[cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]This isn't about good vs. evil.
For supporters, it is about what is best to keep the club breathing, and move it forward.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]In fact, there have been a fantastic number of well crafted, thoughtful and challenging posts that have made pretty compulsive reading over the last two days, so thank you to everyone.
This article challenges our tacit acceptance of the way things are announcing publically just maybe “the Emperor has no clothes”. It draws a line under "the drift" that has engulfed the club enabling supporters to challenge the specifics of the difficulties we face and the strategies the board does or does not have to manage such challenges.
--------------
Absolutely spot on Grapevine. It's going to be a tough ask for some people to readjust their mindsets and take their heads out of the sand. We have 'drifted' for too long with no appetite, from the majority at least, to make a direct challenge as to what is going on.
Mick's article tells it, as much as it can be, warts and all. A few toys have been thrown from prams today for instance but I believe that whether the takeover goes ahead or not, a major sea change is now taking place and a far more realistic, and perhaps less complacent, attitude to our club's situation is emerging.
AFKA's letter has asked for some answers and that will only be the beginning. In some senses the final vestiges of trust have gone and this has been replaced by concerned scepticism.
Where Charlton Athletic finds itself right now that is entirely appropriate.
Nice piece from one of this site's most eloquent posters.
I have heard that charlton will never go into administration as they owe lombard the owners of the stand about 9 million and the rest is owed to the directors of which they will never pull the plug as the others will bail them out, ( if not i will) and the tax and other important bills have been paid.
Think the loan to lombard is down to 6m as we pay 1m a year and I'm sure it was 7m in last years accounts.... Someone who can read them better than me could confirm?
[cite]Posted By: Ruddy22[/cite]I have heard that charlton will never go into administration as they owe lombard the owners of the stand about 9 million and the rest is owed to the directors of which they will never pull the plug as the others will bail them out, ( if not i will)
and the tax and other important bills have been paid.
Ruddy22
Thanks Ruddy22 . Please can you forward the cheque for £40M to The Valley please asap.
Its simple accounting. If the club does not turnover enough income from sales and other revenues to cover it's costs, and no additional funds are attracted, then the club (like any business) is insolvent and administration is inevitable.
may well get wind of any bad rumours and be worried......quote
This is part of the reason why the club/board needed to address these issues months ago.
There seems to have been a bit of a thread on here that Mick Collins is to blame,/ stirring it up... Sorry Mick is the messenger, so let's not shoot him eh!... He did not get the club in this position, and as stated the club has had many opportunities to dispel the wilder speculation. Look at the Charlton website there is no official talk or response to the article, just a few postings.
I don't think anyone is blaming Mick, more perhaps that they are critical of journalism. It's a partial story from unattributed sources which Mick has reported because it's his job, it's what the MOS does.
Had he worked for another newspaper, maybe the story would have been handled differently, motives may have been clearer, the story fuller. There is however no doubt that the club has handled its communications appallingly. AFKA wanted us to be patient, he couldn't report back every twenty minutes. Fair do's and AFKA has done his utmost for us all. But it's not just twenty minutes, it's been twenty days, twenty weeks, twenty months of not very much at all. Or maybe someone's been messing with my clocks.
I just hope we hear either way very soon as I cannot help but think the rumours will finally start to get to me, before it is at last announced that the deal has collapsed on the eve of the new season.
There seems to have been a bit of a thread on here that Mick Collins is to blame,/ stirring it up... Sorry Mick is the messenger, so let's not shoot him eh!...
Agreed. Let's not shoot the messenger.
Our target should be that anonymous sub-editor at the MoS, who drastically reduced Mick's article and irresponsibily took away it's fuller rounded content. That was what caused most of the upset.
[cite]Posted By: Davidsmith[/cite]What is happening with Collins article,is exactly what the potential buyer wants,he planted the story with no doubt.
The debt is currently around 6mn with Lombard ,secured by Stadium,and as someone mentioned on here before 14.6mn of Bonds owned by Murray,Chappell,Whitehand and Sumners,for which they have waived interest for the past year.
The sale of assets is approved by Shareholders and 1.5mn of funds is sitting there as debt,but will disapear if sales go through,so total long term debt if Takeover never happens will be 21mn .
To run a company you need working capital ,and there is currently a cash shortfall in the company ,but player sales will wipe most of that out,balance funded by Bank and Directors.
So I think you will find that the current board will keep this club alive,there is no merit in administration,and no financial benefit to current investors.
Murray said current board would wipe off 30mn of investments for right buyer,my guess is he means all the share value,as it is hard to see how club worth more than debt value of 21mn.
