Can i just say that in recent times there has been some excellent pieces of cyber journolism on here and the folks who write it seem to know a hell of a lot about what the write some seems alittle biased some more grounded,
Mick excellent work mate very grounded and informal yet full of info that i can digest
Thank you
Supaclive Nah Nah Nah Nah nah big raspberry tongue thingy you have been fed a kipper with your info i feel
Did PV leave because other board members were ignoring accountants advice? They basically went way past the 60% safety gap rule ( and that was already generous) ignoring basic business rules. As it happens, I was reading Mick's book ( Xmas present) and the sense of deja-vu is literally tearmaking. What's even worse is that there's nothing we can do about it. They'll never cap players salaries, the big money is ruining the beautiful game. Sweet FA done about it despite attempts by Platini et al. And meanwhile, we just haemorrhage money through cuts inflicted by both our own board and rich oligarchs and loyal poorly paid Valley staff are reaching for their crystal balls.
[cite]Posted By: Swisdom[/cite]I was told at the weekend Weaver is on £22k / week
Ambrose and ZZ are around £20k and Hudson 12k
Value for money I'm sure you all agree
All totally wrong. All far higher figures than they are actually getting. FACT
They all run their payslips past you for approval, do they?
I do always laugh when people make statements of fact about what this or that person earns. I guess the only real facts that we do have is that ZZ and Ambrose have both seen moves broken down due to salary issues and Hudson left his former employer amid accusations that his salary demands were unrealistic in this league and joined us on a Bosman which tends to encourage high salary, so it's safe to say that none of them are scraping by.
The parallels with us and Leeds are growing: a spectacular fall from grace, a board that everyone worshiped now appearing to lurch from one mess to the next, a series of awful managerial appointments and players that can't be moved on due to high wages. I hope that if administration's on the cards that we take it - and the points penalty - a bit quicker than them.
[cite]Posted By: supaclive[/cite]Guys - because an accountancy firm like PWC or Deloitte's have come up with some figures that say our wages are 100% vs turnover, that would have been last year. i do not think that is the case any longer. Having had my own conversations with people in the club, (in a meeting room at VFR before anybody asks) it is clear that this season we were around £4-5m short of the money required due to drop in revenues across the board, and because of this certain admin staff and playing staff numbers had to be cut and will continue to be.
You are suggesting the information that you gained in an informal meeting is somehow more valid than something that the two of the WORLD's top five accountancy firms have, as you state, "come up" with. Clownery of the highest order.
Mick, a fantastic follow up post. I was going to post something on similar lines regarding the difficulty in getting the player costs off the books.
I keep jumping from feeling angry that those in charge allowed our club to be sucked into this situation and feeling thankful that we have some committed fans in charge who are trying to find a way out of this mess and sticking in there.
One thing is certain, managers like Dowie and Pardew should never, ever, ever have been given the kind of free reign that they were given. Take the Christensen grotesque example. We had sacked Dowie and Les, brought in Pardew as a kind of "messiah". All the previous attempts at better controlling transfer deals (via Andrew Mills) were thrown out the window and they invested all their trust in a manager who had some track record but it was by no means untarnished. It was mentioned at the time "how lucky we were to get him". Clearly with a position of power and an ego the size of Jupiter, he was able to stand up in front of the board and persuade them to part with potentially £1.5M for a junior player.
So we now have a huge problem. We have had, by default, to appoint Parky as our manager (clearly there is no money inside the club to bring in anybody else and the directors were unable or unwilling to put their hands in their pockets to bankroll it). We are almost certainly going to be trying to offload the higher wage earning players this window and try and bring in some decent replacements for significantly less money. Revenues are dropping as a result of on and off the field issues.
Does anyone know if we put relegation clauses into the likes of Hudson's /Gray's contracts? Might help if in League One they have to take a pay cut meaning they might be easier to get rid.
That what we should have done with Faye/Ambrose/ZZ etc when we went down.
I think Saturday's attendence says alot about why our finances aren't looking so rosy- even with kids for a quid we still only managed just over 12,000- and I was also at Gillingham yesterday who managed just over 10,000 (I know they were playing premiership opponents but they seem to be doing well financially due to so clever wheeling and dealing from Scally).
[cite]Posted By: Swisdom[/cite]I was told at the weekend Weaver is on £22k / week
Ambrose and ZZ are around £20k and Hudson 12k
Value for money I'm sure you all agree
All totally wrong. All far higher figures than they are actually getting. FACT
They all run their payslips past you for approval, do they?
