The directors are businessmen. Fortunately, they happen to be Charlton supporters. But they run Charlton like the directors of any business : they expect a return on their money.
They are not fairy godmothers or sugar daddies or guardian angels. Which is how I would want it , because the club needs to be run on a proper business-like basis, not on sentiment.
Those who act and post as if the directors are some kind of fairy godmothers whom we'd better not criticise in case they take their candy away are deluding themselves. As I understand it, they are not waiving interest, merely defering it at a time when the base rate is 0.5 per cent, anyway.
I hope the current board find someone to buy the club asap. In the meantime, it's batten down the hatches, trim the main sail and hope we can ride out the storm.
Charlton will only rise again once the club is in new ownership. Sorry, but that is FACT, which privately even the current board do not deny.
Nigel speaks a deal of truth. There is though the unpalatable truth that it is very unlikely the Directors will see anything like the return on their capital employed. The club just ain't worth what they've collectively invested. So for them, if we take Nigel's nautical analogy a little further, they are in effect, operating like a ships captain, jettisoning what is necessary to keep the ship from sinking, plugging what leaks they can, getting all hands to the pumps and waiting for a rescue vessel to hove into view.
There is one potential storm cloud on the horizon and that is, given the recession in the UK (and the world economy) may last several years, a lifeboat in the form of new investors may not be forthcoming for somewhile and the vessel may not remain seaworthy for long enough unless it can put into a safe haven, make repairs and set sail again for calmer waters.
It therefore brings me back to the points I have been making elsewhere. New investors or not, the club needs to re-discover "The Charlton Way" for that way lies the best chance of reaching a secure port.
Thanks for picking up the nautical analogy so elegantly and pertinently , Bing.
One might add that more than a few hands are being thrown over board to help keep the leaky old hulk afloat until we reach that safe port or the lifeboat hoves into view.
Not sure making crew members walk the plank is 'the Charlton way' but needs must at this time, sadly. (x-ref to Bing's excellent two posts in the 'Charlton way' thread, which hopefully he is now turning into a full-blown article/blog).
If Charlton or for that matter most of the football clubs, league and non-league, were run purely on a business basis they would have been closed down long ago.
Bar a few very successful clubs such as Man Utd clubs aims at best to break even. Most business men or women would be looking for a return on their investment some way over and above what they could get from banking it.
The reality is that for most club there is a sugar daddy or daddies who put their own money in to keep it going. Abramovitch is one, as is Gibson at Boro, Jordan at Palace and Murray/Chappell/Whitehand/Hatter/Summers et al at Charlton.
Chelsea do not make a profit and neither do Boro. Gibson is said to put something like £10 pa into his club. Sure his accountants will make that as tax efficient as possible but he would have got a better financial return from a builiding society account.
It maybe possible to make a profit in the Premier League or at least break even but when you have to compete with Man City and the other "kudos" investors that becomes harder and harder to maintain.
The boat analogy is fine and CAFC should be run, IMHO, on a balanced budget where ever possible but even in the good old days of Curbs there were regular cash injections in the form of Share issues from fans (£1.5m) and directors (£45m).
I agree that to really compete at the very top level we need a mega rich owner but until that person or persons arrive we have to do what we must. Hence the sales and Chappell's loans.
Wouldn't disgaree with most of Henry's post. Clearly there is an element of 'rich man's plaything' in all of this. Some buy a luxury yacht, some buy a private island in the Caribbean, some buy a football club. A tiny few like Abramovich can afford all three.
The kudos/status/prestige/enjoyment/pleasure that the owners derive from these possessions cannot be measured in purely monetary terms.
But... some then find to their detriment that once they've got their dream island/yacht/football club there are certain hefty maintenance costs involved in keeping the facility in tip-top shape that are not always going to be met by the income to be earned from it. Once you can no longer afford the upkeep,it's time either to sell the island/the yacht/ the football club or to watch it rot away.
That's where we are now and fortunately, our board have decided on the former course of action. Unfortunately, at the moment they cannot find a buyer!
''I guess you enjoyed the luxury cruise whilst it was offered to you at discount and provided at other peoples expense and risk.''
To be honest, Imiss, I think that's pretty insulting to the supporters - many of whom are on fairly meagre wages - who pay out hundreds of pounds a year for a season ticket to follow the team, no matter what division we are in.
Yes, our ticket prices in the premiership were cheaper than at Chelsea or Arsenal. But I doubt there's many would agree with you that we got premiership football at the Valley "at discount and provided at other peoples expense.''
Seems a very odd way of looking at it , I must say.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]I guess you enjoyed the luxury cruise whilst it was offered to you at discount and provided at other peoples expense and risk.