Buyer is gambling that current board will wilt under pressure,but as of yet we have seen no public announcement that a written offer would demand,under takeover code,so is he for real?,who is he?,would Peter Varney drag it on this long and squeeze his old friends and employers like this.?
This Club has been through 1984,early 1990´s and has always survived,we have a Board of 15 Directors the majority of which have invested 1mn or more of their hard earned cash in this club,there will always be investors as we are at the heart of south east´s development and in an Olympic borough,keep positive.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]I don't think anyone is blaming Mick, more perhaps that they are critical of journalism. It's a partial story from unattributed sources which Mick has reported because it's his job, it's what the MOS does.
Had he worked for another newspaper, maybe the story would have been handled differently, motives may have been clearer, the story fuller. There is however no doubt that the club has handled its communications appallingly. AFKA wanted us to be patient, he couldn't report back every twenty minutes. Fair do's and AFKA has done his utmost for us all. But it's not just twenty minutes, it's been twenty days, twenty weeks, twenty months of not very much at all. Or maybe someone's been messing with my clocks.
Stilladdicted, I totally understand your frustration and I think you are right regarding the silence from the club itself not aiding the ability of fans to stay calm, or feel at ease, through this close season and well before that.
But I have to say its pretty frustrating how journalism, one way or another, gets it in the neck so frequently.
As you say, Mick was doing his job as a sports reporter on the MOS and, in my personal opinion, his editor showed his or her own limitations in not running the full story as this situation is something that can yet develop much more significantly.
From a journalistic and wider sports news perspective the fact that CAFC could end up in administration just a couple of years after dropping out of the Premier League and, as everyone knows, was a business that used to sing its own praises as to how well-run it was – as indeed it seemed to be until a few years ago – well that is pretty newsworthy.
BUT frankly because we, like Southampton, are now a third division team the story would only get good solid coverage once we are on the brink. At the moment, we are in flux, maybe we’ll be bought, maybe we’ll go under, and rumours regarding fairly small teams are not as attractive as hearing about Pompey’s deal taking longer than expected or Mike Ashley being seen in a Chinese takeaway, so he must be meeting a consortium in there. Sure, we’ll get column inches but not as prominently as we might if we deal or go bust or were a division or two higher.
Personally, I loathe the MOS and the Daily Mail and even if I needed the money I don’t think I could ever work for them. Politically, I find them scare-mongering, peddlers of division and even hate.
I know some people, especially older folk, like them as they seem to think they offer sensible news without a pair of knockers on page three. But they don’t realise the heavily charged political overtones.
But that’s OK, each to their own and I’m sure there are Mail readers on here – no worries with that. But I must emphasise that Mick simply did what any good journalist at any publication would do:-
He found a story (it may have come to him), got the quote(s) he needed and reassured the source that under no circumstances would he blow their cover. He even came back on here to say that it definitely wasn’t PV.
In my view, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t PV actually but it clearly it doesn’t mean it was and Mick has given adequate cover to the guy, as he should and would as a good journalist.
Any newspaper worth its salt would take this story if they had space for it as it is interesting and reveals a club in crisis. I don't believe the MOS had any particular motive other than 'getting it out there'.
You know, the Newcastle United tale of woe even has its own thread on here such is the interest in that. So, whether the Guardian, the Indy, the Times or whatever they would definitely look to publish this and broadly in this form too. There's nothing wrong with it.
It is not their affair to look at the consequences of that. The principal is the free transmission of information and sometimes that can be in the broader interests of the community and often that news comes from un-named or unattributed sources as I'm sure you know.
Without that system being alive and well, we wouldn’t have had the Guardian seemingly revealing the underhand practices of News of the World journalists or the details regarding MPs expenses in the Telegraph.
Sure this isn’t on that scale of course but, deep down, aren’t we glad that someone told us a snippet of what is going on? And often that someone is a journalist. The only motive, specific to this case in point, is the guy who wrote the piece and discovered the facts is a fan just like us and only a very few people would look to keep that from us, having unearthed it.
I've just got back to Phuket and this is the first I have heard about this.
I have read just about every post and there really is nothing to add.
I wonder whether Peter Varney had some inkling of the serious financial problems to come, hence his decision to leave Charlton when he did for personal reasons.
Which is the new model club whose example others should follow? First Leicester, then Charlton..............
[cite]Posted By: Prague Addick[/cite] Davidsmith, Your overall comment is interesting and helpful, so I want to make clear that I'm not taking issue with it. However I'd like to defend PV here. He is, as I understand it, only brokering the deal. He's gone off and found potential investors (just as, I understand, he was instrumental in bringing in Zabeel). So PV himself is blameless of any dragging. Its he investors' money and they will drag it along as long as they see fit. However we don't know who can rightly be accused of 'dragging' here. We don't know when PV first brought these investors to the table. Due diligence takes time, and can only start when the sellers agree in principal to a deal with a number on it.
