Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)
Comments
-
Weighing up objectively what Sandgaard has/hasn't acheived during the last two years (especially compared to what he's stated), I can't agree with that.Clarky said:
No, it is your choice not to as it is theirs to do so, doesn't make them anymore clueless than you for having a different opinion.boggzy said:
So if I don't know the answer to that, is it best I just applaud him, while he's shown time and time again he's an egotist utterly full of bullshit, seemingly has no interest in seeing us promoted (see transfer window), and turned The Valley as a workplace into (by all accounts) a horrible place to work?Clarky said:
And the current alternative to Sandgaard is????boggzy said:
This is our problem. So many are clueless.JohnnyH2 said:
I do Twitter not Facebook.PragueAddick said:
You don’t do Twitter, I take it? Or FB (that cesspit of a medium is too much for me too)JohnnyH2 said:
How is one poster asking for protests on a forum a cycle of abuse?Leuth said:
And so the cycle of abuse continues. It's all we know at this pointpaulsturgess said:We need sandgaard out, protests required against
I was responding to the point which I presumed was about on here, apologies if I was too thick to get it.
As for the abuse on social media, it's not right, I don't take part in it, but if TS does not like it, don't read it and certainly don't take part (which his partner still does)
On the flip side when he went for his walkabout round Adams Park he got a round of applause from what appeared a large number of away support and some even chanted his name.0 -
Like he said. A brilliant deal for RD. The fact he managed to cajole someone on that kind of terms is credit to him.Airman Brown said:
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.MuttleyCAFC said:I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Awful for us though.
Sandgaard is the ultimate fall guy.
Or is he? I have some doubts about this rental agreement to RDTo shift the loss making part of his investment may have resulted in a real reduced rental rate for TS?
Anyone know the actual figures TS is stumping up each month to Bank of Roland?0 -
I can't recall exactly but I thought the rent was manageable when reported.0
-
What does that mean?MuttleyCAFC said:I can't recall exactly but I thought the rent was manageable when reported.
ESI said most things were manageble0 -
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.11 -
J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?
9 -
The Sandgaard rent figure for the ground is currently £400k a year. Can't remember what SL was. The original ESI deal was £200k per year for the ground & SL combined.carly burn said:
What does that mean?MuttleyCAFC said:I can't recall exactly but I thought the rent was manageable when reported.
ESI said most things were manageble0 -
Really? Is that in ink anywhere?ISawLeaburnScore said:
The Sandgaard rent figure for the ground is currently £400k a year. Can't remember what SL was. The original ESI deal was £200k per year for the ground & SL combined.carly burn said:
What does that mean?MuttleyCAFC said:I can't recall exactly but I thought the rent was manageable when reported.
ESI said most things were manageble
As I said. Sandgaard the fall guy.0 -
I'm not wrongElfsborgAddick said:J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?1 -
CATS is born!paulsturgess said:We need sandgaard out, protests required against3 -
Sponsored links:
-
I saw on Twitter calling from Sangaard to sell. Thought, let’s have a look and see if there’s a thread on it…
How entitled can we get?0 -
Any business that continually performed below expectations and failed to meet the shareholders' expectations would question the effectiveness of the CEO/ board.
Maybe that is entitled but as shareholders they are literally entitled to do so.
It's not a clean analogy as in non plc football clubs the owner is usually the only or majority shareholder.
However unlike businesses where shareholders are merely invested on their financial stakes and can flit between companies as they wish football fans are emotionally invested many through decades and even generations of unwavering support of clubs which aft oft 100 plus year old institutions.
And whom will never have another club regardless of how bad it gets and will outlast many "owners"
So yes I believe football fans are extremely "entitled" to expressing passionate views of those running "their" clubs and rightly so.11 -
It’s circa £500k for both.ISawLeaburnScore said:
The Sandgaard rent figure for the ground is currently £400k a year. Can't remember what SL was. The original ESI deal was £200k per year for the ground & SL combined.carly burn said:
What does that mean?MuttleyCAFC said:I can't recall exactly but I thought the rent was manageable when reported.
ESI said most things were manageble0 -
Admin. The dirty word.
But I've long been of the thought that it's the best way out of this never ending nightmare.
Seems strange saying that ship has also probably passed!2 -
8
-
Why do people keep comming up with this Charlton are an attractive club to buy. We are not.
