knows that's a long shot. His comment about cost reductions would not bring a break-even situation on its own was interesting, then how does he think he'll reach cost neutral then or has he now woken up to the fact that he has come out with another dopey statement to add to his list of dopey statements.1 -
Nail on head, Bailey.Bailey said:
Well it was another dopey statement then Swordfish. It's almost like 'have a nice day' you say it but have no conviction or belief that you actually mean it.swordfish said:
With increased revenue from hospitality, ticket sales and sponsorship is what I read in the CAST article, but assuming he's estimated how much he expects to generate from each source, well that isn't stated.Bailey said:I think it's a waiting game with Sandgaard. There is probably still part of him that thinks this might work out, but he probably knows that's a long shot. His comment about cost reductions would not bring a break-even situation on its own was interesting, then how does he think he'll reach cost neutral then or has he now woken up to the fact that he has come out with another dopey statement to add to his list of dopey statements.
How the feck could he raise revenue via hospitality &/or tickets when both are overpriced & under subscribed as a result. And the cost of living has skyrocketed ...but probably not in his world.
And what is there remaining to attract further sponsorship at a L1 club which already seems to have it's fair share?
Of course, if Thomas headlines post match entertainment in the "Fans' Bar" & charges for entry..........maybe not.
Wonder if he has a Plan B ?
5 -
The Brazilians are gonna love you fella.🫣ElfsborgAddick said:
A bit like you mateSoundAsa£ said:
Life is like a chicken coop ladder.ShootersHillGuru said:God this is a depressing thread. What is it with our effing club that we just keep attracting spivs, crooks, nutters and egomaniacs for owners. Next time lucky ?
Short and full of shit.
1 -
The targeted cost cutting measures are easier for him to predict and implement, hence him signing off on expenses to exercise tighter control.Fanny Fanackapan said:
Nail on head, Bailey.Bailey said:
Well it was another dopey statement then Swordfish. It's almost like 'have a nice day' you say it but have no conviction or belief that you actually mean it.swordfish said:
With increased revenue from hospitality, ticket sales and sponsorship is what I read in the CAST article, but assuming he's estimated how much he expects to generate from each source, well that isn't stated.Bailey said:I think it's a waiting game with Sandgaard. There is probably still part of him that thinks this might work out, but he probably knows that's a long shot. His comment about cost reductions would not bring a break-even situation on its own was interesting, then how does he think he'll reach cost neutral then or has he now woken up to the fact that he has come out with another dopey statement to add to his list of dopey statements.
How the feck could he raise revenue via hospitality &/or tickets when both are overpriced & under subscribed as a result. And the cost of living has skyrocketed ...but probably not in his world.
And what is there remaining to attract further sponsorship at a L1 club which already seems to have it's fair share?
Of course, if Thomas headlines post match entertainment in the "Fans' Bar" & charges for entry..........maybe not.
Wonder if he has a Plan B ?
To increase revenues is more difficult to achieve and predict because of all the variables he can't control, such as the cost of living crisis. It hasn't helped that those he can control, like ticket pricing, he's set too high given our league status and economic climate, but he's responded to advice on that now.
His plan is clearly to shrink the cost base whilst growing the revenue side of the Club, but unless he's a magician, that's a hard trick to pull off. We'll have to wait and see what rabbits emerge from the hat in the January transfer window, hopefully not ones that get startled in the headlights as soon as they put on a Charlton shirt.
0 -
Of course, they'll not understand a word I am blabbering on about.SoundAsa£ said:
The Brazilians are gonna love you fella.🫣ElfsborgAddick said:
A bit like you mateSoundAsa£ said:
Life is like a chicken coop ladder.ShootersHillGuru said:God this is a depressing thread. What is it with our effing club that we just keep attracting spivs, crooks, nutters and egomaniacs for owners. Next time lucky ?