I would think that seeing as Henry sat on the Board for two years he would be privee to exactly how much each player was earning and although I wouldn't expect him to tell us the exact figures putting it right when they have been over inflated is totally justified.
I fully agree with Mick's comments - but the suggestion that the board and other commercial people within the business are not aware of the cost cutting that HAS to happen - I don't think that losing admin staff or losing other playing staff is "ok" but it is a necessary.
I also don't think the club has been run very well either - but to suggest the guys now in control of the purse strings aren't aware of the issues or have plans to deal with them is a little far fetched too.
ZZ will be sold this month and I (me, personally) think Weaver will go too .... There will be plenty of takers for both of these players, even in today's current climate.
All I am reporting on, is what I know - I'm no journalist and don't even know as much as Mick does and never will do - just saying what I know, or have been told.
Just so i'm clear Mick you're in the everything is rosy camp...right?!
Have to say while i wasn't aware of the Christianson issue which is beyond farcical. The turnover vs wages being 90% was true when we were in our last year of the premiership according to the end of season Delotte figures if my muddled brain serves me right, which would probably mean the % was high if not higher last year...
It is not clever wheeler dealing to sell your ground to yourself leaving the club with no major asset and a reduced debt; albeit much reduced debt. Haven't we been there before when the ground is owned by someone else other than the club?
We're in a serious hole but if we go bankrupt almost definitely the team and the Valley stay together. When the Gills inevitably go bankrupt again chasing promotion to the champ Scally walks away with no liabilities and ownership of Priestfields worth 10 million plus in property development prices. That stubs is not good business for the club but only good business for a questionable businessman Scally. Ditto Jordan, Kelmsley and Selhurst Park.
We will have no relegation clauses for Gray and Hudson. If a board have not accounted a 1.5 mill expenditure on Christensen over the course of his contract they will not have a relegation clause. If they maddingly had no relegation clause in Pardew's why would they get it for 'brilliant' champ players?
I for one am boycotting the Valley they'll get no money out of me for a squad that is full of truly atrocious players on massive wages. And people moan about banks, at least they performed their rotten business model with a profit for many years. These players aren't capable of performing in their positions for one match. There is only two people to blame and that's Pardew and Parky. Spending around 8 million on players and many many millions on wages for Ambrose, Boughera, Cook, Gray, Halford, Hudson, Lita, Mcleod, Thomas, Toddy, Varney and ZZ is despicable if you never look like reaching the play offs. We had the second biggest wage bill last year in the champ no one can say Pards wasn't backed to the hilt.
Having said that it's up to the board/Varney to negotiate contracts and transfer fees. Paying 2.5 mill for M Bent, Faye and Traore is not acceptable. These are on massive wages and unless they are free transfers not worthwhie taking on their wages. To see a bemused David Moyes being asked why he sold Marcus Bent for 2.5 mill when he never scores was hilarity in extremis. A manager may say these are necessities but any fool would say yeah if they're free or definitely no more than 500,000.
Thanks Mick for an enlightening article much of which I'd guessed at. To think the board thinks it good sense to give the managers job to a man who helped a moron assemble the worst squad I've ever seen in twenty years is just false logic. We'll lose the only two transfer assets for nothing because Parky has decided Mouta and Dicko's investments are worth nothing. I pay for excitement not proved nothing footballers on massive wages. I can never understand a business model for such tiny companies that would be willing to write off an asset, bigger than their yearly profit, on the whim of a nutter
As for off loading players for free what planet are you on? Just look at any club going into receivership all their big money players stay until someone signs them or they retire. Only Hudson on his wages will be an attractive free transfer. Who'd give 22 grand a week to Weaver? Luton Town have still got Paul Mcveigh on huge wages as no one will ever sign him, with their poor consortium having to pour cash into his pocket. Also why would Deloitte be assesing last years finances when they have access to them through the football league or on wednesday? They're predicting them from what they know and what is happening now such as the prem parachute payments reducing.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite] There is only two people to blame and that's Pardew and Parky. Spending around 8 million on players is despicable if you never look like reaching the play offs.
oh come on , for a long time last season i'll have you know we were 5th ;-)
oh come on , for a long time last season i'll have you know we were 5th ;-)
I know I'm sorry I said that. Because the nasty Andy Reid got injured and the nasty board then sold my bessie player, which I never signed your honor, we would have stormed the play offs.