We are in a pot of London no one knows about have some of the poorest boroughs in country around us.oh and there are already 7 prem clubs in London. 5 of them long time established.3 -
Which bit? The £400k p.a. rent for the ground vs the £100k p.a. rent which ESI had signed up to? Yes, most definitely, I've got a copy of the lease and the deed of variation.carly burn said:
Really? Is that in ink anywhere?ISawLeaburnScore said:
The Sandgaard rent figure for the ground is currently £400k a year. Can't remember what SL was. The original ESI deal was £200k per year for the ground & SL combined.carly burn said:
What does that mean?MuttleyCAFC said:I can't recall exactly but I thought the rent was manageable when reported.
ESI said most things were manageble
As I said. Sandgaard the fall guy.
I never got a copy of the SL variation, but the original ESI lease for SL was £100k p.a.0 -
Airman, there have been a few very small comments / hints dropped by you in the last few days. Are you hearing of any potential developments going on in the background?. Appreciate that you may not be able to give any real details.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I read sometime last year that the West Ham majority owners are looking to sell up as soon as they can do so without incurring the penalties written into the acquisition of the Olympic stadium contract. I think it is sometime in March next year. David Gold will call it a day but the feeling is David Sullivan would be looking for another project.1
-
I don't think anyone has accused Thomas of "trousering" a billion quid though?esseffect said:1 -
J BLOCK said:
I'm not wrongElfsborgAddick said:J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?
Potential huge investment. Our fanbase is certainly big enough. We are an attractive club to buy.
No owner has the bollocks, courage or dedication to give it the required effort.
Its now just someone shooting himself in the foot by only attempting to break even.
Didn't do his homework. A few years ago he seemed confident and it appeared that he at least had a brain.
4 -
Mood music only.CheshireAddick said:
Airman, there have been a few very small comments / hints dropped by you in the last few days. Are you hearing of any potential developments going on in the background?. Appreciate that you may not be able to give any real details.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
3 -
Sorry, but where do you get that from? There’s plenty of genuinely big clubs who have dropped in to the third tier in recent history, and they’ve gone through difficult periods at that level, but big crowds kept coming through the gates. Sunderland, Ipswich, Leeds, Sheffield utd, Derby now, Southampton,Norwich, just to name a few off the top of my head.Dave2l said:J BLOCK said:
I'm not wrongElfsborgAddick said:J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?
Potential huge investment. Our fanbase is certainly big enough. We are an attractive club to buy.
No owner has the bollocks, courage or dedication to give it the required effort.
Its now just someone shooting himself in the foot by only attempting to break even.
Didn't do his homework. A few years ago he seemed confident and it appeared that he at least had a brain.Charlton aren’t in the same league when you compare your fan base with those mentioned above, and plenty others as well. Even in your PL days your crowds had to be bolstered by shipping bus loads of plastics in from the Home Counties.Seriously, the delusion that some of you have (not all, granted) that charlton are somehow a big club or a sleeping giant, it’s not how the rest of the footballing world view you.And no, we’re not either. But we don’t claim to be!27 -
But noone likes you 👍🏻2
-
We’ve got a 27,000 stadium in London and we’ve shown we can fill it in the PL. London is different, or how do you think Fulham and Brentford are getting crowds? Neither is a big club.MillwallFan said:
Sorry, but where do you get that from? There’s plenty of genuinely big clubs who have dropped in to the third tier in recent history, and they’ve gone through difficult periods at that level, but big crowds kept coming through the gates. Sunderland, Ipswich, Leeds, Sheffield utd, Derby now, Southampton,Norwich, just to name a few off the top of my head.Dave2l said:J BLOCK said:
I'm not wrongElfsborgAddick said:J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?
Potential huge investment. Our fanbase is certainly big enough. We are an attractive club to buy.
No owner has the bollocks, courage or dedication to give it the required effort.
Its now just someone shooting himself in the foot by only attempting to break even.
Didn't do his homework. A few years ago he seemed confident and it appeared that he at least had a brain.Charlton aren’t in the same league when you compare your fan base with those mentioned above, and plenty others as well. Even in your PL days your crowds had to be bolstered by shipping bus loads of plastics in from the Home Counties.Seriously, the delusion that some of you have (not all, granted) that charlton are somehow a big club or a sleeping giant, it’s not how the rest of the footballing world view you.And no, we’re not either. But we don’t claim to be!
