Should we not gain promotion this season will the running costs of the Valley, a) force us into liquidation b) force a sale of the ground and a move elsewhere, Ebbsfleet?
It won't lead us into liquidation, or to move, but i would not rule out parts of the ground being closed next season to try and save some money some how, and though we may be able to get our wage bill back into line with most in our division next year, our other costs such as running our ground will be far far higher.
"In response to another question RM said that the club was running at a loss. Asked how other, smaller, clubs such as Crewe, survived RM said that most if not all clubs outside the Prem ran at a loss and were subsidised by local businessmen who were fans EG Millwall lost £6m last year on a smaller turnover and wage bill. Other clubs have much smaller fixed costs as well according to RM. EG to get our safety certificate we are still required to have the same minimum number of stewards as when in the Prem. Rates are high (£300k) and have risen by 85% (not sure but think this was 85% on top of £300k) which the club is disputing. SK explained that rating values are done in arrears ie the 2007 rate was set in 2009 and despite assurances no consideration was given to us no longer being a Prem club."
Promotion essential.....Players it's over to you.... starting with a statement of intent on Saturday. Four winnable games on the trot so lets win them!
Two points on this. The key word in Henry's quote is "minimum", as in minimum number of stewards. Of course the minimum number remains the same, as it is based on the actual stadium configuration with a minimal attendance. The actual number of stewards and therefore the cost of them has reduced dramatically since we were in the PL.
Secondly, the potential savings from shutting areas of the ground probably wouldn't be realised if this was attempted, because whatever you did would lead to disgruntled season-ticket holders and refunds. The most expensive areas to staff are those with pitch access, but it's unlikely supporters would accept closure of the lower west or east stands or that the club would put that forward. Closure of the lower north would probably be opposed by the playing side, as well as its season-ticket holders. The upper north is politically impossible and the quadrants don't amount to much in terms of marginal cost in the first place. That leaves the upper west, which has to be staffed anyway because of the press gantry. The reality is that greater and more deliverable savings could be made in other areas with much less impact on supporters.
For some games it might be possible to close the Jimmy Seed Stand, but you would have to look at the cost and practicality of segregating visiting fans in another part of the ground and so far this has never stacked up.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Two points on this. The key word in Henry's quote is "minimum", as in minimum number of stewards. Of course the minimum number remains the same, as it is based on the actual stadium configuration with a minimal attendance. The actual number of stewards and therefore the cost of them has reduced dramatically since we were in the PL.
Secondly, the potential savings from shutting areas of the ground probably wouldn't be realised if this was attempted, because whatever you did would lead to disgruntled season-ticket holders and refunds. The most expensive areas to staff are those with pitch access, but it's unlikely supporters would accept closure of the lower west or east stands or that the club would put that forward. Closure of the lower north would probably be opposed by the playing side, as well as its season-ticket holders. The upper north is politically impossible and the quadrants don't amount to much in terms of marginal cost in the first place. That leaves the upper west, which has to be staffed anyway because of the press gantry. The reality is that greater and more deliverable savings could be made in other areas with much less impact on supporters.
For some games it might be possible to close the Jimmy Seed Stand, but you would have to look at the cost and practicality of segregating visiting fans in another part of the ground and so far this has never stacked up.
Are we allowed facts on here?
Great reply Airman! nice to hear someone talking sense... HOWEVER, do you see the running costs at the Valley being an issue for a League 1 team... is it more expensive to keep the valley open or to pay Izale McLeod? I know which one I'd rather have.
We all know what one we'd rather have, but when you have contractual obligations there is little you can do about it.
If there is no real cost-benefit in closing areas of the ground, then no real point in doing it. It just seems a bit crazy that The Valley is an expensive stadium to run, yet if we stay down will be less than half full for the majority of next season.
They could make a lot more money by pre- pulling pints and employing a couple of extra staff (of which costs would be covered within 5 minutes at half time) as they are losing a lot of much needed revenue through people who cant be bothered to que for so long.
Have one area that just sells beer/ bitter in pre poured pints and those who dont mind a pre poured one will happily spend there. The amount of money the club must be losing on the concourses each home game becuase of the ques is probably in the thousands.
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]They could make a lot more money by pre- pulling pints and employing a couple of extra staff (of which costs would be covered within 5 minutes at half time)
They couldn't.
The club is £30m in debt and a slight pick up in beer sales isn't going to change that much :-)
Do you think that we could fit 15,000 people into Izale?
Maybe we could sell the Valley to one of our friends and rent it back for an extortionate sum, now where did i hear about that idea?
Or groundshare?