Short and full of shit.1 -
I only said potentially ! And by that it might assist not hinder.ShootersHillGuru said:
I don’t buy into Duchatelets age being a factor. He has more money than he could ever need and what he owns in terms of The Valley and Sparrows is money in the bank anyway. He’ll pass on his wealth regardless, whether that’s money, business or real estate is probably immaterial to him.valleynick66 said:If there is a serious bidder waiting in the wings a deal can always be done.TS needs an out with a little dignity, ie make good some of his losses and he can say ‘passing the reigns on to those with deep pockets’ etc.
RD can negotiate with whoever and again if the price is right will sell - as each month passes the numbers for him potentially change as his age becomes more of a factor. He no longer has the challenge of passing the loss making football club on to someone.1 -
This prob not the correct thread.. but I heard tonight, that RD only owns The Valley and Sparrows Lane is owned by Murray and ex directors.. this might be false news. Or old news!1
-
Don’t think that’s right mate1
-
I didn’t think it was, the info come from an ex player who had a group who was close to buying the club,. I didn’t think it was the caseAFKABartram said:Don’t think that’s right mate0 -
Not true.DubaiCAFC said:This prob not the correct thread.. but I heard tonight, that RD only owns The Valley and Sparrows Lane is owned by Murray and ex directors.. this might be false news. Or old news!0 - Sponsored links:
-
....But don't let the truth stop us from having a melt down - Murray ?!!!!0
-
Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....6
-
Feels weird to be celebrating and complaining at the same time.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....
.1 -
I guess similar to the Aneke one. Seems folk are not counting his goals and appearances the way they counted all the game he missed.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....4 -
Sandgaard out (as soon as we stop winning)!4
-
"Subject of Fan Led Review was raised in Parliament by Birmingham MP - Ms Mahmood appeared in the House of Commons on Monday night (7 November), leading a debate on the governance and financial sustainability of football clubs in England.
"The Government said it would establish an independent regulator in April, [ie April 2022] and twenty-nine clubs have now written to the Government urging it to now implement the plans."
I wonder whether Charlton is one of those clubs, and if not, why not?
And did our local MP participate in the debate?
When it comes down to it, Sandgaard is a businessman and when selling will do the deal which is best for his bank balance, So those calling for Sandgaard to sell up should hope the recommendations of the review are implemented first, or we could so easily end up once again in the hands of the ilk of ESI / Bassini / etc.
0 -
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....31 -
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.1 -
You're so right. It's just like that. Exactly.Athletico Charlton said:
I guess similar to the Aneke one. Seems folk are not counting his goals and appearances the way they counted all the game he missed.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....
It's almost as if now he's back available and playing there's no longer a need to count the games he's not available or playing in.
Bizarre.2 -
Not gonna happen with this squad, once all the games in hand have been played, I suspect we will be back in mid-table looking up.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Surely you don't really find any of this "funny" or bizarre?Off_it said:
You're so right. It's just like that. Exactly.Athletico Charlton said:
I guess similar to the Aneke one. Seems folk are not counting his goals and appearances the way they counted all the game he missed.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....
It's almost as if now he's back available and playing there's no longer a need to count the games he's not available or playing in.
Bizarre.
You've been around long enough to know it was ever thus.
People basically just want a successful football team, beyond that most won't concern themselves with the finer points.
It is only when the team is failing, being badly run, making wrong choices etc that people look for reasons and scapegoats.
We seem to be on an upswing.
But Chuks is one setback away from coming under scrutiny again.
