|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Jul 23, 2022 19:57:44 GMT
Posted this over on CL and the usual know it all's like paulfox, swordfish and little Callum don't like it!!!
Airman Brown
7:01AM edited 7:11AM
Thomas Sandgaard is misrepresenting the club’s past, deliberately, repeatedly and purposefully. Here he is talking about 20 years prior to his takeover, so back to the return to the PL in 2000. Previously he has spoken about the club losing £100m in the two decades before RD took over in 2014, and doubled down on it when challenged, in separate interviews, even though it’s nonsense. He also spoke about RD improving the finances, which is laughable.
Why is he doing this? What’s it even got to do with him? I certainly think there is a strong argument that what happened post 2006 - and principally the 2006/07 season - led on to the subsequent changes in ownership and collection of misfits, oddballs and chancers who took over subsequently.
However, the club was better run from the early 1990s to the mid 2000s than at any other time in its history. If you look at where it started and what was achieved the only possible comparison is the 1930s and the world was a very different place then.
In 2005 the club was financially robust, had returned to and rebuilt The Valley, built the new Covered End in 2002, was an established member of the Premier League, finishing seventh in 2004 and had had the same manager for a decade and a half. It had also fostered and developed one of the biggest community organisations in the game and built such a reputation that it was regarded as a role model for other clubs. Sandgaard explicitly criticised the board responsible a few months ago and now he is back at it again. Everything he owns was essentially created or restored by the people he accuses of mismanagement at that time. It is a grotesque distortion of the truth.
At the very least he is ignorant of the history and should shut up about it on that basis, but worse he has taken the club backwards in his two years in charge (down to 13th in L1) so he would be well advised to demonstrate his own management ability before commenting at all. One thing is clear, however. It’s not an accident. It’s what he wants people to believe.
That’s why I’m calling it out and will continue to do so every time he does it. The club’s history does not belong to him to redefine for his own purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by manikin on Jul 23, 2022 20:09:18 GMT
Although the numbers are growing, I still don't get why so many can't see Sandgaard for what he is. This club is only going backwards while he is at the helm.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Jul 23, 2022 20:12:58 GMT
Said much the same on another thread earlier today:
The Valley and the Academy were fully developed by 2002 and the club had stable finances AND stable management with 27,000 at every game.
The decline started when Curbs left which was 15 years ago. And the rot set in when the parachute money ran out 2009.
In addition we won promotion four years back on a similar playing budget to last season. Sandgaard needs to allow the football do the talking, rather than rewriting history.
|
|
|
|
Post by pardew123 on Jul 23, 2022 20:25:30 GMT
I think it’s clear TS is all talk hopefully Varney and Barclay can do something
|
|
|
|
Post by petetongthereturn on Jul 23, 2022 20:49:03 GMT
TS Rolands patsy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2022 21:19:04 GMT
Although the numbers are growing, I still don't get why so many can't see Sandgaard for what he is. This club is only going backwards while he is at the helm. I think the only ones left defending Sandgaard & his family now are those who cannot bear to be proven wrong. Prickly Dick Plumb is obviously one of them, bless him. |
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Jul 23, 2022 21:30:12 GMT
Although the numbers are growing, I still don't get why so many can't see Sandgaard for what he is. This club is only going backwards while he is at the helm. I think the only ones left defending Sandgaard & his family now are those who cannot bear to be proven wrong. Prickly Dick Plumb is obviously one of them, bless him. Are sure it's a him? PL54 wears Wrexham's away shirt in the bedroom for a reason! |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Aug 13, 2023 20:08:26 GMT
Bumping this so as to remind ourselves where we were at the beginning of last season. There were never any mass protests against Sandgaard but it was clear he was going to sell once Zynex started creaking AND he kept failing to appoint executives who could deliver on and off the pitch at CAFC.
The SE7 Partners takeover has brought back both a qualified management team and multiple (minted) owners.
This plus initial announcements suggests a return to adult discussions about strategy AND technically adept execution. Or at least far less mistakes.
Obviously time will tell. This month's final ins and outs complete setting us up for the first half of the season. But it doesn't end there.
