Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)
Comments
-
True, but if a club is haemorrhaging millions of pounds AND has no tangible assets then that’s a double whammy.msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.Coventry is not the best comparison. As despite not owning any tangible assets their paying crowds have remained fairly healthy throughout their period of decline.0 -
What sort of average attendance at the Valley would be needed for the club to become more viable to external investor (in league1) without the assets has anyone done the math?0
-
It would “more viable” with bigger crowds but off the top of my head wouldn’t be in profit at capacity.DagenhamAddick said:What sort of average attendance at the Valley would be needed for the club to become more viable to external investor (in league1) without the assets has anyone done the math?0 -
I believe the consortium buying Coventry are paying Sisu a price for the club. I guess a hedge fund will not sell cheaply.0
-
Championship status has a value.msomerton said:I believe the consortium buying Coventry are paying Sisu a price for the club. I guess a hedge fund will not sell cheaply.0 -
Quite right Airman, in fact if anyone is interested in making Charlton Athletic a going concern then the first port of call would be to Belgium as that is where the real cards are held, Sandgaard owns nothing but debt.Airman Brown said:
You miss the point that Sandgaard has nothing to sell. There may be people who would run the club without owning the ground but why would they pay him for equity?msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.9 -
Hence the bullshit revenue projection which is ridiculed by those he approaches.Bailey said:
Quite right Airman, in fact if anyone is interested in making Charlton Athletic a going concern then the first port of call would be to Belgium as that is where the real cards are held, Sandgaard owns nothing but debt.Airman Brown said:
You miss the point that Sandgaard has nothing to sell. There may be people who would run the club without owning the ground but why would they pay him for equity?msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.17 -
High time 'Sandgaard' released a cover version of "You Won't Find Another Fool Like Me," if he's Seeking New money 😎Airman Brown said:
Hence the bullshit revenue projection which is ridiculed by those he approaches.Bailey said:
Quite right Airman, in fact if anyone is interested in making Charlton Athletic a going concern then the first port of call would be to Belgium as that is where the real cards are held, Sandgaard owns nothing but debt.Airman Brown said:
You miss the point that Sandgaard has nothing to sell. There may be people who would run the club without owning the ground but why would they pay him for equity?msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.0 -
I was told today that mark warburton was offered the job in the summer, agreed terms and was then offered reduced terms at the last minute. Anyone else heard this or is the person who told me, talking out of his bum hole?
0 -
I suppose he feels he had to pay Southall and co. and so might expect similar?Airman Brown said:
You miss the point that Sandgaard has nothing to sell. There may be people who would run the club without owning the ground but why would they pay him for equity?msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.
I also assume however the value of player registrations and sell on’s may well be less than previously.Again though is there any genuine evidence he is looking to sell or work with other parties or just speculation (reasonable) that he would want to cut his losses?0 - Sponsored links:
-
Well how muffled did it sound?Todds_right_hook said:I was told today that mark warburton was offered the job in the summer, agreed terms and was then offered reduced terms at the last minute. Anyone else heard this or is the person who told me, talking out of his bum hole?20 -
Sounds remarkably like the version of events regarding Macauley Bonne. I’d be surprised if both were trueTodds_right_hook said:I was told today that mark warburton was offered the job in the summer, agreed terms and was then offered reduced terms at the last minute. Anyone else heard this or is the person who told me, talking out of his bum hole?0 -
Agent weren't called Patel was he?Todds_right_hook said:I was told today that mark warburton was offered the job in the summer, agreed terms and was then offered reduced terms at the last minute. Anyone else heard this or is the person who told me, talking out of his bum hole?24 -
What evidence would you accept? I know about some of the discussions he’s had. I’m not going to breach confidences to tell you how or who with and I don’t have documentation I can share, but I’m not the only person who knows about them. It’s football. Everybody talks.valleynick66 said:
I suppose he feels he had to pay Southall and co. and so might expect similar?Airman Brown said:
You miss the point that Sandgaard has nothing to sell. There may be people who would run the club without owning the ground but why would they pay him for equity?msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.
I also assume however the value of player registrations and sell on’s may well be less than previously.Again though is there any genuine evidence he is looking to sell or work with other parties or just speculation (reasonable) that he would want to cut his losses?
I don’t think what he paid Southall is material to this. It’s much more about what he wants.
3 -
And I'm sure that he wants too much for not a lot.Airman Brown said:
What evidence would you accept? I know about some of the discussions he’s had. I’m not going to breach confidences to tell you how or who with and I don’t have documentation I can share, but I’m not the only person who knows about them. It’s football. Everybody talks.valleynick66 said:
I suppose he feels he had to pay Southall and co. and so might expect similar?Airman Brown said:
You miss the point that Sandgaard has nothing to sell. There may be people who would run the club without owning the ground but why would they pay him for equity?msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.
I also assume however the value of player registrations and sell on’s may well be less than previously.Again though is there any genuine evidence he is looking to sell or work with other parties or just speculation (reasonable) that he would want to cut his losses?
I don’t think what he paid Southall is material to this. It’s much more about what he wants.1 -
This fcuking soap opera is grinding me down6
-
I wonder if "focusing on the football" will ever be a reality for Charlton fans again. Too many false dawns to count, it's exhausting.