It REALLY depresses me to think of how much the Valley means to us all and that it could actually become a burden to the club if things stay the way they are.
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]They could make a lot more money by pre- pulling pints and employing a couple of extra staff (of which costs would be covered within 5 minutes at half time)
They couldn't.
The club is £30m in debt and a slight pick up in beer sales isn't going to change that much :-)
Ha ha but at least I could get more hammered to subdue the pain.
Seriously though look after the pennies and all that...im sure even a few grand extra for the sake of perhaps 2 staff pulling pints for ten minutes before ground opens and 20 mins before half time would increase profit.
[cite]Posted By: SpicedAddick[/cite]
Are we allowed facts on here?
Great reply Airman! nice to hear someone talking sense... HOWEVER, do you see the running costs at the Valley being an issue for a League 1 team... is it more expensive to keep the valley open or to pay Izale McLeod? I know which one I'd rather have.
I agree the running costs are an issue and if you were starting from scratch you wouldn't open the upper west, but that's quite different from closing it and turfing people out of their seats.
Comments
A "Yes"
next question?
ooo I say ( One for the older tennis fans there )
even if he meant to call himself Rascal.....
And it is a big, big concern.
It won't lead us into liquidation, or to move, but i would not rule out parts of the ground being closed next season to try and save some money some how, and though we may be able to get our wage bill back into line with most in our division next year, our other costs such as running our ground will be far far higher.
"In response to another question RM said that the club was running at a loss. Asked how other, smaller, clubs such as Crewe, survived RM said that most if not all clubs outside the Prem ran at a loss and were subsidised by local businessmen who were fans EG Millwall lost £6m last year on a smaller turnover and wage bill. Other clubs have much smaller fixed costs as well according to RM. EG to get our safety certificate we are still required to have the same minimum number of stewards as when in the Prem. Rates are high (£300k) and have risen by 85% (not sure but think this was 85% on top of £300k) which the club is disputing. SK explained that rating values are done in arrears ie the 2007 rate was set in 2009 and despite assurances no consideration was given to us no longer being a Prem club."
Secondly, the potential savings from shutting areas of the ground probably wouldn't be realised if this was attempted, because whatever you did would lead to disgruntled season-ticket holders and refunds. The most expensive areas to staff are those with pitch access, but it's unlikely supporters would accept closure of the lower west or east stands or that the club would put that forward. Closure of the lower north would probably be opposed by the playing side, as well as its season-ticket holders. The upper north is politically impossible and the quadrants don't amount to much in terms of marginal cost in the first place. That leaves the upper west, which has to be staffed anyway because of the press gantry. The reality is that greater and more deliverable savings could be made in other areas with much less impact on supporters.
For some games it might be possible to close the Jimmy Seed Stand, but you would have to look at the cost and practicality of segregating visiting fans in another part of the ground and so far this has never stacked up.
Are we allowed facts on here?
Great reply Airman! nice to hear someone talking sense... HOWEVER, do you see the running costs at the Valley being an issue for a League 1 team... is it more expensive to keep the valley open or to pay Izale McLeod? I know which one I'd rather have.
If there is no real cost-benefit in closing areas of the ground, then no real point in doing it. It just seems a bit crazy that The Valley is an expensive stadium to run, yet if we stay down will be less than half full for the majority of next season.
Have one area that just sells beer/ bitter in pre poured pints and those who dont mind a pre poured one will happily spend there. The amount of money the club must be losing on the concourses each home game becuase of the ques is probably in the thousands.
They couldn't.
The club is £30m in debt and a slight pick up in beer sales isn't going to change that much :-)
Maybe we could sell the Valley to one of our friends and rent it back for an extortionate sum, now where did i hear about that idea?
Or groundshare?
It REALLY depresses me to think of how much the Valley means to us all and that it could actually become a burden to the club if things stay the way they are.
Ha ha but at least I could get more hammered to subdue the pain.
Seriously though look after the pennies and all that...im sure even a few grand extra for the sake of perhaps 2 staff pulling pints for ten minutes before ground opens and 20 mins before half time would increase profit.
I agree the running costs are an issue and if you were starting from scratch you wouldn't open the upper west, but that's quite different from closing it and turfing people out of their seats.
The club
I thought Charlton Athletic PLC wholly owned CAFC Ltd and Valley Holdings Ltd, the latter being the ground.
But I'm not 100% on that and stand to be corrected.
The Community Trust doesn't own any part of the club and the Murray family own part of the PLC via their shareholdings.
The proposed sale of the training ground and two housing plots in Landsdowne mews didn't procede when the £10m was raised.
Of course that could have all changed but seems unlikely as it would need an EGM or I could be wrong which seems more likely.