Fans’ Forum
Meeting summary - 26th February 2009
Present:
Gavin Barrett (Fans’ Forum) Derek Chappell (PLC Chairman)
Gary Davenport (Fans’ Forum) Rick Everitt (Club Development)
Terry Hastings (Fans’ Forum) Suzanne Hillcock (PA CEO and Notetaker)
Steve Kavanagh (MD) Richard Murray (FC Chairman)
Wendy Perfect (Club Development) Dave Rudd (Fans’ Forum)
Steve Waggott (GCEO) David White (FC Director)
Sacha Zarb (Fans’ Forum)
Apologies: Geoff Billingsley (Fans’ Forum)
Tony Garrett (CADSA/Fans’ Forum)
Steve Waggott opened the meeting by thanking all present for attending and asked everyone to introduce themselves. He then passed the meeting over to Dave Rudd to chair.
The following represents an account of the meeting based on the minutes taken by Suzanne Hillcock, and then summarised by the Fans’ Forum representatives. The content of this summary addresses the key questions presented to the Board by the Fans’ Forum in the formal communication of 27th January 2009.
Financial strategy
We asked for clarification from the Club regarding its business strategy for attracting suitable investors and how Charlton Athletic is positioning itself against the multitude of other clubs who are also striving to secure potentially the same investors.
In reply, the Club confirmed that it is adopting a proactive approach, and has been for the last couple of years. The strategic intent is to identify a suitable investor to allow the Club to compete at the highest level, as the current Board members recognise that they do not have the financial muscle to allow this ambition to be met.
To achieve this aim, the Club is utilising Rothschild to identify and attract suitable investors, with emphasis on our attractiveness in terms of geographical location (ie the fact that we are London-based) and the impact of the 2012 Olympics developments. In addition, we have the major advantages of owning our own ground coupled with limited debt to external creditors (of which more later under ‘Administration’), and these are aspects which set us apart from a number of other clubs.
Optimism is high that a suitable deal can be achieved. We have been very close to completion on previous occasions, but have been frustrated through no fault of the Club. It was explained to us that such deals can depend on the decision of a single individual..
A number of aspects of the Zabeel proposal were discussed, including the unsettling effect the proposed take-over had on the playing staff. At Zabeel’s request, the Club were asked to publicise that an indicative offer had been made, largely to demonstrate the seriousness of intent, and the Club were obviously happy to do so as this was understood to confirm that the deal would shortly be finalised. However, this publicity created unrest within the playing staff due to uncertainty about the personal future of individuals.
We asked about lessons learned from this episode. It is difficult to see how secrecy can be maintained when such a large number of people need to be involved in any future deal while, from a legal perspective, shareholders also need to be made aware of any future offers. All in all, we felt that the Club had conducted business with Zabeel appropriately and had been desperately unfortunate in terms of timing and with the negative impact arising from the failure to secure the deal.
The Club was keen to emphasise that, while suitable investment is being sought, our future viability is not dependent on such a deal. Of course, expectations will need to be lowered if a suitable deal is not forthcoming, but the Club recognises its duty to ensure appropriate financial management. We will live within our means, helped for example by an overall wage bill reduction as some of the larger contracts come to an end this summer. Confidence was expressed that the Club could still be successful under these terms based on good management and motivation and the subsequent news about Jonjo Shelvey signing a professional contract is a good example of the influence of these kinds of factors.
We asked what effect working without an overdraft facility was having. The club is continuing further discussions with the bank to ascertain how they can work with us in the future. This has resulted in some limitation to our financial flexibility, but this was not felt to be too problematic.
To summarise the main part of this topic, the Fans’ Forum representatives were encouraged by the proactive approach being taken by the Club to secure strong financial investment, but were also reassured to know that such investment is not critical to our future. The expectations of fans will need to be modified depending on the success of any investment plans, but the Club will remain viable, with aspirations of success, even if such investment is not forthcoming.
continued...
0
Comments
We were assured by both Richard Murray and Derek Chappell that the Club is not going into administration. To understand this statement more fully, it is important to realise that businesses go into administration when there are insufficient funds to pay creditors and/or staff.
As previously mentioned, the Club has no major creditors. The debts are so-called ‘friendly debts’ (i.e. taking the form of loans from the Directors) .
The only other major debt is to Lombard where around £6 million is owed on the extension to the stadium. Of this, around £1 million is being paid off each year.