Finally while I agree with you that the story benefits the buyer in negotiating terms, the term "plant" is demeaning to the journalist, and while I accept this happens, I doubt it fairly applies here to Mick Collins. He has been on this case for months.The only way he can write something is if people talk to him. When we were doing the Valley party campaign we spoke to journalists all the time, because it helps make their job easier, but this did not mean they printed what we wanted. They went away, checked things out, including with opponents, and then printed what they thought was a fair summary of the news.
[cite]Posted By: Davidsmith[/cite] Sources say that deal has been verbally agreed ,but buyer never followed through.Varney could just be being used here to keep buyer at arms length and drag out process to his benefit.Time will tell ,but in reducing price and getting closer to season start he is increasing prices he will pay for players,as free agents and best buys are snapped up early,so is he gaining anything?
[cite]Posted By: Davidsmith[/cite]What is happening with Collins article,is exactly what the potential buyer wants,he planted the story with no doubt.
The debt is currently around 6mn with Lombard ,secured by Stadium,and as someone mentioned on here before 14.6mn of Bonds owned by Murray,Chappell,Whitehand and Sumners,for which they have waived interest for the past year.
The sale of assets is approved by Shareholders and 1.5mn of funds is sitting there as debt,but will disapear if sales go through,so total long term debt if Takeover never happens will be 21mn .
To run a company you need working capital ,and there is currently a cash shortfall in the company ,but player sales will wipe most of that out,balance funded by Bank and Directors.
So I think you will find that the current board will keep this club alive,there is no merit in administration,and no financial benefit to current investors.
Murray said current board would wipe off 30mn of investments for right buyer,my guess is he means all the share value,as it is hard to see how club worth more than debt value of 21mn.
Buyer is gambling that current board will wilt under pressure,but as of yet we have seen no public announcement that a written offer would demand,under takeover code,so is he for real?,who is he?,would Peter Varney drag it on this long and squeeze his old friends and employers like this.?
This Club has been through 1984,early 1990´s and has always survived,we have a Board of 15 Directors the majority of which have invested 1mn or more of their hard earned cash in this club,there will always be investors as we are at the heart of south east´s development and in an Olympic borough,keep positive.
Finnaly a post with a positive spin... Thanks David...
[cite]Posted By: Davidsmith[/cite]Sources say that deal has been verbally agreed ,but buyer never followed through.Varney could just be being used here to keep buyer at arms length and drag out process to his benefit.Time will tell ,but in reducing price and getting closer to season start he is increasing prices he will pay for players,as free agents and best buys are snapped up early,so is he gaining anything?
Your last sentence is true. However even if he is being used, I find it quite telling that PV seems to be the only person capable of generating concrete interest in investing in the club. And I am quite sure he understands the point of your last sentence just as well as you and I, and must be exasperated by it.
When you say "buyer never followed through" do you know what role the results of due diligence has played in this reluctance?
None. Just seen Southampton deal and thinks he can push price lower,forgets we are not in administration and are in London not Hampshire,and premium over Southampton is part location and part going concern versus negotiating with Administrator who had to do a deal or fold the club.
Comments
seconded apart from the spelling of excellent
:-)
Yes. Spot on.
This article challenges our tacit acceptance of the way things are announcing publically just maybe “the Emperor has no clothes”. It draws a line under "the drift" that has engulfed the club enabling supporters to challenge the specifics of the difficulties we face and the strategies the board does or does not have to manage such challenges.
--------------
Absolutely spot on Grapevine. It's going to be a tough ask for some people to readjust their mindsets and take their heads out of the sand. We have 'drifted' for too long with no appetite, from the majority at least, to make a direct challenge as to what is going on.
Mick's article tells it, as much as it can be, warts and all. A few toys have been thrown from prams today for instance but I believe that whether the takeover goes ahead or not, a major sea change is now taking place and a far more realistic, and perhaps less complacent, attitude to our club's situation is emerging.
AFKA's letter has asked for some answers and that will only be the beginning. In some senses the final vestiges of trust have gone and this has been replaced by concerned scepticism.
Where Charlton Athletic finds itself right now that is entirely appropriate.
Nice piece from one of this site's most eloquent posters.
and the tax and other important bills have been paid.
Ruddy22
Thanks Ruddy22 . Please can you forward the cheque for £40M to The Valley please asap.
We've just got to find a way to get through the next 6 years productively.
This is part of the reason why the club/board needed to address these issues months ago.
There seems to have been a bit of a thread on here that Mick Collins is to blame,/ stirring it up... Sorry Mick is the messenger, so let's not shoot him eh!...