11 -
Focusing on the football is currently the greater of 2 evils. I think I'd rather read the RIP threads on here than watch us tip tappy around the pitch for 90 mins & then gift the opposition a last minute equaliser.Callumcafc said:I wonder if "focusing on the football" will ever be a reality for Charlton fans again. Too many false dawns to count, it's exhausting.11 -
Happy with that statement. I was seeking to distinguish speculation / assumption from something more tangible. Thank you.Airman Brown said:
What evidence would you accept? I know about some of the discussions he’s had. I’m not going to breach confidences to tell you how or who with and I don’t have documentation I can share, but I’m not the only person who knows about them. It’s football. Everybody talks.valleynick66 said:
I suppose he feels he had to pay Southall and co. and so might expect similar?Airman Brown said:
You miss the point that Sandgaard has nothing to sell. There may be people who would run the club without owning the ground but why would they pay him for equity?msomerton said:Tangible assests not the best all and end all of owning a football club. The consortium buying Coventry are doing so without it having tangible assets and with sizable debits. It just takes lots of money and a desire to own a football club.
I also assume however the value of player registrations and sell on’s may well be less than previously.Again though is there any genuine evidence he is looking to sell or work with other parties or just speculation (reasonable) that he would want to cut his losses?
I don’t think what he paid Southall is material to this. It’s much more about what he wants.My point about MS was my speculation as to why he might feel he can seek some sort of premium however small I.e. he paid so others might too.4 -
Was sat near the directors box yesterday and noticed Charlie Methven was sat in there and celebrating when Morgan scored. He was the knobhead part-owner of Sunderland before who was like David Brent on their Netflix programme. Hoping he’s not part of a potential takeover!6
- Sponsored links:
-
He was the bloke that tried to get them to walk out to hard-core rave music wasn't he? A disillusioned rocker to a raver.Worst bit of him was how he treated the staff like slaves for his personal chores.8
-
That’s the guy. As I say, worried me a bit when I saw him walk to his seat!!cfgs said:He was the bloke that tried to get them to walk out to hard-core rave music wasn't he? A disillusioned rocker to a raver.Worst bit of him was how he treated the staff like slaves for his personal chores.1 -
Crispy said:Was sat near the directors box yesterday and noticed Charlie Methven was sat in there and celebrating when Morgan scored. He was the knobhead part-owner of Sunderland before who was like David Brent on their Netflix programme. Hoping he’s not part of a potential takeover!
I knew I recognised him! He was in the players lounger after the game.0 -
Methven also tried to buy Oxford (on behalf of an investor he represented) in the past.
The sheer fact that he was at the game yesterday could be good news in atleast indicating that TS is inviting/welcoming football consultants to the Valley.4 -
It’s not easy to focus on the football given how poor it is. Bowyer achieved the impossible I feel given how he got us up under RD and the team he assembled. I’ve got no way of knowing if Bowyer’s budget was better than BG’s, I suspect it is.Callumcafc said:I wonder if "focusing on the football" will ever be a reality for Charlton fans again. Too many false dawns to count, it's exhausting.
The advantage Bowyer had I guess is that RD had taken a complete back step re: running the club, he was literally looking to sell. TS is looking for ‘investment’ or an unreasonably high price for a club without owning anything of value. We’ve got another lunatic owner4 -
We want a new owner … But not that one 🙄Crispy said:Was sat near the directors box yesterday and noticed Charlie Methven was sat in there and celebrating when Morgan scored. He was the knobhead part-owner of Sunderland before who was like David Brent on their Netflix programme. Hoping he’s not part of a potential takeover!2 -
Charlie Methven being around would concern me. Nothing about him on Sunderland Til I Die suggested he had any clue about football whatsoever.11
-
I think budget is misleading because it means different things to different people at different times.cabbles said:
It’s not easy to focus on the football given how poor it is. Bowyer achieved the impossible I feel given how he got us up under RD and the team he assembled. I’ve got no way of knowing if Bowyer’s budget was better than BG’s, I suspect it is.Callumcafc said:I wonder if "focusing on the football" will ever be a reality for Charlton fans again. Too many false dawns to count, it's exhausting.
The advantage Bowyer had I guess is that RD had taken a complete back step re: running the club, he was literally looking to sell. TS is looking for ‘investment’ or an unreasonably high price for a club without owning anything of value. We’ve got another lunatic owner
The total first team wage bill that Bowyer had was huge. Garner's is very big. By league 1 standards.
At the same time the amount of money they had to spend on transfers and wages was very small, even by league 1 standards.0 -
cabbles said:
I can’t even imagine how he’d position ‘investment’. Come and give me X for a loss making entity that I have no historical expertise or knowledge in, I’ll still have the overall say in how the club is run and if we get into the Premier league at some point then you may get a return. CrazyAirman Brown said:
And still looking for funding on the basis of his bonkers revenue projection.DamoNorthStand said:He is definitely preferring a situation where he holds on to share in the club - which combined with the money being asked, is simply not realistic.Spot on. Who would want to invest when for practically the same money they could buy the club?0
