Charlton's Alan Pardew has become the first leading manager to publicly declare that he is feeling the pinch from the downturn in the economy.
Financial constraints have been placed on The Addicks boss, who has been forced to sell high earners Marcus Bent, Chris Iwelumo and defender Madjid Bougherra to help balance the books, now looks certain to lose China captain and key midfielder Zheng Zhi, possibly to West Bromwich Albion.
"The economic squeeze has hit football, like it has everywhere else," said Pardew.
"There is a substantial bid on the table for Zheng Zhi which our board are considering."
He disclosed: "I have been asked by the board to raise £5 million and chop about £3 million off the wage bill plus another £400,000 off the staff bill.
"There are some decisions which I cannot dictate. One is the finance needed to keep this club afloat and I will never intefere with that because at the end of the day the club must survive.
"The bottom line is the security of Charlton Athletic Football Club and if the board say that players must go then they have to go.
"It's a tough call because I want to make the team stronger but it's not a situation that daunts me because I'm looking forward to the season and watching our young players develop.
"I think we'll be judged at the end of September exactly where we are. I think we still have a bit to do in bringing some nous into this team."
Pardew confessed interest in Portsmouth central defender Martin Crainie, adding:
"There is an outside chance of bringing in a couple of players this week.
"It's all down to finance. We have players who want to come here and managers who are prepared to sell.
"It's difficult to negotiate but I can assure our supporters that we're doing our best to get the right players in.
"Martin Crainie is a players we have made a phone call about but it would be disrespectful to Portsmouth to elaborate."
0
Comments
Whether he thought over time if he buried his head in the sand the situation would resolve itself, i don't know. But none of this is new, and repeatedly sounding off in public about our financial position is NOT what you would want or expect from such a key member of staff.
His key role at present is to cleverly attract new players and to get those players he has playing with pride as a unit. Talking negatively in public won't assist either of those scenarios.
Link for anyone who wants it
No it hasn't, its what has been numerously discussed on here since May; 5m from sales, and a reduced wage bill. If a 1,000 people on here new about it three months ago, i'm pretty sure the manager did.
"But there is no less ambition from myself or my staff or the players. We all aim for the top spot and hopefully we will fall somewhere near it, hopefully in the first three.
"We are a little bit under financed in the credit crisis and are a little bit more careful here.
"I have no problem with that. It is the agenda I've got to manage and there is no less ambition from myself because I still think we will do very well."
RED ARMY
I suspect he keeps talking about it because he keeps getting asked about it and I think that being unable to get Faye off the wage bill is creating problems elsewhere. I've no idea what we are paying Faye - £10K a week? £15k? Say we got rid of him for £500K and saved £500k on wages - that's 20% of the money that Pardew has to save. Instead of that money being freed up savings are having to be made elsewhere.
There is a bonus - any clubs we go to hopefully will have got the message that we are lacking in finances and won't try and screw us...
I think most thought it was 5m including saved wages, recent threads indicate that. A while ago people were saying thats 1.5m for Bent, 400k for Iwelumo, 500k for Paddy plus numerous saved wages and we were nearing the 5m and then when the Boogie sale came along everyone thought that would be it and even a bit maybe for Pards to spend.
Yep, but the point I'm making is that the lack of takers for Faye means that instead of saving on his wages we have to make savings elsewhere. So that could be a player we can't sign because there's no money in the budget or a couple of back room staff who are getting their P45s.
If he stays at least we have the dubious pleasure of his playing ability and the only positive is that this is the last year of his contract - if wants another team to sign him on anything half-decent then he should be aware that a good season for Charlton will make that more likely. A season of sulking and half-arsed performances and his next stop will the Ryman's League.
Surely that tells you everything you want to know about Faye still being here. The manager has basically said, as nicely as possible, that the player doesn't figure in his plans.
He also said that if Faye is still here after the transfer window shuts, then he'll use him best he can - whatever that means.
Faye is quite possibly the highest earner left at the club and contributing the least within the manager's plans.
So it's obvious that everyone wants rid, including the player himself who obviously knows he's not wanted.
But then again, Faye is presently sitting on his last year of Prem contract - and knows he's never again going to earn this sort of money in his lifetime. He won't give that up easily .....in his position, would you?
And that, despite other club's interest, is no doubt the problem.
Agree. Pardew has been aware of these figures at least from the end of last season if not before. Doesn't mean he has to like it but which manager would. I can't see what any of it has to do with the credit crunch though. The financial situation would be the same regardless of the US property market.
What RM was saying to bloggers back in June
http://drinkingduringthegame.blogspot.com/2008/06/richard-murray-joins-blogging-community.html
He looked good at Charlton and was top scorer. For some reason he took the blame for other players pumping the ball to him 60 yards in the air.
Relegation effected the overdraft situation as banks are less willing to lend to CCC clubs having seen so many struggle and go into admin. The bond issue re-assured the bank so the overdraft situation is not bad.
Certainly the credit crunch won't have helped anyone but linking the cut backs to the credit crunch is slightly disingenuous IMHO
That link.
Drinking during the game blog linky
"....The £5m financial imperative means we will be "net sellers" this summer. Our squad is large and needs trimming. It probably didn't help us last season (too much choice) and the plan with Pards this year is to get two senior pros per position plus some squad youngsters. Therefore he thinks we will lose "five or six and sign three or four." On top of the five that we have already released, that's pretty much in line with my view that we needed to move ten out and get four in."
Well 9 out, 1 to go (ZZ?)
2 in .....2 to go....or?
I thought the money raised last year from the directors was to pay off the overdraft and other short-term loans?
It was short-term debt - that attracts higher rates of interest etc. The long-term debt -mortgages etc, is structured.
http://www.footballeconomy.com/archive/archive_2008_feb_10.htm
"Some £14m of the proposed issue has already been unwritten by five existing Charlton directors. The sum raised will be used to repay recent loans made by directors to support the club following relegation from the Premiership and to provide working capital during the remainder of the season. The board wants to reduce its reliance on short-term loans and bank overdraft...".
He said the money was needed to pay off long term debt that had been initially under written by Directors in the short term.
Of course i may have miss heard but do tell BFR was you at the share holders meeting ? was it you in the frock going on about pot holes ? nooooooooo you was the one going on and on and on and on and on about womans footie well now i know.
Here you go from the OS:
http://www.cafc.co.uk/newsview.ink?nid=31943&newstype=n
The quote is from Peter Varney:
"The board has given careful consideration to all the options available and wants to reduce the reliance on short-term loans and bank overdraft, and replace them with long-term debt that can be converted to equity at a later date."
I think that makes my case...