He did not get the club in this position, and as stated the club has had many opportunities to dispel the wilder speculation. Look at the Charlton website there is no official talk or response to the article, just a few postings.
Sorry, not good enough.
Had he worked for another newspaper, maybe the story would have been handled differently, motives may have been clearer, the story fuller. There is however no doubt that the club has handled its communications appallingly. AFKA wanted us to be patient, he couldn't report back every twenty minutes. Fair do's and AFKA has done his utmost for us all. But it's not just twenty minutes, it's been twenty days, twenty weeks, twenty months of not very much at all. Or maybe someone's been messing with my clocks.
Agreed. Let's not shoot the messenger.
Our target should be that anonymous sub-editor at the MoS, who drastically reduced Mick's article and irresponsibily took away it's fuller rounded content. That was what caused most of the upset.
Stilladdicted, I totally understand your frustration and I think you are right regarding the silence from the club itself not aiding the ability of fans to stay calm, or feel at ease, through this close season and well before that.
But I have to say its pretty frustrating how journalism, one way or another, gets it in the neck so frequently.
As you say, Mick was doing his job as a sports reporter on the MOS and, in my personal opinion, his editor showed his or her own limitations in not running the full story as this situation is something that can yet develop much more significantly.
From a journalistic and wider sports news perspective the fact that CAFC could end up in administration just a couple of years after dropping out of the Premier League and, as everyone knows, was a business that used to sing its own praises as to how well-run it was – as indeed it seemed to be until a few years ago – well that is pretty newsworthy.
BUT frankly because we, like Southampton, are now a third division team the story would only get good solid coverage once we are on the brink. At the moment, we are in flux, maybe we’ll be bought, maybe we’ll go under, and rumours regarding fairly small teams are not as attractive as hearing about Pompey’s deal taking longer than expected or Mike Ashley being seen in a Chinese takeaway, so he must be meeting a consortium in there. Sure, we’ll get column inches but not as prominently as we might if we deal or go bust or were a division or two higher.
Personally, I loathe the MOS and the Daily Mail and even if I needed the money I don’t think I could ever work for them. Politically, I find them scare-mongering, peddlers of division and even hate.
I know some people, especially older folk, like them as they seem to think they offer sensible news without a pair of knockers on page three. But they don’t realise the heavily charged political overtones.
But that’s OK, each to their own and I’m sure there are Mail readers on here – no worries with that. But I must emphasise that Mick simply did what any good journalist at any publication would do:-
He found a story (it may have come to him), got the quote(s) he needed and reassured the source that under no circumstances would he blow their cover. He even came back on here to say that it definitely wasn’t PV.
In my view, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t PV actually but it clearly it doesn’t mean it was and Mick has given adequate cover to the guy, as he should and would as a good journalist.
Any newspaper worth its salt would take this story if they had space for it as it is interesting and reveals a club in crisis. I don't believe the MOS had any particular motive other than 'getting it out there'.
You know, the Newcastle United tale of woe even has its own thread on here such is the interest in that. So, whether the Guardian, the Indy, the Times or whatever they would definitely look to publish this and broadly in this form too. There's nothing wrong with it.
It is not their affair to look at the consequences of that. The principal is the free transmission of information and sometimes that can be in the broader interests of the community and often that news comes from un-named or unattributed sources as I'm sure you know.
Without that system being alive and well, we wouldn’t have had the Guardian seemingly revealing the underhand practices of News of the World journalists or the details regarding MPs expenses in the Telegraph.
Sure this isn’t on that scale of course but, deep down, aren’t we glad that someone told us a snippet of what is going on? And often that someone is a journalist. The only motive, specific to this case in point, is the guy who wrote the piece and discovered the facts is a fan just like us and only a very few people would look to keep that from us, having unearthed it.
I have read just about every post and there really is nothing to add.
I wonder whether Peter Varney had some inkling of the serious financial problems to come, hence his decision to leave Charlton when he did for personal reasons.
Which is the new model club whose example others should follow? First Leicester, then Charlton..............
Your last sentence is true. However even if he is being used, I find it quite telling that PV seems to be the only person capable of generating concrete interest in investing in the club. And I am quite sure he understands the point of your last sentence just as well as you and I, and must be exasperated by it.
When you say "buyer never followed through" do you know what role the results of due diligence has played in this reluctance?
Hmm...
The club were aware of tall the concerns raised by the Mail on Sunday story and were currently discussing a statement for release in the near future.
We'll see....
Just seen Southampton deal and thinks he can push price lower,forgets we are not in administration and are in London not Hampshire,and premium over Southampton is part location and part going concern versus negotiating with Administrator who had to do a deal or fold the club.
Got to give the guy extra time. He has to dictate it to himself first. ;-)