Coo my lovely little touch players, coo. They keep coming back to the Valley my players like homing pigeons. Coo Darren Ambrose. Why does no one want you? Coo
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]
I for one am boycotting the Valley they'll get no money out of me for a squad that is full of truly atrocious players on massive wages.
Bye then. Shut the door on your way out, would you?
I have avoided this thread as I had already read and been genuinely angered by Mick's article - not by Mick I hasten to add, but by the horrible realisation that everything that I had suppressed and refused to believe was true regarding our finances, was/is actually worse than I had imagined.
I posted something on here back in August, along the lines of "lay off the board, I'd rather be in our shoes than Southampton and Watford". Now I'm not so sure.
It might just be me but there appears to be a degree of transparency surrounding other teams with financial difficulties. We as fans seem to be continually on the end of cunningly spun stories. The Parkinson announcement being the case in point. Having said that to say that the Parkinson story was cunningly spun is laughable.
I'm now begining to convince myself that we are being spun a yarn with regard to our finances as well. What will the story be when/if we do admit defeat in March and take administration?. As I understand it there is a cut off point now i.e you have to declare administration before a certain date or the points deduction will roll over to the next season.
I keep asking myself the same question, how has it come to this?. Who are the villians?. I really don't know. I said it to a number of people when Peter Varney left "something is not right here, why has he just walked away?. I smell a rat".
Given our financial position I actually feel slightly guilty for keeping my money in my pocket last Saturday!. Quite what my £15.00 for a ticket and £2.50 for a programme would have been spent on is anyones guess. T-Cut to buff the chips out of Christiansons car door?.
I am probably being over dramatic but if we go down, and I believe there are a number (me included) who feel this is a foregone conclusion, does oblivion await?. Will anyone come and save us this time? We came mighty close in 1984, the lessons of those dark times should have been heeded - just how close are we to standing before a high court judge and declaring that a "boat load of rubber was on its way from bangkok"?.
As much as we are in the shite, I can't see us going into administration. This is because most of our debt is with the directors, as long as the club can pay any interest of any mortages and any money due to the taxman, thing should be ok. With the sale of Parker and D.Bent in recent years perhaps the income from these sales have covered up the problems that we have now.
Well there were some figures being suggested on the "pink oboe" mailing list yesterday that if we went down to Div 1, our revenue would fall to around £5M. I would speculate that currently with a squad of say 30, wages may well be in excess of an average of £3,000 per week. Even at £3,000 that produces a footballing wage bill of £4.5M. I suspect it's more than that. Then add the backroom/HQ staff/costs of light, heat , telephones, rates etc. It doesn't take a genius to work out that relegation would be an immensely difficult journey. To break even in those circumstances is going to mean massive cost cutting and with players on fixed contracts as has been discussed earlier, we may not be able to defray any, some or all of the costs.
These figures, I should stress, are pure speculation but whateever they are relegation is going to be a huge financial challenge and if the club is unable to cover it's costs, then it's either insolvent and thus into administration or requires benefactors to keep it afloat.
This is a great financial bind we are in and why I wonder if I was a director, whether it would perhaps have been worth a gamble of some further injection of funds now to really give us a chance of avoiding the drop by bringing in an experienced manager, rather than greater potential costs to protect my investment next season if we go down.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]This is a great financial bind we are in and why I wonder if I was a director, whether it would perhaps have been worth a gamble of some further injection of funds now to really give us a chance of avoiding the drop by bringing in an experienced manager, rather than greater potential costs to protect my investment next season if we go down.
Like the gamble we took giving Dowie shedloads of money in order to keep us in the Premiership? Or the gamble we took in backing Pardew's spending in order to get us promoted at the first attempt? Keeping chasing your loses is what gets gambling addicts into major financial difficulties, and this is no different just with much bigger sums of money.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]This is a great financial bind we are in and why I wonder if I was a director, whether it would perhaps have been worth a gamble of some further injection of funds now to really give us a chance of avoiding the drop by bringing in an experienced manager, rather than greater potential costs to protect my investment next season if we go down.
Like the gamble we took giving Dowie shedloads of money in order to keep us in the Premiership? Or the gamble we took in backing Pardew's spending in order to get us promoted at the first attempt? Keeping chasing your loses is what gets gambling addicts into major financial difficulties, and this is no different just with much bigger sums of money.
As with everything it depends on the potential risks and the potential rewards. There are no absolutes in business. All business is to some extent a gamble. I am talking about the directors with capital to invest, putting a relatively small amount of money (representing a new manager) versus a huge amount of money to prop up the club and keep it afloat if we go down. They have chosen to gamble very little and hope that Parky can keep us up. If he does, they will have potentially risked a huge amount but got away with it. Like I say, nothing in business is risk free.