It's a metaphor really, but I still don't get it !
The fans as freeloaders? Not in my book. Players come and go. Directors come and go. Managers come and go. They usually leave with money in their pockets. What is the only constant at any football club? The fans, who pay with their hard-earned readies through the turnstiles, week after week, season after season, decade after decade, come rain or shine, premiership, championship, division three.
And you call that enjoying a discount luxury cruise at someone else's expense? You're having a laugh. Aren't you?
[quote][cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]And you call that enjoying a discount luxury cruise at someone else's expense? You're having a laugh. Aren't you?[/quote]
I hope he is, Nigel. It worries me that some people want to apportion blame for the Club's demise to the fans. Let's be clear. The fans are no more to blame than are the ordinary people, nurses, teachers, etc, who voted in this Government, to blame for the financial crisis. I could buy the analogy if, like Wigan or Blackburn our attendances had stayed stubbornly below 20,000 as we established ourselves, but that wasnt the case. We packed the Valley out, and furthermore this was partly due to fan-driven initiatives such as Target 40000 and Valley Express. Our success was a happy marriage between exceptional supporters and an exceptional board. If we at least buy the analogy of the "luxury cruise", my epitome of that would be the 5 months of Parker/Jensen/di Canio. At that time the club was run on a balanced budget. Those players were paid for by the Sky money. Had this money been better shared, and had limits been placed on outside investment, to deter the likes of Abramovic I honestly believe none of this disaster would ever have befallen us.
Yet again Richard this desire to twist completely what someone said to make it read "blaming the fans" when in reality it said nothing of the sort. How perverse.
Quite clear when you read it that Imiss was continuing the analogy made of the boat and said that that luxury cruise has been offered at "discount". Not free, not for nothing but "discount".
Nowhere was it "blaming the fans" or any one or accusing anyone of being "freeloaders" merely that the much maligned board , who are themselves fans, had put in a substantial amount of money (£47m and counting) to help us return to the Valley and to reach and enjoy our times in the top flight ie the luxury cruise referred to in the original analogy.
Well I and my family will always be grateful for the journey.
And as one on meagre means doubly so.
I have had a range of ticket types from Family to disabled (as I also have a disabled wife who sadly is no longer well enough to attend games) but the pricing has always been a fantastic deal. Subsidised/discounted choose what words you wish but there is no doubt I have not paid the full cost of running that Premiership squad.
I have some great photos of my families faces at the Play off final. Happy times and one day I hope they will return. But I know who to thank for giving me and my family those experiences.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Not free, not for nothing but "discount".[/quote]
Could you please explain what you mean by "discount"? You will of course be familiar with the crucial role played by Target 40,000 in setting ticket prices. I believe Richard Murray would agree that those ticket prices were set after rational business-like discussions, and they were the best pricing decisions for all concerned. Certain directors disagreed, but Richard backed the sensible pricing initiatives, because he thought they were the best business approach, not just to get a warm feeling.
That does not mean that Richard Murray does not deserve the respect and gratitude of fans, as 'Imiss" puts very eloquently. He does, and looking at this message board, he continues to get it. The fact remains that people paid significant amounts of money, and I think the use of the word 'discount' was unfortunate, even if the person who used it meant it sincerely, as he explains above.
It wasn't me who used the word discount it was Imissthepeanutman. It was his post that provoked your "Blaming the fans" comment.
Imiss never said that people didn't pay and he has explained very clearly what he meant by it. Nigel conjured up the term "freeloaders" when he misrepresented what Imiss said.
I'd argue that "discount" related to the fact that our season tickets were distinctly cheaper than other London Premiership clubs. From talking to the other fans at work, when we were last in the Premiership my East Stand halfway line season ticket was cheaper than the cheapest adult seat at Spurs. West Ham were cheaper than them, but still about half as expensive again as us. Fulham's cheapest tickets were on a par with ours, but their most expensive were about a hundred quid dearer than ours iirc.
Were side-issuing here, but my view is our pricing policy in the Prem may well have been cheaper than other clubs, but it was priced at the maximum our club felt it could charge to fill our seats. There is no discount in that policy whatsoever.
Out of the country till 22nd so wont see my shareholders letter and will miss the vote,so it has been good to see the debate on here.
There does need to be some further clarification re the indipendant valuations. IMO the queries should be taken forward by the SHAREHOLDERS and not the Fans Forum. The Club (business) has to answer our queries we OWN it as shareholders.
I have not had the benfit of reading the letter , but feel somewhat --backs to the wall--- here. Is there an alternative ? we havnt been offered one, that i can see. I think that tthis is also ring fencing some assets should we have apoor season next year and go into administration.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Out of the country till 22nd so wont see my shareholders letter and will miss the vote,so it has been good to see the debate on here.
