Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

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

199100102104105170

Comments

  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    Whats she’s a ‘Dr’ of exactly?
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    Whats she’s a ‘Dr’ of exactly?
    She has a PhD in Counselling Psychology: https://www.linkedin.com/in/raelynnmaloneyphd/
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
    She’s posted on social media on her birthday in the past thanking her darling with pictures of the two of them snuggled up.
    unless they’ve recently split?
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
    I was in the Directors Box for the Cambridge match and sat right behind them. Judging by the way she was hanging off him and showing affection 😘 I would say that they are most definitely a couple
  • supaclive said:
    From one extreme ( applying/finding more coaches for Cat 1) to the other.....

    Sounds like no-one is safe from his penny pinching.

    Oh, there is one exception, of course....
  • se9addick said:
    se9addick said:
    Something changed. In the beginning he was happy to spunk money on dubious spends, then suddenly he stopped. It is obvious that a big reason we missed out on a striker was we had to free up money elsewhere first but couldn't. It begs the question why we brought in so many midfielders if we knew it was spending all the budget. I would say it is either because Garner is an idiot or the budget changed. My money is on the latter.

    Now I think Garner was not a disasterous appointment, but a big issue with it is he is less able to be openly critical in the same way as Adkins. It is about being more willing to toe the line. I know some will disagree with me but I don't think we are that far off with the squad. We could improve defensively but a decent striker for the level would make a significant difference to us. I think there are two issues, one I know, and the first is Sandgaard doesn't understand why. The other is whether Sandgaard has the money or indeed has decided not to spend. I don't know which of those applies.
    Has Sandgaard “suddenly stopped”? I assume he’s still providing pretty significant funding or we would be heading towards administration now. 
    From recent rumours it may be Raelynn doing the funding.
    She must have serious money then.
    Doctor shacked up with huge producer of medical relief products.
    If that's not a license to print money I don't know what is!
    I understand that, contrary to appearances, they are NOT a couple. 
     You sure about that?
  • Bearing in mind that the academy is part-funded by grants and Valley Gold, £140k would be a sizeable slice of Charlton's commitment.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Bearing in mind that the academy is part-funded by grants and Valley Gold, £140k would be a sizeable slice of Charlton's commitment.
    Any idea how close we are to exceeding the 60% wages as a proportion of turnover rule under the EFL Salary Cost Management Protocol?

    If we're forecasting we might be within 5% of it, we might be under close scrutiny and in danger of having a transfer embargo imposed.

    With TS having overestimated turnover, it might go part way to explaining some of the wage cost cutting and why he's taking advice on pricing now. Just a thought.
  • swordfish said:
    Bearing in mind that the academy is part-funded by grants and Valley Gold, £140k would be a sizeable slice of Charlton's commitment.
    Any idea how close we are to exceeding the 60% wages as a proportion of turnover rule under the EFL Salary Cost Management Protocol?

    If we're forecasting we might be within 5% of it, we might be under close scrutiny and in danger of having a transfer embargo imposed.

    With TS having overestimated turnover, it might go part way to explaining some of the wage cost cutting and why he's taking advice on pricing now. Just a thought.
    Don’t think the academy is part of any calculation.
  • swordfish said:
    Bearing in mind that the academy is part-funded by grants and Valley Gold, £140k would be a sizeable slice of Charlton's commitment.
    Any idea how close we are to exceeding the 60% wages as a proportion of turnover rule under the EFL Salary Cost Management Protocol?

    If we're forecasting we might be within 5% of it, we might be under close scrutiny and in danger of having a transfer embargo imposed.

    With TS having overestimated turnover, it might go part way to explaining some of the wage cost cutting and why he's taking advice on pricing now. Just a thought.
    Don’t think the academy is part of any calculation.
    Well anyway, as the rule is only applicable to 'player' wages, it wouldn't be a reason to cut other costs. I was just curious to know how much headroom there was under it for future signings, that's their wages, not their transfer fees, as Garner has spoken of the need to offload before bringing in before IIRC.
  • supaclive said:
     Disgraceful if true.
    Why should the Academy have to carry the can for Sandgaards ineptitude and failure?
    How much did it cost him to hire and then fire the likes of Roddy,  Mumford and Jokat???
  • supaclive said:
     Disgraceful if true.
    Why should the Academy have to carry the can for Sandgaards ineptitude and failure?
    How much did it cost him to hire and then fire the likes of Roddy,  Mumford and Jokat???
    Who else is gonna pay the bills? Like it or not, hes on the line to fund everything and clearly nothing is safe from cut backs. 
  • Doesn't our academy make a profit?
  • edited October 2022

  • Sponsored links:


  • Pelham123 said:
    Bit ironic this academy budget cutting when you look at how the under 18s did this morning. Make the most of it.
    Indeed but a fire sale of our best Young Guns in January is on the cards....
  • edited October 2022

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!