And any discontent with Sandguard is simply bubbling away just below the surface. This thread will come alive soon I bet
2 -
Yes, it’s very unlikely, but it’s the only way this situation gets any better.eaststandmike said:
Not gonna happen with this squad, once all the games in hand have been played, I suspect we will be back in mid-table looking up.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.0 -
I think that’s possible but unlikely. It would likely reduce losses and make the club more attractive to a buyer, but I don’t think it would solve Sandgaard’s central problem which is that he wants the club to be self-financing (a reasonable ambition but not an obviously deliverable one under current conditions). That is unlikely to be consistent with Championship football and attempts to do it will likely result in relegation in the medium term. I’m sure we’d all feel much better about Championship football but the route to break even is the Premier League and that will need major investment, as well as more competence than he has so far demonstrated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.17 -
I was definitely thinking more along the lines of a sale, which I just don’t see happening in league one, the pot gold is too far away0
-
Well we've spent most the of last 15 years in L1 and managed to be sold twice in that time, so its possible. Admittedly we had spells in the championship in those 15 years, so that could have been the catalyst in both those cases.Stu_of_Kunming said:I was definitely thinking more along the lines of a sale, which I just don’t see happening in league one, the pot gold is too far away0 -
Yes and look at the quality of the buyersCAFCTrev said:
Well we've spent most the of last 15 years in L1 and managed to be sold twice in that time, so its possible. Admittedly we had spells in the championship in those 15 years, so that could have been the catalyst in both those cases.Stu_of_Kunming said:I was definitely thinking more along the lines of a sale, which I just don’t see happening in league one, the pot gold is too far away6 -
And any owner with ambitions to get to the Prem, with a club currently in Div 3 would have to weigh up what is really needed £££’s wise to first get out of Div 3, then out of Div 2, and into the Prem and stay in the Prem having got thereAirman Brown said:
I think that’s possible but unlikely. It would likely reduce losses and make the club more attractive to a buyer, but I don’t think it would solve Sandgaard’s central problem which is that he wants the club to be self-financing (a reasonable ambition but not an obviously deliverable one under current conditions). That is unlikely to be consistent with Championship football and attempts to do it will likely result in relegation in the medium term. I’m sure we’d all feel much better about Championship football but the route to break even is the Premier League and that will need major investment, as well as more competence than he has so far demonstrated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.
The amount of money must be mind boggling…..
0 -
There’s only Lincoln with a game in hand who can catch us below us so we won’t really move any further down then where we are. And I assume some of the teams with games in hand above us probably have to play each other?eaststandmike said:
Not gonna happen with this squad, once all the games in hand have been played, I suspect we will be back in mid-table looking up.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.
You could then argue that apart from Port Vale who are 11th currently we don’t play a team higher than 17th for 4 fixtures.
Not saying it will happen, although with Aneke staying fit you never know, but if we go on a little run and win all those games with how tight the league is I am confident we would probably be in a play off position.
0 -
Challenge accepted.FishCostaFortune said:
There’s only Lincoln with a game in hand who can catch us below us so we won’t really move any further down then where we are.eaststandmike said:
Not gonna happen with this squad, once all the games in hand have been played, I suspect we will be back in mid-table looking up.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.4 -
I think that owning a club like Charlton the less money your prepared to lose the more expensive it becomes. Counterintuitive I know.Lordflashheart said:
And any owner with ambitions to get to the Prem, with a club currently in Div 3 would have to weigh up what is really needed £££’s wise to first get out of Div 3, then out of Div 2, and into the Prem and stay in the Prem having got thereAirman Brown said:
I think that’s possible but unlikely. It would likely reduce losses and make the club more attractive to a buyer, but I don’t think it would solve Sandgaard’s central problem which is that he wants the club to be self-financing (a reasonable ambition but not an obviously deliverable one under current conditions). That is unlikely to be consistent with Championship football and attempts to do it will likely result in relegation in the medium term. I’m sure we’d all feel much better about Championship football but the route to break even is the Premier League and that will need major investment, as well as more competence than he has so far demonstrated.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The only thing that can make his ownership work, is on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
Because people don’t want to hear it, rather than because short-term results demonstrate underlying change. Nothing is going to happen on the pitch to make Sandgaard’s ownership work, IMO, but most of us are interested in the football in front of us most of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be paying attention at all.Off_it said:Funny isnt it, we win some games and this thread isnt so popular .....Get into the playoffs, win them and suddenly everything could look a lot different.
The amount of money must be mind boggling…..
If I was advising any potential buyer (God knows why they would ask me) I would tell them be prepared to lose £10 million a year and your lose a lot less, if you spend it wisely. If your only prepared to lose 3, 4 or 5 it will end up costing far, far more.
0
