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

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.

True, but if a club is haemorrhaging millions of pounds AND has no tangible assets then that’s a double whammy. 

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?

It would “more viable” with bigger crowds but off the top of my head wouldn’t be in profit at capacity.

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.

Championship status has a value.

Bailey said:

Airman Brown said:

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.

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?

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. 

Hence the bullshit revenue projection which is ridiculed by those he approaches.

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?

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

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.

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?

I suppose he feels he had to pay Southall and co. and so might expect similar?

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?

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.

I don’t think what he paid Southall is material to this. It’s much more about what he wants.

And I'm sure that he wants too much for not a lot.

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.

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

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.

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?

I suppose he feels he had to pay Southall and co. and so might expect similar?

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?

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.

I don’t think what he paid Southall is material to this. It’s much more about what he wants.

Happy with that statement. I was seeking to distinguish speculation / assumption from something more tangible. Thank you. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 

Charlie Methven being around would concern me. Nothing about him on Sunderland Til I Die suggested he had any clue about football whatsoever. 

cabbles said:

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.

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.

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 

I think budget is misleading because it means different things to different people at different times.

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.