SoundAsA£ that's deep real deep, about as deep as an open cast mine. I thought words were always free????? Hmmmm.
BingAddick that's being absolutely fanciful. Weaver, Gray, Fortune, Hudson, Mcleod, Ambrose and Holland could probably easily account for that without win bonuses - not much of them this season. Admittedly Ambrose and Holland will have gone if we're relegated but imagine how much we pay for Youga and Sam if we pay 5,000 a week to Christensen. I mean my God we probably pay many of our not good enough for non-league youth-players a couple of grand a week. Let's wait and see what the results are tommorrow. Players wages are no doubt down but we're still playing prem wages to youngsters and first teamers. I doubt if Luton Town's wage bill last season was 4.5 million.
Business is not a gamble unless your a numpty leveraged businessman like Mike Ashley. It's based on sound principles of cost/expenditure and turnover. Sure things can turn against you but a gamble is a bet on chance. If we want to reduce business to gambling then all encompassing truisms like life's a gamble can be used when that bus comes along.
Spending 70% of your turnover on wages is moronic, now that's a gamble. Any business operating like that deserves to go bankrupt. So why should we the people then pickup their not paid PAYE contributions? Football is morally and financially bankrupt. Charlton used to be run a little better than that.
Banks mitigated their gamble with derivatives, however wrong or poorly calculated, it doesn't appear the board mitigated their expenditure with contracts that could be re-negotitated when players were proved to be rubbish. Sure you can say that's not done in UK football. Well do it on Bolton's old model of older players on shorter terms, squad players on low wages and top performers like Nolan on big wages. For the last five odd seasons it appears the board thinks rubbish are worth astronomical wages, and squad players more than FTSE100 directors.
lets be honest our club has been well and truly bitten on the arse by a lot of these speculative deals, rather than tried and tested, which is why we are seeing a lot more loan deals.
On the other hand we were competing gainst other club and wanting to get the talent in, thing is that is exactly what Leeds did. Does seem an unbelieveable deal for an untried talent though.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Business is not a gamble unless your a numpty leveraged businessman like Mike Ashley. It's based on sound principles of cost/expenditure and turnover. Sure things can turn against you but a gamble is a bet on chance. If we want to reduce business to gambling then all encompassing truisms like life's a gamble can be used when that bus comes along.
Sorry Colin, thats rubbish. The stock market is based on chance. Businessmen sink their money into ideas, inventions, services on the chance of success. With the chance of success, comes the risk of failure, it's the same as gambling. Those running our club are primarily investors, they have sunk their money into the club with the chance that they can increase the value of their holdings. There is a chance we will go down by the action they have taken, if they decided to risk some more of their money now there is a chance that we may stay up. They have based their potential to gain or lose on an unproven manager. That is gambling.
Going right back to the title of this thread ("Christensen - The board or Pards to blame?"), the more that emerges about this grotesque tale, the more it becomes clear that the answer is both. Set the sorry saga in a different age, and it's like something out of Dickens' Little Dorrit...
But never mind that. ColinT has given us another wonderful reason to be cheerful to add to the gallows-humour list some of us compiled in another thread a few days ago :
"Think of all the money the board has saved this season on not having to pay win bonuses!'
bingaddick remind me never to go anywhere near you business/gamble choices. If I had to look through your idea of the utopian company I don't think I'd bother. Just by speaking to you within minutes I'd know you weren't an investment, and any positive returns you'd made was not down to business skill but sheer luck.
We can all have bad luck and good luck. Sustaining a business and sustaining the long term future of a business is not down to chance or gambling. It is your duty as an investor to have full knowledge of the investment and the nature of the business; that ain't me that's Keynes who's Oxford fund returned profit year after year apart from cataclysmic cycles like in '32. Now cataclysmic events like the crash of last year or relegation from the prem is hard to manage. But that's exactly why you don't have a majority of your money in highly leveraged business/vehicles. In 2005/2006 we had an aging squad of mainly poor-average prem players and our wages turnover percentage was 79% - fact:
It is impossible to run a business successfully with that philosophy. Regarding the fact we significantly upped our spending the next season no doubt wages turnover percentage was probably much higher. There is no gamble there that is bankrupt business. The facts are in the accounts, a virtual 12 mill loss in 2006, it's not even that you have to go looking for them like Ashley should have. Because Ashley operates a leveraged buyout of bankrupt business it's not a surprise he doesn't do due diligence correctly. Off balance sheet accounting is highlighted all through accounts. Why do you think accountants were flagging Madoff's returns as impossible ten years ago?
