"I haven’t been injured since before lockdown, and it was not a serious injury, I've trained every day. When I was at Bournemouth I was available for every single game, so I feel like it's a lazy answer because I can. Give me a chance, let me prove myself to you then, show you that I’m fit."
I wonder if he'd accept a pay as you play deal?
I think he will end up signing a play but no pay deal somewhere. He doesn't need to prove he is good, he needs to prove he is capable of actually getting on the pitch.
He'll end up with a typical Charlton pay but no play deal...
It was varney and his sheiks or whoever being a viable alternative that really ramped up the duchatalet protests - not saying we didn’t want him out but I really hope people don’t turn on TS if things don’t immediately go to plan coz that’s the last thing we need and the noises from the likes of whitehand and everitt etc r all starting to sound a bit like that to me - we have to gamble millions on trying to get to the prem seems to be the only way is what I hear from them and of course varney and Barclay are waiting to do that
You are an idiot, Doucher, aren’t you? Nobody is campaigning to get TS out, and people asking questions about his appointments or strategy can perfectly easily inhabit a space between adulation and antipathy. It was the former that had intelligent people lapping up nonsense from Southall and you can see the same phenomenon now. It is all about outcomes.
I’m not advocating Barclay or anyone at this point. I am saying that to believe you can get from where we are to the PL without investing millions more is just daydreaming.
I didn't say you were campaigning to get TS out but i can see the pressure building to get barclay and your mate in - maybe that's a good thing, probably is but i just hope that if that doesn't happen, we don't go down another anti the owner route coz things aren't panning out how you think they should - nothing idiotic about that. You've become a bit rude and silly lately but i'll rise above that and refrain from name calling but will say what i think.
It was varney and his sheiks or whoever being a viable alternative that really ramped up the duchatalet protests - not saying we didn’t want him out but I really hope people don’t turn on TS if things don’t immediately go to plan coz that’s the last thing we need and the noises from the likes of whitehand and everitt etc r all starting to sound a bit like that to me - we have to gamble millions on trying to get to the prem seems to be the only way is what I hear from them and of course varney and Barclay are waiting to do that
You are an idiot, Doucher, aren’t you? Nobody is campaigning to get TS out, and people asking questions about his appointments or strategy can perfectly easily inhabit a space between adulation and antipathy. It was the former that had intelligent people lapping up nonsense from Southall and you can see the same phenomenon now. It is all about outcomes.
I’m not advocating Barclay or anyone at this point. I am saying that to believe you can get from where we are to the PL without investing millions more is just daydreaming.
I didn't say you were campaigning to get TS out but i can see the pressure building to get barclay and your mate in - maybe that's a good thing, probably is but i just hope that if that doesn't happen, we don't go down another anti the owner route coz things aren't panning out how you think they should - nothing idiotic about that. You've become a bit rude and silly lately but i'll rise above that and refrain from name calling but will say what i think.
The only way pressure will build on TS is failure on the pitch. The views of individuals are irrelevant to that.
Well if he is suggesting we give Wiltshire an opportunity now then I suggest he does not quite have his finger on the pulse. We can do nothing before January can we.
I am delighted by anybody expressing an interest in the club but no matter the interest the world and his wife had 3 years to invest in Charlton. Mr Barclay didn’t. If he had the money to blow Duchatelet away why didn’t he?
What because he elected to use a consultant who was persona non grata?
Whose interests does that serve? Not his and not the clubs. Ah it is question of leverage. What leverage?
I will happily welcome Mr Barclay to the table. Will M.Duchâtelet? If so why? What’s changed?
Yep I agree - it’s annoying that every time the club is up for sale or needs a buyer, certain characters make themselves unable to do a deal or disappear and then when the club isn’t for sale, they re appear as a viable alternative
They probably are a viable alternative Mr DOUCHER and to a lot of Charlton supporters they were the better choice because getting the Valley and training ground back was priority number one. We all have experience of divorcing the ground from the club and its been stated elsewhere that the problem hasn't gone away and at the rate of knots that Sandgaard is losing money that problem may rear its head sooner rather than later and certainly will appear before the end of the 15 year lease. Good luck to Sandgaard I think he is an honest man who wants success but people need to realise that the Belgian still owns our destiny by way of his ownership of the infrastructure and he is still presents the biggest danger to this football club that anyone can remember.