There does need to be some further clarification re the indipendant valuations. IMO the queries should be taken forward by the SHAREHOLDERS and not the Fans Forum. The Club (business) has to answer our queries we OWN it as shareholders.
I have not had the benfit of reading the letter , but feel somewhat --backs to the wall--- here. Is there an alternative ? we havnt been offered one, that i can see. I think that tthis is also ring fencing some assets should we have apoor season next year and go into administration.
Contact the club and see if the letter can be sent to you as a pdf.
As a shareholder you are legally entitled to see all such paperwork etc and the club should make the extra effort to keep you informed.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Not free, not for nothing but "discount".
Could you please explain what you mean by "discount"? You will of course be familiar with the crucial role played by Target 40,000 in setting ticket prices. I believe Richard Murray would agree that those ticket prices were set after rational business-like discussions, and they were the best pricing decisions for all concerned. Certain directors disagreed, but Richard backed the sensible pricing initiatives, because he thought they were the best business approach, not just to get a warm feeling.
That does not mean that Richard Murray does not deserve the respect and gratitude of fans, as 'Imiss" puts very eloquently. He does, and looking at this message board, he continues to get it. The fact remains that people paid significant amounts of money, and I think the use of the word 'discount' was unfortunate, even if the person who used it meant it sincerely, as he explains above.
I was recalling Richard Murrays comments at the Shareholders AGM in January. I have just re-read the thread on it but his comments are not recorded.
Richard said that 2 of his biggest achievements at his time at the club were
1) the development of the Valley
2) the deliberate ticket pricing policy making Charlton 'cheaper/more affordable' than other clubs (and I dont think we are comparing with Arsenal/Chelsea here and not necessarily Premiership either)
In my mind somewhere in the many millions injected that money has been used to that effect. Making the tickets 'discounted'.
What I said was twisted but my view remains that without the injection of money by the Directors over the years my ticket prices would have been more expensive to the point where I may not have had the experiences I did.
Theres nothing insulting in that point of view.
Anyway in terms of the Crown Jewels I am still undecided how to vote.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]Anyway in terms of the Crown Jewels I am still undecided how to vote.
That's how I feel - so I probably won't vote as I can't get to the meeting to ask questions or hear answers!
I don't want to vote against and do the directors a disservice nor do I want to vote for and find that assets have been sold off cheaply for covert reasons.
If we as shareholders in say a furniture company has been through a good few years of wealth etc guided by the MD and the board, but then went through 4 years of one huge error after another would you then vote yes when being asked to sell assets that belong to you the shareholder back to the Board who made the errors in the first place ? The vaule of our shares when purchased was aprox 0.80p God knows how low they are now, but selling off assets has to affect share value---------------if that matters.
Of course we are a football club and its not the same os a NORMAL business--- but hold on werent we told upteen times that we have to run this club like it was a REAL BUSINESS ?
I will always be thankfull to the Board for what they have done for CAFC, but this makes me feel very uneasy.
I would prefer that we try to raise more money via a VIP/Pitch Owners scheme than selling off our assets to someones private pension fund.
I still don't know what to think about this, because I feel it may be part of a wider picture/scenario that we don't yet fully comprehend. But since the proposal was first floated, I detected a hardening of attitudes against it among some who were at first undecided. Not I suspect due to any deep-seated mistrust of the individuals concerned but simply down to a frustration that we may not be getting the full story.
I am not a shareholder so have no tangible input to this.
If I did I would favour a Supporters Trust or similar though. Not because I particularly distrust the directors, The Valley stands as a lasting monument to their success even if managerial mistakes have been made subsequently in good faith.
I think, in an ideal world, the fans should own their football club and that is the best way of protecting the Club's interest in the long term.
Ideology and economic reality are of course different things but if you don't try you don't know.
Comments
They are not fairy godmothers or sugar daddies or guardian angels. Which is how I would want it , because the club needs to be run on a proper business-like basis, not on sentiment.
Those who act and post as if the directors are some kind of fairy godmothers whom we'd better not criticise in case they take their candy away are deluding themselves. As I understand it, they are not waiving interest, merely defering it at a time when the base rate is 0.5 per cent, anyway.
I hope the current board find someone to buy the club asap. In the meantime, it's batten down the hatches, trim the main sail and hope we can ride out the storm.
Charlton will only rise again once the club is in new ownership. Sorry, but that is FACT, which privately even the current board do not deny.
Please can you explain what the friendly debt is all about then?