So don't tell me business is gambling. Getting up in the morning and finding my favourite shoes is chance. I don't consider something a gamble when I know it's probability and there is a great chance for success. Charlton's business model post the 2000/2001 season was no gamble but definite bankruptcy at some time in the near future. Once you go way above 60% turnover it's over unless you get a mental sovereign wealth fund. Fortunately we were lucky to get big money for Parker and Darren Bent, but rarely did we nurture youth between 2002-2006. The investments strategy was for developed players and thus their overblown wages for their small talent.
When Pardew thinks a million quid in wages to a nothing teen is good investment, that is not a gamble but bankrupt business. Managers need to work within a budget, the board were wrong with the budget but Pardew wasted it moronically. 22 grand on Weaver when he'd ostracised Mhyre who was no doubt on much smaller wages. Mhyre is a better keeper but not the 'name' he wanted. It is up to the chairman to set a fiscally sound budget if a manager has not brought to you an intelligent strategy on how to allocate it then don't employ him.
We are a small business albeit in a unique environment, over spends often occur but it's the blind wasting of resources for many years to come. If managers on average last 1.73 years in the job why offer them more than a two year contract? If there is relegation why is there not a clause if promotion is not met? Why do we give Pardew a payoff when he's been a complete failure? Why have the contract written totally in favour of the manager, if he can not achieve second position with the second biggest budget then he deserves nothing. Still if you just have a contract that rolls every two years that is fair time for a man to prove himself. Who get's a massive payoff for running a minor AIM size business? Why is a youngster signed to a four year contract? We still gain a fee if he's a player below the age of 23, who leaves whilst out of contract.
When I gamble I gamble with little thought on the probability. When I invest I research as much as possible. With knowledge I reduce the probability of failure. I don't back fund managers as they barely ever repeat their success - a few in a generation. That is why you have a system that means a bad choice leaves the majority of your investment unaffected. If you're paying out a couple of percent of turnover to an unproven asset like Christensen, that is no gamble.
If you believe it is a gamble then gawd I'd hate to see your informed investment choices. Just imagine if insurance companies were run on your business model? A one line derivative calculation with gamble written in greek on it? Anyone can make a mistake but without a considered approach you'd be doomed in boom and doomed in depression. If you want to see an informed approach to player acquisition then read Michael Lewis' book on Billy Bean. I'd doubt if the Charlton board ever thought of approaching investment anywhere near as intelligently as Billy Beane; well we know that for a fact as they employed Dowrie, Reed, Profligate Pardew and Parky.
Comments
Mick excellent work mate very grounded and informal yet full of info that i can digest
Thank you
Supaclive Nah Nah Nah Nah nah big raspberry tongue thingy you have been fed a kipper with your info i feel
As it happens, I was reading Mick's book ( Xmas present) and the sense of deja-vu is literally tearmaking. What's even worse is that there's nothing we can do about it. They'll never cap players salaries, the big money is ruining the beautiful game. Sweet FA done about it despite attempts by Platini et al. And meanwhile, we just haemorrhage money through cuts inflicted by both our own board and rich oligarchs and loyal poorly paid Valley staff are reaching for their crystal balls.
They all run their payslips past you for approval, do they?
I do always laugh when people make statements of fact about what this or that person earns. I guess the only real facts that we do have is that ZZ and Ambrose have both seen moves broken down due to salary issues and Hudson left his former employer amid accusations that his salary demands were unrealistic in this league and joined us on a Bosman which tends to encourage high salary, so it's safe to say that none of them are scraping by.
The parallels with us and Leeds are growing: a spectacular fall from grace, a board that everyone worshiped now appearing to lurch from one mess to the next, a series of awful managerial appointments and players that can't be moved on due to high wages. I hope that if administration's on the cards that we take it - and the points penalty - a bit quicker than them.
I keep jumping from feeling angry that those in charge allowed our club to be sucked into this situation and feeling thankful that we have some committed fans in charge who are trying to find a way out of this mess and sticking in there.