Maybe but r they gonna be able to get the valley and training ground back now? if they can and they can inject more money in to help TS as well then great but if its not gonna happen, lets not put a load of additional pipe dreams out there and pressure on the current owner who has actually saved us from administration and put his money where his mouth is - that is what i'm saying.
I agree, he has saved us without a doubt but Dutchelet would gladly see us fold but simply can't be bothered to engineer that outcome. You are right, to gain the freehold TS needs serious investment and serious discussions with the Belgian lunatic, who without a doubt would up the price at the mere wiff of interest. It worries me what alternatives would TS look at if the freeholds were out of his grasp and certainly, if available, those alternatives were the cheaper option.
It was varney and his sheiks or whoever being a viable alternative that really ramped up the duchatalet protests - not saying we didn’t want him out but I really hope people don’t turn on TS if things don’t immediately go to plan coz that’s the last thing we need and the noises from the likes of whitehand and everitt etc r all starting to sound a bit like that to me - we have to gamble millions on trying to get to the prem seems to be the only way is what I hear from them and of course varney and Barclay are waiting to do that
You are an idiot, Doucher, aren’t you? Nobody is campaigning to get TS out, and people asking questions about his appointments or strategy can perfectly easily inhabit a space between adulation and antipathy. It was the former that had intelligent people lapping up nonsense from Southall and you can see the same phenomenon now. It is all about outcomes.
I’m not advocating Barclay or anyone at this point. I am saying that to believe you can get from where we are to the PL without investing millions more is just daydreaming.
I didn't say you were campaigning to get TS out but i can see the pressure building to get barclay and your mate in - maybe that's a good thing, probably is but i just hope that if that doesn't happen, we don't go down another anti the owner route coz things aren't panning out how you think they should - nothing idiotic about that. You've become a bit rude and silly lately but i'll rise above that and refrain from name calling but will say what i think.
The only way pressure will build on TS is failure on the pitch. The views of individuals are irrelevant to that.
Agreed, if things don't change on the pitch the pressure will build on TS to get rid of Adkins, Roddy, both etc
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Well if we go back to the 1980’s in relation to Charlton and The Valley, you will find the answer…..
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Owning an asset like your own home is a massive advantage in terms of security. The sooner the CAFC real estate is again owned by the football club the better. Unfortunately I don’t see it happening any time soon.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Well if we go back to the 1980’s in relation to Charlton and The Valley, you will find the answer…..
Mate I'm fully aware of the 80's unfortunately I had been a CAFC supporter for a while before that decade lol. Yes I 100% get the emotional attachment to the valley and the selhurst years were very dark times indeed. My question is the vital part is that we continue to play at the valley and not who owns it. The much muted property play will never happen imo so who owns it is not an issue. Who is to say that if TS or anyone else bought the ground and reunited ownership with the club that they would look to develop it if they could ? The only way to 100% secure everything would be if the club was owned by the fans which is never going to happen
If you split the club and the real estate there's a big incentive for the club's owner to look at other locations that might be more cost effective. When the club's gone the real estate owner can develop the sites without being publicly villified and there's less chance of being tied up for years in legal challenges. If you own the freehold and aren't worried about engineering an immediate property play it's quite a smart move.
Andy G, you are forgetting the one main point, who owns the freehold! We are not even close to being in the same situation as Man City or West Ham, the individual concerned almost drove this club to the wall with his sell the club for a pound idea. If TS falls we are in serious trouble of that happening again and next time we might not be so lucky, it happened at Bury it could happen here.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Well if we go back to the 1980’s in relation to Charlton and The Valley, you will find the answer…..
Of course owning your ground is important but this is in many respects a different situation - massive money was required to put the valley right after years of neglect and the increasing safety regulations brought about by the various disasters. I don't believe RD wants to see us go under but does want some of his money back if we become a prem club.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Ok. Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money. Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane. Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else. Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Ok. Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money. Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane. Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else. Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton.
Understand your point, but there weren't exactly a queue of buyers round the corner wanting to buy the Club with the assets at the time (Apparntly Barclay was, but RD weren't entertaining him). I think TS was the only option at the time and I look at it as at least the Club is still in existance, with some chance of buying the assets at some point, rather than no Club left at all.
Maybe Barclay is looking at buying the assets off Roland and letting them to TS in exchange for shares or something?
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Ok. Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money. Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane. Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else. Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton.
