Now back home, and finally getting the time to post.
At the Bromley Supporters Club meeting with Plc chairman Derek Chappell and club chief executive Steve Waggott, I asked Chappell what in hindsight, if he could change anything (from the business side, since that is where the plc chairman's efforts are concentrated), what would it be.
His answer was not to have one person responsible for making all of the decisions on spending.
Chappell didn't include that the one person that had been responsible in the past was former Plc chairman, and current football club chairman Richard Murray. Chappell added that it was too big a responsibility for any one person to have to shoulder.
Given that Chappell, Bob Whitehand and others -- but not all -- of the plc board have put in money recently, it is only reasonable that they have a say in how that it is spent.
So while Murray still has a say as football chairman, he no longer has the only say, or perhaps even the main say, on spending.
When Curbishley was manager, it may have been a bonus for Murray that Curbs was ultra cautious and frugal. Dowie and Pardew, by contrast, were free-swinging spenders. I believe someone likened them to drunken sailors in the transfer market, although it may have been more directed toward Dowie.
Chappell went on to say that the club are employing much tighter reigns and using better business tactics when it comes to spending.
He added that he was not about to let the club go bust, and although Charlton are not rolling in the money and are actively seeing additional investment, that the club is in much better financial condition than many others in the division.
(Southampton and Watford apparently are two with serious financial difficulties).
Then Chappell explains the "Charlton Matrix," or what I referred to as the manager having to deal with a balanced budget.
Chappell said the manager is now given a budget, and needs to live within that budget. It should be added that the budget is one of the bigger budgets in the division, he said.
The budget -- or "Matrix," the word that he used -- has a grid that goes position by position. Each position has a designated figured, worked out with the manager.
For instance, the club may be willing to budget L10k per week for left backs. It is up to the manger to determine how he wants to spend it, say L8k for a starter and L2k for a reserve, or perhaps L5k each for two players that fight it out the position.
He explained that this covers all positions, and that it is possible for the manager to spend more in one area than was originally budgeted for, but he would have to spend less in another.
The explanation of this Matrix system may also help to explain why so many loan players suddenly became so attractive to Charlton. You can work their salaries into the Matrix, without actually having to buy them.
I also asked Chappell if the board were going to make funds available to the manager -- whomever it may be -- in the January transfer market, if for no other reason than for the directors TO PROTECT THEIR OWN INVESTMENT in the club.
After all, a club in The Championship, with its own stadium, own training ground and ever-expanding population in a London cachment is much more valuable to future investors, or a future takeover bid, than a club in League 1, even with those other plusses.
He said that there should be "some money" available, but that players would also need to be going out. (To balance the Matrix?)
Finding additional investment (or perhaps a new buyer), in these difficult economic times, was a running theme.
It has likely already been said elsewhere, but it was a civil and pleasant evening, and Derek Chappell and Steve Waggott were gracious in their answers, particularly under the trying circumstances the club currently finds itself in.
0
Comments
So I flew in and took your place today. I've contemplated this "matrix" as you've explained it for quite some minutes and the odd thing is, I can't find anything wrong with it, but at the same time, nothing right with it. Is Chappell trying to suggest that in the past there was no player's salary budget? I think there was. So all he's done is narrowed it to position by position. What use is that? Maybe there is one, but its not obvious to me that it results in better use of the money available. What do you do with a 'versatile' player in this system? And do the figures include the transfer fee, amortised?
I reckon you're a bit generous to Curbs and and less so to RM in your comments. The two of them seemed to have a good mutual understanding of the finances. Look what happened when Curbs had money to spend at WHU. Lucas Neil, Luis Boa Morte,etc. Looks like they are about to have a fire sale there. Something certainly went wrong in the Dowie/Pardew period, that's true. But how do you do it if not one but several directors are involved in player transfers? Chappell for defence, Whitehand for midfielders, Murray for strikers? Surely the right approach is, give the manager a budget for the season, understand the current transfer and salary values, and use the best negotiator available in the club for agreeing fees and salaries, including sales as well as purchases. By all means have more than one director involved in signing off on purchases, but they have to be able to do it fast. Matrix, schmatrix...
we need a decision maker and a leader.... too many cooks spoil the broth..... too many chiefs not enough indians....
leadership is obviously wat we lack across the entire club.... bloody idots... eveyone wanting to be able to claim some credit and no one directly responsible when it all goes down the loo....
well next year we will have about 1k for a left back.... 3k for a striker and so on...
ridiculous
I'd have been happy with any pill today.
I reckon you're a bit generous to Curbs and and less so to RM in your comments. The two of them seemed to have a good mutual understanding of the finances. Look what happened when Curbs had money to spend at WHU. Lucas Neil, Luis Boa Morte,etc. Looks like they are about to have a fire sale there. Something certainly went wrong in the Dowie/Pardew period, that's true. But how do you do it if not one but several directors are involved in player transfers? Chappell for defence, Whitehand for midfielders, Murray for strikers? Surely the right approach is, give the manager a budget for the season, understand the current transfer and salary values, and use the best negotiator available in the club for agreeing fees and salaries, including sales as well as purchases. By all means have more than one director involved in signing off on purchases, but they have to be able to do it fast. Matrix, schmatrix...[/quote]
The Curbs/Murray partnership worked to the club's benefit. Curbs was very cautious, perhaps because he needed to be at Charlton. Then he got drunk in the transfer windows at WHU because he was allowed so much to spend. Dowie and Pardew are obviously different from Curbs, and if Murray made an error in judgement, it was allowing them too much freedom. That seems to be what he is currently paying the price for, so we have Murray running the football board and Chappell/Whitehand managing the money. So instead of one clear voice, we have multiple voices and no longer one clear vision.
Two things worry me
1. If this is the plan that they implemented before the start of the season, then it has failed to deliver a strong enough squad so far.
2. That they intend to compound the problem by keeping the same matix going in the transfer window when we are bottom of the table.
I am with AA's point made that to protect their investment, and potentially make the club more saleable, they may need to spend more now to avoid the drop. It's easy I know to spend somebody elses money but a drop to Div One is going to be catastrophic and surely it is worth them risking some more of their childrens inheritance to stave off that eventuality?
So I am worried that they will fail to adjust their planning to take in the new reality which is that we need both a winning manager and a winning team and that may need a different matix or and alternative plan.
Obviously, some restraints and accountability are necessary to have in place. But so is a vision, a resources to make that vision happen. The directors must understand that it sometimes takes pushing-the-envelope in order to succeed. Or in the current case, to survive.
Maybe we need Keanu Reeves, he sorted the Matrix out before.
If this Matrix has been in place this season,then it proves the old adage that a Camel is a horse created by a Committee
I just read Rick Everitt's Keith Peacock autobiography and he points out the importance of how a player relates to other players, staff etc in the dressing room. In short, is he a good man to have around? Where does that fit in.
It sounds like a textbook practice that would work well in some environments (my company uses something similar) being grafted onto an area where it is totally inappropriate.
Exactly. And I am pretty sure it is not Richard Murray's idea. It looks like the idea of somebody who doesn't have much experience of running a football club.