It seems a little different to way the friendly banks are operating or am I deluding myself.
There is one potential storm cloud on the horizon and that is, given the recession in the UK (and the world economy) may last several years, a lifeboat in the form of new investors may not be forthcoming for somewhile and the vessel may not remain seaworthy for long enough unless it can put into a safe haven, make repairs and set sail again for calmer waters.
It therefore brings me back to the points I have been making elsewhere. New investors or not, the club needs to re-discover "The Charlton Way" for that way lies the best chance of reaching a secure port.
One might add that more than a few hands are being thrown over board to help keep the leaky old hulk afloat until we reach that safe port or the lifeboat hoves into view.
Not sure making crew members walk the plank is 'the Charlton way' but needs must at this time, sadly. (x-ref to Bing's excellent two posts in the 'Charlton way' thread, which hopefully he is now turning into a full-blown article/blog).
Bar a few very successful clubs such as Man Utd clubs aims at best to break even. Most business men or women would be looking for a return on their investment some way over and above what they could get from banking it.
The reality is that for most club there is a sugar daddy or daddies who put their own money in to keep it going. Abramovitch is one, as is Gibson at Boro, Jordan at Palace and Murray/Chappell/Whitehand/Hatter/Summers et al at Charlton.
Chelsea do not make a profit and neither do Boro. Gibson is said to put something like £10 pa into his club. Sure his accountants will make that as tax efficient as possible but he would have got a better financial return from a builiding society account.
It maybe possible to make a profit in the Premier League or at least break even but when you have to compete with Man City and the other "kudos" investors that becomes harder and harder to maintain.
The boat analogy is fine and CAFC should be run, IMHO, on a balanced budget where ever possible but even in the good old days of Curbs there were regular cash injections in the form of Share issues from fans (£1.5m) and directors (£45m).
I agree that to really compete at the very top level we need a mega rich owner but until that person or persons arrive we have to do what we must. Hence the sales and Chappell's loans.
The kudos/status/prestige/enjoyment/pleasure that the owners derive from these possessions cannot be measured in purely monetary terms.
But... some then find to their detriment that once they've got their dream island/yacht/football club there are certain hefty maintenance costs involved in keeping the facility in tip-top shape that are not always going to be met by the income to be earned from it. Once you can no longer afford the upkeep,it's time either to sell the island/the yacht/ the football club or to watch it rot away.
That's where we are now and fortunately, our board have decided on the former course of action. Unfortunately, at the moment they cannot find a buyer!
Blimey Henry, no wonder Boro are struggling if Gibson is only putting in £10 quid a year :-)
To be honest, Imiss, I think that's pretty insulting to the supporters - many of whom are on fairly meagre wages - who pay out hundreds of pounds a year for a season ticket to follow the team, no matter what division we are in.
Yes, our ticket prices in the premiership were cheaper than at Chelsea or Arsenal. But I doubt there's many would agree with you that we got premiership football at the Valley "at discount and provided at other peoples expense.''
Seems a very odd way of looking at it , I must say.
LOL "That's why you're going down"
Obviously I meant £100 : - )
good analogy.
The fans as freeloaders? Not in my book. Players come and go. Directors come and go. Managers come and go. They usually leave with money in their pockets. What is the only constant at any football club? The fans, who pay with their hard-earned readies through the turnstiles, week after week, season after season, decade after decade, come rain or shine, premiership, championship, division three.
And you call that enjoying a discount luxury cruise at someone else's expense? You're having a laugh. Aren't you?
I hope he is, Nigel. It worries me that some people want to apportion blame for the Club's demise to the fans. Let's be clear. The fans are no more to blame than are the ordinary people, nurses, teachers, etc, who voted in this Government, to blame for the financial crisis. I could buy the analogy if, like Wigan or Blackburn our attendances had stayed stubbornly below 20,000 as we established ourselves, but that wasnt the case. We packed the Valley out, and furthermore this was partly due to fan-driven initiatives such as Target 40000 and Valley Express. Our success was a happy marriage between exceptional supporters and an exceptional board. If we at least buy the analogy of the "luxury cruise", my epitome of that would be the 5 months of Parker/Jensen/di Canio. At that time the club was run on a balanced budget. Those players were paid for by the Sky money. Had this money been better shared, and had limits been placed on outside investment, to deter the likes of Abramovic I honestly believe none of this disaster would ever have befallen us.
Quite clear when you read it that Imiss was continuing the analogy made of the boat and said that that luxury cruise has been offered at "discount". Not free, not for nothing but "discount".