As mentioned earlier, the healthy situation we are in regarding ownership of the ground is in direct contrast to many other clubs who pay extortionate rent and have to maintain their grounds themselves. As a result, these clubs are much more at risk than ours.
Richard Murray was dismissive of any idea around the club going into administration, explaining that this would mean that deserving people would not get paid and that would not be right. Again, we were impressed with that show of integrity.
Overall, and based on a better understanding of why administration occurs, the Fans’ Forum representatives are confident that this will not happen to our Club under the currently foreseeable circumstances. Couple this with the strategic intent described earlier, with the commitment to find a suitable investor or to continue to manage the finances of the Club within its means and we feel that fans can be assured that administration will happen to other clubs long before it threatens us.
Football matters
Predictably this aspect of the discussion covered a multitude of topics, but we tried to focus on the main areas identified in our formal communication to the Board (27 January 09) – that is, the appointment of and confidence in Phil Parkinson, the prospects for avoiding relegation this season and the longer-term plans for stability and progress on the playing field.
We were given some background by Richard Murray to the player transfer strategies adopted by Iain Dowie and Alan Pardew. Dowie favoured the purchase of established players (late 20’s or early 30’s – seasoned professionals, if you will) while Pardew’s approach centred more around untried, younger signings with the potential to become good or very good players. In fact, Pardew has a decent track record during his career in this respect and, after the disappointment of Dowie, this approach seemed attractive. Sadly, much of this didn’t work out and Richard Murray was quick to shoulder some of the blame for this situation.
This led the Fans’ Forum representatives to ask if there is enough football ‘nous’ at Board level, with knowledgeable fans questioning a number of the player purchases in recent years. Richard Murray discussed this point point and didn’t really respond favourably to the suggestion that there might be a role for a well-respected football figure to advise on transfer targets and player purchases. Names such as Les Reed, Chris Powell, Steve Brown ………… even Alan Curbishley come to mind, not to undermine the First Team Manager’s position, but simply to improve the overall judgement of the ability and suitability of a given player and to increase the chances of making a successful signing. Richard emphasised that he consults regularly with people like Keith Peacock but felt strongly that putting transfer targets through old players or managers would undermine the current manager. The feeling remains among some supporters that the Club could improve in its assessment of new players and in the impact (from a purely footballing perspective) of some of its business decisions.
We moved on to the appointment of Phil Parkinson and the loan strategy which the Club has adopted in the fight against relegation this season.
It’s very clear that Phil Parkinson (plus the management team of Mark Kinsella and Phil Chapple) has the full support and confidence of the Board. Parkinson is described very much as ‘his own man’. When the Fans’ Forum representatives questioned this view, based on his performance as part of Alan Pardew’s management team, we were told that Parkinson often expressed differing views to those of Pardew, but that Pardew would always have the final say. You can look at this in several ways, of course. Being kind, we recognise that, having conveyed an alternative view, Parkinson was prepared to do what the No. 1 preferred. Honourable though that is, it must have been difficult for a potential First Team Manager to deal with. Only now then do we see the fruits of that patience as players like Therry Racon are given a key role in Parkinson’s plans.
The current management team is placing emphasis on leadership and character on the field. Possible survival this season is based on the resilience and will-to-win that players like Graham Murty have brought to the Club, not only on the field, but in the dressing room and at the training ground. The attitude and self-belief within the current squad are not questioned and it is on this basis that the Board believes that we can avoid relegation. An example of the team spirit now existing within the squad can be seen from the way in which recent goals have been celebrated.
The loan strategy was defended very simply. In the current climate, loan signings represent better value for money. The calibre of player available on loan exceeds those who might be bought for a similar outlay, plus there is the opportunity to assess the player before considering a permanent deal. While it is recognised that several loan signings have been a mistake, those of Graham Murty and Darren Ward, in particular, represent the best examples of the type of player that Phil Parkinson wants, including beyond this season. The belief is that now we are seeing Parkinson’s team rather than that of his predecessor. The question of whether this is too little too late remains, but the over-riding impression is that now we have a team of fighters and that some of the loanees are likely to be with us next season on permanent deals.
The squad, and more exactly the wage bill, will be trimmed during the summer due to the expiry of contracts. It was noted that Burnley, for example, operate with a squad of around 18 players. This season, at the time of writing, we have used 37 and it was agreed that this was excessive.
Finally under this topic, we explored some of popular recurring topics – the circumstances behind Alan Curbishley’s departure, the appointment of Iain Dowie etc – to understand better the decision-making process that the Club uses.