Understand your point, but there weren't exactly a queue of buyers round the corner wanting to buy the Club with the assets at the time (Apparntly Barclay was, but RD weren't entertaining him). I think TS was the only option at the time and I look at it as at least the Club is still in existance, with some chance of buying the assets at some point, rather than no Club left at all.
Maybe Barclay is looking at buying the assets off Roland and letting them to TS in exchange for shares or something?
But ultimately, at least the Club is going.
I believe there were several groups looking to buy the club from Roland but the old scrote was asking an unreasonable price. Wheather a deal could have been struck we will never know because Sandgaard appeared from nowhere and done a deal that involved separating the club and ground. I agree with you that at least the club is still going and hopefully Sandgaard is in it for the long haul. It's still a worry though.
Not owning the Valley or training ground will restrict the scope for improvements though
Roddy on Wednesday was talking about wanting Cat 1 Academy status, I don't see how we could realistically push through the much needed training ground improvements without owning it.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Ok. Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money. Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane. Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else. Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton.
Southall because he will then pinky promise to buy the ground off of roland.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Ok. Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money. Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane. Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else. Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton.
Southall because he will then pinky promise to buy the ground off of roland.
I heard he promised Roland a 7up and a tube of Pringles of his choice from the Super Duper transfer hamper for the ground...?
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
As it stands the club has very little market value - heavy operating losses in L1 with no fixed assets beyond the lease and no obviously saleable players. Happy for others to correct me on this, but if TS wanted a partner to invest £10m it seems to me they would be likely to want all the equity. If the club owned the freehold of the ground, that investment could be secured against that asset, which is the basis of the ex-director loans, for example.
If TS is able to fund the business with no external support, either from his own resources or by improving its performance, then it matters less, but it's still an unresolved problem down the line and unlikely to be resolved until RD dies, it appears. If TS runs out of money or enthusiasm in the meantime, it's potentially a big issue.
Another way of looking at this is that there aren't many TSs around and we may need more than one.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
As it stands the club has very little market value - heavy operating losses in L1 with no fixed assets beyond the lease and no obviously saleable players. Happy for others to correct me on this, but if TS wanted a partner to invest £10m it seems to me they would be likely to want all the equity. If the club owned the freehold of the ground, that investment could be secured against that asset, which is the basis of the ex-director loans, for example.
If TS is able to fund the business with no external support, either from his own resources or by improving its performance, then it matters less, but it's still an unresolved problem down the line and unlikely to be resolved until RD dies, it appears. If TS runs out of money or enthusiasm in the meantime, it's potentially a big issue.
Another way of looking at this is that there aren't many TSs around and we may need more than one.
One positive (it would be a positive if the ground was owned by someone else, say a not for profit trust, for example) is that Thomas, or anyone else, can't do is load the club with debt because they have nothing to secure it against.
If/when Thomas has had enough he has, in reality, either got to give it away or put us in administration and right it all off anyway.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
As it stands the club has very little market value - heavy operating losses in L1 with no fixed assets beyond the lease and no obviously saleable players. Happy for others to correct me on this, but if TS wanted a partner to invest £10m it seems to me they would be likely to want all the equity. If the club owned the freehold of the ground, that investment could be secured against that asset, which is the basis of the ex-director loans, for example.
If TS is able to fund the business with no external support, either from his own resources or by improving its performance, then it matters less, but it's still an unresolved problem down the line and unlikely to be resolved until RD dies, it appears. If TS runs out of money or enthusiasm in the meantime, it's potentially a big issue.
Another way of looking at this is that there aren't many TSs around and we may need more than one.
One positive (it would be a positive if the ground was owned by someone else, say a not for profit trust, for example) is that Thomas, or anyone else, can't do is load the club with debt because they have nothing to secure it against.
If/when Thomas has had enough he has, in reality, either got to give it away or put us in administration and right it all off anyway.
Not sure of the relevance of this though.
From an investor perspective we are very high risk, as without the ground as an asset, there is clear liquidity issues.
So as we are high risk, any future investor could wrack up unsecured debt in the name of the club with even higher interest charges to make up for the high risk nature of the investment. I think anyway, AB may correct me on this.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
As it stands the club has very little market value - heavy operating losses in L1 with no fixed assets beyond the lease and no obviously saleable players. Happy for others to correct me on this, but if TS wanted a partner to invest £10m it seems to me they would be likely to want all the equity. If the club owned the freehold of the ground, that investment could be secured against that asset, which is the basis of the ex-director loans, for example.