Nowhere was it "blaming the fans" or any one or accusing anyone of being "freeloaders" merely that the much maligned board , who are themselves fans, had put in a substantial amount of money (£47m and counting) to help us return to the Valley and to reach and enjoy our times in the top flight ie the luxury cruise referred to in the original analogy.
And as one on meagre means doubly so.
I have had a range of ticket types from Family to disabled (as I also have a disabled wife who sadly is no longer well enough to attend games) but the pricing has always been a fantastic deal. Subsidised/discounted choose what words you wish but there is no doubt I have not paid the full cost of running that Premiership squad.
I have some great photos of my families faces at the Play off final. Happy times and one day I hope they will return. But I know who to thank for giving me and my family those experiences.
Could you please explain what you mean by "discount"? You will of course be familiar with the crucial role played by Target 40,000 in setting ticket prices. I believe Richard Murray would agree that those ticket prices were set after rational business-like discussions, and they were the best pricing decisions for all concerned. Certain directors disagreed, but Richard backed the sensible pricing initiatives, because he thought they were the best business approach, not just to get a warm feeling.
That does not mean that Richard Murray does not deserve the respect and gratitude of fans, as 'Imiss" puts very eloquently. He does, and looking at this message board, he continues to get it. The fact remains that people paid significant amounts of money, and I think the use of the word 'discount' was unfortunate, even if the person who used it meant it sincerely, as he explains above.
Imiss never said that people didn't pay and he has explained very clearly what he meant by it. Nigel conjured up the term "freeloaders" when he misrepresented what Imiss said.
There does need to be some further clarification re the indipendant valuations. IMO the queries should be taken forward by the SHAREHOLDERS and not the Fans Forum. The Club (business) has to answer our queries we OWN it as shareholders.
I have not had the benfit of reading the letter , but feel somewhat --backs to the wall--- here. Is there an alternative ? we havnt been offered one, that i can see. I think that tthis is also ring fencing some assets should we have apoor season next year and go into administration.
Sorry, just caught up with this. To put the record straight, I don't believe I misrepresented anything.
The original quote was that Charlton fans had ''enjoyed a luxury cruise at a discount and at somebody else's expense.''
As an experienced and accomplished freeloader of many years standing, that fits my definition perfectly! Where do I sign up ?
Contact the club and see if the letter can be sent to you as a pdf.
As a shareholder you are legally entitled to see all such paperwork etc and the club should make the extra effort to keep you informed.
Email is
danii18@aol.com
I was recalling Richard Murrays comments at the Shareholders AGM in January. I have just re-read the thread on it but his comments are not recorded.
Richard said that 2 of his biggest achievements at his time at the club were
1) the development of the Valley
2) the deliberate ticket pricing policy making Charlton 'cheaper/more affordable' than other clubs (and I dont think we are comparing with Arsenal/Chelsea here and not necessarily Premiership either)
In my mind somewhere in the many millions injected that money has been used to that effect. Making the tickets 'discounted'.
What I said was twisted but my view remains that without the injection of money by the Directors over the years my ticket prices would have been more expensive to the point where I may not have had the experiences I did.
Theres nothing insulting in that point of view.
Anyway in terms of the Crown Jewels I am still undecided how to vote.
That's how I feel - so I probably won't vote as I can't get to the meeting to ask questions or hear answers!
I don't want to vote against and do the directors a disservice nor do I want to vote for and find that assets have been sold off cheaply for covert reasons.
If we as shareholders in say a furniture company has been through a good few years of wealth etc guided by the MD and the board, but then went through 4 years of one huge error after another would you then vote yes when being asked to sell assets that belong to you the shareholder back to the Board who made the errors in the first place ? The vaule of our shares when purchased was aprox 0.80p God knows how low they are now, but selling off assets has to affect share value---------------if that matters.
Of course we are a football club and its not the same os a NORMAL business--- but hold on werent we told upteen times that we have to run this club like it was a REAL BUSINESS ?
I will always be thankfull to the Board for what they have done for CAFC, but this makes me feel very uneasy.
I would prefer that we try to raise more money via a VIP/Pitch Owners scheme than selling off our assets to someones private pension fund.
I bought some shares about a year ago at 38p.
I dont think the sale of assets necessarily reduces the asset value of the business if it is getting 'fair' value for the assets.
Its sadly a sign of the times that we are even questioning the Board over this but that is where I am. Uneasy is the word.
If I did I would favour a Supporters Trust or similar though. Not because I particularly distrust the directors, The Valley stands as a lasting monument to their success even if managerial mistakes have been made subsequently in good faith.
I think, in an ideal world, the fans should own their football club and that is the best way of protecting the Club's interest in the long term.
Ideology and economic reality are of course different things but if you don't try you don't know.