It became clear to the Fans’ Forum representatives that circumstances had often dictated the outcome of most of these historical decisions. For example, once Alan Curbishley had decided that he didn’t want to extend his contract, this had made it difficult to improve the squad as the manager was a large factor in the players’ decision to sign for the Club. We gained a greater insight into some of the economics of Iain Dowie’s player transactions (Diawara, Reid, Traore and Faye especially) with an acceptance that mistakes had been made, although perhaps these were not as financially damaging as many believe.
Our overall feeling was that this reflected the fact that Richard Murray had not had to make key decisions of this nature during the several years of stability with Alan Curbishley. Richard takes credit for appointing Curbishley in the first place, against popular opinion at the time, and feels that there is a large element of luck in such decisions.
To conclude:
The Fans’ Forum representatives felt very positive about the outcome and the content of the meeting and hope that these notes provide fans with an insight into the strategic thinking and circumstances under which the Board operate. We believe that the financial aspects of our Club are being managed appropriately and are encouraged by the way in which the attitude and the confidence within the playing squad are developing. It remains to be seen whether these improvements are sufficiently timely and of the required magnitude.
There seems to be an opportunity to improve the decision-making capability with regard to transfer targets and the signing of players, plus the impact from a football perspective of some of the business decisions which need to be made. We hope that this constructive suggestion is given due consideration at Board level.
Any other business
We ended a successful evening by discussing opportunities and dates for future meetings and events, details of which will be placed on the Fans’ Forum website (www.charltonfansforum.co.uk) shortly.
Good to see their role developing. Keep up the good work.
Football is always uncertain. Players might break a leg tomorrow, there might be a new manager next week and a new owner the week after that.
So I have to wonder which players were unprofessional enough to show their ''unrest'' at the prospect of something that everybody else recognised was the best possible thing that could happen to the club ...did the chance of CAFC having some money and competing at the top level again disturb their comfort zone of tier two mediocrity?
I don't think is unprofessional, I think confidence amongst players was fragile before the Jabeel deal was announced and that was enough to tip us over the edge and down the slippery slope.
I am not condoning the lack of gumption of the so-called professional players at our club but I do understand it.
But when you say ''anything which may destabilise morale'', you're actually talking about the one thing that might have saved us!
I think what I was (clumsily) trying to draw attention to was the fact that a financial rescue plan that the board and most fans thought was the best thing that could happen to the club was seen by some, if not all, of the players as a threat to their livelihood. Why? Because they feared (rightly in probably all cases except ZZ and Shelvey) that they're not good enough for anything above second tier mediocrity.
There's a real paradox there, isn't there? Basically we are saying that the playing staff had totally different aspirations to eveybody else at the club and the vast majority of fans...
Yes, it is, I suppose. The board and the fans were thrilled at the prospect of some money comming into the club and CAFC being able to compete with the best again. The players were appalled by the idea and saw it as a threat to their positions - and reacted by going on a run of 18 games (or however many it was) without a win.
They record the '' unsettling effect the proposed take-over had on the playing staff.''
Were you unsettled by the Zabeel proposal? Was the board? Were most fans? No, we were delighted. We saw salvation.
According to the minutes, however, the players had a rather different - and far less positive - reaction. The players werent just unsettled. The minutes say there was ''unrest within the playing staff'' and then suggests that this unrest was not about the implications for the club or even the team collectively but states that it was specifically ''due to uncertainty about the personal future of individuals''.
At least, that's what it says. Be interested to hear your nuance on what it really means...
Not sure what Rothko is aluding to, but I think the above explains it all. You can argue that it shouldn't have happened, but players are only human.
All I was trying to point out was that there is a paradox in the fact that the board and the fans on the one hand and the playing staff on the other had totally different aspirations over the Zabeel proposal. We welcomed it. And they feared it - for understandable reasons.
My feelings as well.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Don't tell me, the Americans never landed on the moon, David Icke is really the messiah and 9/11 was a zionist plot...:o)
p.s. And Elvis is running a chip shop in Bradford!
I for one was concerned at the end of an era that I was familiar with and the possibility of new ownership where season ticket prices might go along the lines of QPR. You can call that unrest if you like.
In hindsight I neednt have worried as I have my old Charlton back. Not the one of late 1990/early 2000's vintage but more that of the 1960/1970s. I find that unsettling too.
Newcastle, idiot ;-)
And I thought it was just League 1.
http://www.cafc.co.uk/newsview.ink?nid=33949