If TS is able to fund the business with no external support, either from his own resources or by improving its performance, then it matters less, but it's still an unresolved problem down the line and unlikely to be resolved until RD dies, it appears. If TS runs out of money or enthusiasm in the meantime, it's potentially a big issue.
Another way of looking at this is that there aren't many TSs around and we may need more than one.
One positive (it would be a positive if the ground was owned by someone else, say a not for profit trust, for example) is that Thomas, or anyone else, can't do is load the club with debt because they have nothing to secure it against.
If/when Thomas has had enough he has, in reality, either got to give it away or put us in administration and right it all off anyway.
Not sure of the relevance of this though.
From an investor perspective we are very high risk, as without the ground as an asset, there is clear liquidity issues.
So as we are high risk, any future investor could wrack up unsecured debt in the name of the club with even higher interest charges to make up for the high risk nature of the investment. I think anyway, AB may correct me on this.
I doubt if any credible financial institution would lend to Charlton.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Well if we go back to the 1980’s in relation to Charlton and The Valley, you will find the answer…..
Of course owning your ground is important but this is in many respects a different situation - massive money was required to put the valley right after years of neglect and the increasing safety regulations brought about by the various disasters. I don't believe RD wants to see us go under but does want some of his money back if we become a prem club.
If we went under, I don”t think he’d give a shyte one way or the other, that is unless it impacted negatively on his investment.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Well if we go back to the 1980’s in relation to Charlton and The Valley, you will find the answer…..
Of course owning your ground is important but this is in many respects a different situation - massive money was required to put the valley right after years of neglect and the increasing safety regulations brought about by the various disasters. I don't believe RD wants to see us go under but does want some of his money back if we become a prem club.
If we went under, I don”t think he’d give a shyte one way or the other, unless it impacted negatively on his investment.
I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously. Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
1. Not owning it means paying rent which is a drag on cashflow, even more so when you are outside the PL
2. Not owning it means next to zero incentive to invest in it meaning over time it starts to deteriorate in quality. 3. Not owning the assets means fewer interested parties in buying the club as and when we are next up for sale. 4. Not owning it means you have zero control over who does. I think Man City and West Ham freeholds are owned by Councils. Massive vote loser for them if they turfed out the tenant so they will always look to work with them and generally be decent landlords. Our owner is an individual whom will do what is best for him only and at any time could sell to someone else (ie a developer).
Much better to be a master of your own destiny. The absolute best case would be if the supporters trust could acquire it and then rent to the club at a peppercorn meaning complete safety and yet the club still having confidence to invest etc but that will never happen sadly given amounts involved.
Comments
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?
Who is to say that if TS or anyone else bought the ground and reunited ownership with the club that they would look to develop it if they could ?
The only way to 100% secure everything would be if the club was owned by the fans which is never going to happen
Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money.
Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane.
Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else.
Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton.
Maybe Barclay is looking at buying the assets off Roland and letting them to TS in exchange for shares or something?
But ultimately, at least the Club is going.
Wheather a deal could have been struck we will never know because Sandgaard appeared from nowhere and done a deal that involved separating the club and ground.
I agree with you that at least the club is still going and hopefully Sandgaard is in it for the long haul.
It's still a worry though.
Roddy on Wednesday was talking about wanting Cat 1 Academy status, I don't see how we could realistically push through the much needed training ground improvements without owning it.
If TS is able to fund the business with no external support, either from his own resources or by improving its performance, then it matters less, but it's still an unresolved problem down the line and unlikely to be resolved until RD dies, it appears. If TS runs out of money or enthusiasm in the meantime, it's potentially a big issue.
Another way of looking at this is that there aren't many TSs around and we may need more than one.
If/when Thomas has had enough he has, in reality, either got to give it away or put us in administration and right it all off anyway.
From an investor perspective we are very high risk, as without the ground as an asset, there is clear liquidity issues.
3. Not owning the assets means fewer interested parties in buying the club as and when we are next up for sale.
4. Not owning it means you have zero control over who does. I think Man City and West Ham freeholds are owned by Councils. Massive vote loser for them if they turfed out the tenant so they will always look to work with them and generally be decent landlords. Our owner is an individual whom will do what is best for him only and at any time could sell to someone else (ie a developer).
Much better to be a master of your own destiny. The absolute best case would be if the supporters trust could acquire it and then rent to the club at a peppercorn meaning complete safety and yet the club still having confidence to invest etc but that will never happen sadly given amounts involved.