One thing is certain, managers like Dowie and Pardew should never, ever, ever have been given the kind of free reign that they were given. Take the Christensen grotesque example. We had sacked Dowie and Les, brought in Pardew as a kind of "messiah". All the previous attempts at better controlling transfer deals (via Andrew Mills) were thrown out the window and they invested all their trust in a manager who had some track record but it was by no means untarnished. It was mentioned at the time "how lucky we were to get him". Clearly with a position of power and an ego the size of Jupiter, he was able to stand up in front of the board and persuade them to part with potentially £1.5M for a junior player.
So we now have a huge problem. We have had, by default, to appoint Parky as our manager (clearly there is no money inside the club to bring in anybody else and the directors were unable or unwilling to put their hands in their pockets to bankroll it). We are almost certainly going to be trying to offload the higher wage earning players this window and try and bring in some decent replacements for significantly less money. Revenues are dropping as a result of on and off the field issues.
There is no easy way out of this self-dug hole.
That what we should have done with Faye/Ambrose/ZZ etc when we went down.
The Fall and Fall of Charlton Athletic
From Portsmouth Captains to Portacabins
I would think that seeing as Henry sat on the Board for two years he would be privee to exactly how much each player was earning and although I wouldn't expect him to tell us the exact figures putting it right when they have been over inflated is totally justified.
I also don't think the club has been run very well either - but to suggest the guys now in control of the purse strings aren't aware of the issues or have plans to deal with them is a little far fetched too.
ZZ will be sold this month and I (me, personally) think Weaver will go too .... There will be plenty of takers for both of these players, even in today's current climate.
All I am reporting on, is what I know - I'm no journalist and don't even know as much as Mick does and never will do - just saying what I know, or have been told.
Have to say while i wasn't aware of the Christianson issue which is beyond farcical. The turnover vs wages being 90% was true when we were in our last year of the premiership according to the end of season Delotte figures if my muddled brain serves me right, which would probably mean the % was high if not higher last year...
We're in a serious hole but if we go bankrupt almost definitely the team and the Valley stay together. When the Gills inevitably go bankrupt again chasing promotion to the champ Scally walks away with no liabilities and ownership of Priestfields worth 10 million plus in property development prices. That stubs is not good business for the club but only good business for a questionable businessman Scally. Ditto Jordan, Kelmsley and Selhurst Park.
We will have no relegation clauses for Gray and Hudson. If a board have not accounted a 1.5 mill expenditure on Christensen over the course of his contract they will not have a relegation clause. If they maddingly had no relegation clause in Pardew's why would they get it for 'brilliant' champ players?
I for one am boycotting the Valley they'll get no money out of me for a squad that is full of truly atrocious players on massive wages. And people moan about banks, at least they performed their rotten business model with a profit for many years. These players aren't capable of performing in their positions for one match. There is only two people to blame and that's Pardew and Parky. Spending around 8 million on players and many many millions on wages for Ambrose, Boughera, Cook, Gray, Halford, Hudson, Lita, Mcleod, Thomas, Toddy, Varney and ZZ is despicable if you never look like reaching the play offs. We had the second biggest wage bill last year in the champ no one can say Pards wasn't backed to the hilt.
Having said that it's up to the board/Varney to negotiate contracts and transfer fees. Paying 2.5 mill for M Bent, Faye and Traore is not acceptable. These are on massive wages and unless they are free transfers not worthwhie taking on their wages. To see a bemused David Moyes being asked why he sold Marcus Bent for 2.5 mill when he never scores was hilarity in extremis. A manager may say these are necessities but any fool would say yeah if they're free or definitely no more than 500,000.
Thanks Mick for an enlightening article much of which I'd guessed at. To think the board thinks it good sense to give the managers job to a man who helped a moron assemble the worst squad I've ever seen in twenty years is just false logic. We'll lose the only two transfer assets for nothing because Parky has decided Mouta and Dicko's investments are worth nothing. I pay for excitement not proved nothing footballers on massive wages. I can never understand a business model for such tiny companies that would be willing to write off an asset, bigger than their yearly profit, on the whim of a nutter
As for off loading players for free what planet are you on? Just look at any club going into receivership all their big money players stay until someone signs them or they retire. Only Hudson on his wages will be an attractive free transfer. Who'd give 22 grand a week to Weaver? Luton Town have still got Paul Mcveigh on huge wages as no one will ever sign him, with their poor consortium having to pour cash into his pocket. Also why would Deloitte be assesing last years finances when they have access to them through the football league or on wednesday? They're predicting them from what they know and what is happening now such as the prem parachute payments reducing.
oh come on , for a long time last season i'll have you know we were 5th ;-)
I know I'm sorry I said that. Because the nasty Andy Reid got injured and the nasty board then sold my bessie player, which I never signed your honor, we would have stormed the play offs.