We had about 100 25,000 crowds on the bounce in the PL. Not surprising that has ebbed away after the last 15 years but we can do it again.46 -
Personally, you, Luton, Barnsley and Peterborough are the clubs I think we should be trying to model ourselves on. No delusions of grandeur here, just a healthy respect for what Berylson has done over the years.MillwallFan said:
Sorry, but where do you get that from? There’s plenty of genuinely big clubs who have dropped in to the third tier in recent history, and they’ve gone through difficult periods at that level, but big crowds kept coming through the gates. Sunderland, Ipswich, Leeds, Sheffield utd, Derby now, Southampton,Norwich, just to name a few off the top of my head.Dave2l said:J BLOCK said:
I'm not wrongElfsborgAddick said:J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?
Potential huge investment. Our fanbase is certainly big enough. We are an attractive club to buy.
No owner has the bollocks, courage or dedication to give it the required effort.
Its now just someone shooting himself in the foot by only attempting to break even.
Didn't do his homework. A few years ago he seemed confident and it appeared that he at least had a brain.Charlton aren’t in the same league when you compare your fan base with those mentioned above, and plenty others as well. Even in your PL days your crowds had to be bolstered by shipping bus loads of plastics in from the Home Counties.Seriously, the delusion that some of you have (not all, granted) that charlton are somehow a big club or a sleeping giant, it’s not how the rest of the footballing world view you.And no, we’re not either. But we don’t claim to be!Given the amount of money swimming around in the game, even at the top end of the Championship, I think you, Luton etc are the clubs we should be emulate. I remember when we were that shinning light for clubs trying to get and stay into the Prem under Curbs, and quite rightly to. Given the last 15 years for us, becoming a solid championship team should be the goal.Our crowd is irrelevant to me. It’s dwindled over the years I’ve been supporting them and we’re on the wrong side of the target 10k we talked about in the 90s. Get us up to the championship and we could get back there, but all I really care about is getting there. And I don’t really care that I’m praising what Millwall have achieved. Can’t stand you all of course, but would trade places in a heartbeat. Would love some of the cup runs you’ve had over the last few years as well5 -
Yep and the worrying thing is the longer we're down here without a plan of getting back up the smaller the club becomes. Shrinking i think is the term in that excellent drinking during the game blogspot.MillwallFan said:
Sorry, but where do you get that from? There’s plenty of genuinely big clubs who have dropped in to the third tier in recent history, and they’ve gone through difficult periods at that level, but big crowds kept coming through the gates. Sunderland, Ipswich, Leeds, Sheffield utd, Derby now, Southampton,Norwich, just to name a few off the top of my head.Dave2l said:J BLOCK said:
I'm not wrongElfsborgAddick said:J BLOCK said:
Infuriating because on paper we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England, yet we end up with failing owner after failing owner. Look at Hull, team in the arse end of no where, bought recently by an owner who is backing them on the pitch.Airman Brown said:
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.bolloxbolder said:Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
we are one of the most attractive clubs to buy in England. What have you been drinking this afternoon?
Potential huge investment. Our fanbase is certainly big enough. We are an attractive club to buy.
No owner has the bollocks, courage or dedication to give it the required effort.
Its now just someone shooting himself in the foot by only attempting to break even.
Didn't do his homework. A few years ago he seemed confident and it appeared that he at least had a brain.Charlton aren’t in the same league when you compare your fan base with those mentioned above, and plenty others as well. Even in your PL days your crowds had to be bolstered by shipping bus loads of plastics in from the Home Counties.Seriously, the delusion that some of you have (not all, granted) that charlton are somehow a big club or a sleeping giant, it’s not how the rest of the footballing world view you.And no, we’re not either. But we don’t claim to be!
Take the stadium away and we're nowhere near a bigger club these days.
We are increasingly irrelevant in football circles outside of our Charlton echo chamber and down the pecking order behind Millwall, light years behind the likes of Palace and Fulham and may as well be a different sport to the arsenals spurs and Chelseas we used to give hidings to less than 2 decades ago.
The longer we're down here the smaller our potential is to ever return to what we seem to convince ourselves is our natural level of top half of champ and the more real it becomes that our natural level becomes mid table 3rd division club.
All largely because of a cluster fuck succession of spivs, dullard, crooks and clowns and yet people still passively chill about it and call us entitled whingers for expressing displeasure and frustration at what we've seen and are seeing our beloved club become oblivious or indifferent to what is unfolding in front of them.
Happy Sunday everyone x33