The Sandgaards, Garner and Gallen have left the club with a number of players who simply aren't good enough. Many will go next summer but a couple are under contract until 2025. Under EFL SCMP these players are eating into a budget that has a maximum limit of 60% of turnover.
The challenge is different to that faced 1992-2007. That era saw the delivery of a very decent ground as well as a top Academy. Today the SMT need to:
- arrange for loan or permanent exit of Sandgaard signings
- recruit wisely
- develop the revenue streams such that the playing budget can expand
- ensure a data driven approach to improve the calibre of the squad AND new recruits
There's no need to look back 20 or 30 years all the time. Just watch the games and listen to interviews. And perhaps pay attention to those who really know their football. After this last decade, it will be great if outside commentators are saying good things about us.
|
|
|
|
Post by surridgecobbler5 on Aug 22, 2023 20:07:40 GMT
On the basis of wages cap at 60% of turnover, the cumulative effect of; Payne, McGrandles, Kirk and Chucks all high earners
is significant. I d love to have the detailed breakdown to see the real available incoming wage budget
|
|
|
|
Post by squareball on Aug 22, 2023 20:13:21 GMT
On the basis of wages cap at 60% of turnover, the cumulative effect of; Payne, McGrandles, Kirk and Chucks all high earners is significant. I d love to have the detailed breakdown to see the real available incoming wage budget We need to offload them. Replacements can’t be much worse can they? |
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaks on Aug 23, 2023 7:25:27 GMT
On the basis of wages cap at 60% of turnover, the cumulative effect of; Payne, McGrandles, Kirk and Chucks all high earners is significant. I d love to have the detailed breakdown to see the real available incoming wage budget There by lies the problem. Long contracts on high earnings. How do you shift them? |
|
|
|
Post by aucklandaddick on Aug 23, 2023 7:27:44 GMT
On the basis of wages cap at 60% of turnover, the cumulative effect of; Payne, McGrandles, Kirk and Chucks all high earners is significant. I d love to have the detailed breakdown to see the real available incoming wage budget There by lies the problem. Long contracts on high earnings. How do you shift them? But according to other posters Gallen was the jewell in the crown negotiator……..🤔🤔🤔 I would beg to differ |
|
|
|
Post by se7sm on Aug 23, 2023 7:31:55 GMT
On the basis of wages cap at 60% of turnover, the cumulative effect of; Payne, McGrandles, Kirk and Chucks all high earners is significant. I d love to have the detailed breakdown to see the real available incoming wage budget There by lies the problem. Long contracts on high earnings. How do you shift them? man who employed them gone✅bite the bullet and pay off |
|
|
|
Post by aucklandaddick on Aug 23, 2023 7:34:38 GMT
There by lies the problem. Long contracts on high earnings. How do you shift them? man who employed them gone✅bite the bullet and pay off I think that will be the case mate and we won’t get much of any return on them as I can’t see any other recruitment team being mugged off like ours were |
|
|
|
Post by weststandfruitloop on Aug 23, 2023 7:44:37 GMT
There by lies the problem. Long contracts on high earnings. How do you shift them? man who employed them gone✅bite the bullet and pay off Paying off their contracts is classified as wages so will need to come out of the 60% salary cap. |
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaks on Aug 23, 2023 7:54:23 GMT
man who employed them gone✅bite the bullet and pay off Paying off their contracts is classified as wages so will need to come out of the 60% salary cap. And that will be a lot!.. |
|
|
|
Post by se7sm on Aug 23, 2023 8:02:13 GMT
Paying off their contracts is classified as wages so will need to come out of the 60% salary cap. And that will be a lot!.. yes catch 22☹️ The only other way to up turnover is the pump a lot of money in from the owners . |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Aug 23, 2023 13:31:18 GMT
On the basis of wages cap at 60% of turnover, the cumulative effect of; Payne, McGrandles, Kirk and Chucks all high earners is significant. I d love to have the detailed breakdown to see the real available incoming wage budget We need to offload them. Replacements can’t be much worse can they? We can't just offload. But what we can do is: - look at who has already been released / sold - see what the side looks like after two SE7 Partners windows, say late September - anticipate how the side develops AND who leaves next summer - and hope that new arrivals are a far better fit for our squad |
|