Coo my lovely little touch players, coo. They keep coming back to the Valley my players like homing pigeons. Coo Darren Ambrose. Why does no one want you? Coo
Bye then. Shut the door on your way out, would you?
The very helpful woman on the counter said that they used to have a book on the subject but whoever had it out last hadn't brought it back.
Typical ; - )
Lol!! Nice one Henry.
I am a weekend carpenter I could de-hang it for you and fit it for 5 large ones. The price of money is cheap these days.
And so are words.
I posted something on here back in August, along the lines of "lay off the board, I'd rather be in our shoes than Southampton and Watford". Now I'm not so sure.
It might just be me but there appears to be a degree of transparency surrounding other teams with financial difficulties. We as fans seem to be continually on the end of cunningly spun stories. The Parkinson announcement being the case in point. Having said that to say that the Parkinson story was cunningly spun is laughable.
I'm now begining to convince myself that we are being spun a yarn with regard to our finances as well. What will the story be when/if we do admit defeat in March and take administration?. As I understand it there is a cut off point now i.e you have to declare administration before a certain date or the points deduction will roll over to the next season.
I keep asking myself the same question, how has it come to this?. Who are the villians?. I really don't know. I said it to a number of people when Peter Varney left "something is not right here, why has he just walked away?. I smell a rat".
Given our financial position I actually feel slightly guilty for keeping my money in my pocket last Saturday!. Quite what my £15.00 for a ticket and £2.50 for a programme would have been spent on is anyones guess. T-Cut to buff the chips out of Christiansons car door?.
I am probably being over dramatic but if we go down, and I believe there are a number (me included) who feel this is a foregone conclusion, does oblivion await?. Will anyone come and save us this time? We came mighty close in 1984, the lessons of those dark times should have been heeded - just how close are we to standing before a high court judge and declaring that a "boat load of rubber was on its way from bangkok"?.
Nervous? - You bet.
These figures, I should stress, are pure speculation but whateever they are relegation is going to be a huge financial challenge and if the club is unable to cover it's costs, then it's either insolvent and thus into administration or requires benefactors to keep it afloat.
This is a great financial bind we are in and why I wonder if I was a director, whether it would perhaps have been worth a gamble of some further injection of funds now to really give us a chance of avoiding the drop by bringing in an experienced manager, rather than greater potential costs to protect my investment next season if we go down.
As with everything it depends on the potential risks and the potential rewards. There are no absolutes in business. All business is to some extent a gamble. I am talking about the directors with capital to invest, putting a relatively small amount of money (representing a new manager) versus a huge amount of money to prop up the club and keep it afloat if we go down. They have chosen to gamble very little and hope that Parky can keep us up. If he does, they will have potentially risked a huge amount but got away with it. Like I say, nothing in business is risk free.
BingAddick that's being absolutely fanciful. Weaver, Gray, Fortune, Hudson, Mcleod, Ambrose and Holland could probably easily account for that without win bonuses - not much of them this season. Admittedly Ambrose and Holland will have gone if we're relegated but imagine how much we pay for Youga and Sam if we pay 5,000 a week to Christensen. I mean my God we probably pay many of our not good enough for non-league youth-players a couple of grand a week. Let's wait and see what the results are tommorrow. Players wages are no doubt down but we're still playing prem wages to youngsters and first teamers. I doubt if Luton Town's wage bill last season was 4.5 million.
Business is not a gamble unless your a numpty leveraged businessman like Mike Ashley. It's based on sound principles of cost/expenditure and turnover. Sure things can turn against you but a gamble is a bet on chance. If we want to reduce business to gambling then all encompassing truisms like life's a gamble can be used when that bus comes along.
Spending 70% of your turnover on wages is moronic, now that's a gamble. Any business operating like that deserves to go bankrupt. So why should we the people then pickup their not paid PAYE contributions? Football is morally and financially bankrupt. Charlton used to be run a little better than that.
Banks mitigated their gamble with derivatives, however wrong or poorly calculated, it doesn't appear the board mitigated their expenditure with contracts that could be re-negotitated when players were proved to be rubbish. Sure you can say that's not done in UK football. Well do it on Bolton's old model of older players on shorter terms, squad players on low wages and top performers like Nolan on big wages. For the last five odd seasons it appears the board thinks rubbish are worth astronomical wages, and squad players more than FTSE100 directors.
On the other hand we were competing gainst other club and wanting to get the talent in, thing is that is exactly what Leeds did. Does seem an unbelieveable deal for an untried talent though.
Sorry Colin, thats rubbish. The stock market is based on chance. Businessmen sink their money into ideas, inventions, services on the chance of success. With the chance of success, comes the risk of failure, it's the same as gambling. Those running our club are primarily investors, they have sunk their money into the club with the chance that they can increase the value of their holdings. There is a chance we will go down by the action they have taken, if they decided to risk some more of their money now there is a chance that we may stay up. They have based their potential to gain or lose on an unproven manager. That is gambling.
But never mind that. ColinT has given us another wonderful reason to be cheerful to add to the gallows-humour list some of us compiled in another thread a few days ago :
"Think of all the money the board has saved this season on not having to pay win bonuses!'
We can all have bad luck and good luck. Sustaining a business and sustaining the long term future of a business is not down to chance or gambling. It is your duty as an investor to have full knowledge of the investment and the nature of the business; that ain't me that's Keynes who's Oxford fund returned profit year after year apart from cataclysmic cycles like in '32. Now cataclysmic events like the crash of last year or relegation from the prem is hard to manage. But that's exactly why you don't have a majority of your money in highly leveraged business/vehicles. In 2005/2006 we had an aging squad of mainly poor-average prem players and our wages turnover percentage was 79% - fact:
http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/eng_charlton.htm
It is impossible to run a business successfully with that philosophy. Regarding the fact we significantly upped our spending the next season no doubt wages turnover percentage was probably much higher. There is no gamble there that is bankrupt business. The facts are in the accounts, a virtual 12 mill loss in 2006, it's not even that you have to go looking for them like Ashley should have. Because Ashley operates a leveraged buyout of bankrupt business it's not a surprise he doesn't do due diligence correctly. Off balance sheet accounting is highlighted all through accounts. Why do you think accountants were flagging Madoff's returns as impossible ten years ago?
So don't tell me business is gambling. Getting up in the morning and finding my favourite shoes is chance. I don't consider something a gamble when I know it's probability and there is a great chance for success. Charlton's business model post the 2000/2001 season was no gamble but definite bankruptcy at some time in the near future. Once you go way above 60% turnover it's over unless you get a mental sovereign wealth fund. Fortunately we were lucky to get big money for Parker and Darren Bent, but rarely did we nurture youth between 2002-2006. The investments strategy was for developed players and thus their overblown wages for their small talent.
When Pardew thinks a million quid in wages to a nothing teen is good investment, that is not a gamble but bankrupt business. Managers need to work within a budget, the board were wrong with the budget but Pardew wasted it moronically. 22 grand on Weaver when he'd ostracised Mhyre who was no doubt on much smaller wages. Mhyre is a better keeper but not the 'name' he wanted. It is up to the chairman to set a fiscally sound budget if a manager has not brought to you an intelligent strategy on how to allocate it then don't employ him.
We are a small business albeit in a unique environment, over spends often occur but it's the blind wasting of resources for many years to come. If managers on average last 1.73 years in the job why offer them more than a two year contract? If there is relegation why is there not a clause if promotion is not met? Why do we give Pardew a payoff when he's been a complete failure? Why have the contract written totally in favour of the manager, if he can not achieve second position with the second biggest budget then he deserves nothing. Still if you just have a contract that rolls every two years that is fair time for a man to prove himself. Who get's a massive payoff for running a minor AIM size business? Why is a youngster signed to a four year contract? We still gain a fee if he's a player below the age of 23, who leaves whilst out of contract.
When I gamble I gamble with little thought on the probability. When I invest I research as much as possible. With knowledge I reduce the probability of failure. I don't back fund managers as they barely ever repeat their success - a few in a generation. That is why you have a system that means a bad choice leaves the majority of your investment unaffected. If you're paying out a couple of percent of turnover to an unproven asset like Christensen, that is no gamble.
If you believe it is a gamble then gawd I'd hate to see your informed investment choices. Just imagine if insurance companies were run on your business model? A one line derivative calculation with gamble written in greek on it? Anyone can make a mistake but without a considered approach you'd be doomed in boom and doomed in depression. If you want to see an informed approach to player acquisition then read Michael Lewis' book on Billy Bean. I'd doubt if the Charlton board ever thought of approaching investment anywhere near as intelligently as Billy Beane; well we know that for a fact as they employed Dowrie, Reed, Profligate Pardew and Parky.