Varney believes that prior to the club's takeover five months ago finances were so perilous the club would have been relegated.
He told BBC Radio Kent: "There would have been a 10-point deduction."
"We
wouldn't have stayed up, we wouldn't have got [Bradley]
Wright-Phillips, players would have left and we would be in League Two."
"People might get their calculators out, take 10-points off and say 'We would have been alright' but we wouldn't."
Two things strike me.
1. Who among us would need a calculator to deduct 10 from 59?
2. 49 points would have seen us 20th and safe.
Obviously point 2 would not have been true without BWP in the team, but still, calculators...10 points...I mean really.
(Yes, this is tongue in cheek.)
Comments
Well we might of stayed up because we would not have been taken over and would not of sack Parky who had us in a good place, in fact we could have gone up, who knows.
Also amazing i seemed to have read all over forums people saying it wont happen things are not that bad , how wrong were they
We would then need to calculate the maths supposing other players scored some, or possibly even more, of the 8 goals BWP scored.
I don't believe you are quoting the wholecstory.
10 points deducted, players would have left, moralecdown etc etc. Makes perfect sense.
Roll on the new season when we can talk about football.
Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is humorously intended and it should not be taken at face value.
Yup!
It's all hypothetical. The club was sold in a 'fire sale' to prevent administration and to get the previous owners out of a very tight financial spot.
I haven't heard the BBC Varney interview. Is he trying to justify the sale to Slater and Co.?
Within reason (I wouldn't want, for example, Colonel Ghadaffi to own the club) I don't care who owns CAFC so long as he/she/they have football and the overall success and well being of Charlton Athletic F C in a football context as their main raison d'etre.
I don't agree with the assessment. None (or very few) of the players would have left. We pay them more than anyone else would have done and for that reason they wouldn't have been willing to leave. If we had to cover the wages of Racon and Semedo, for example, why would we pay them off and then let them leave. The chances of them getting a better deal in January with a potential transfer fee than they would get in the summer make it unlikely that they would have agreed to go at all. You only sell your players to avoid Administration, once you are in it you are better to knock all the debts and come out the other side with the players registrations (the assetts) still intact. That way you can sell them or release them at you leisure.
I am also convinced that Parkinson would have managed a shed load more points than the 26 that were achieved in the 26 games after the take over happened. I'm including Parkinson's last two games as there is no doubt, in my mind, that the pressure on him to play delightful football to keep his job pushed him into the disater that was Swindon at home.
You could take 12 points on our final tally and still have stayed up.
I'm sorry, but I think this is a PR exercise to take the pressure off the new board now that it is apparent that they, shall we say, confused the fans with personal letters to all season ticket holders indicating a very different kind of signifncant investment than we are now seeing. If those letters had said we've saved the club and we are going to 'hope' that we can climb out of this division with the same level of resources that have seen us fail for the last two seasons please give us your money, I think the fans might have been a little less keen to do so.
This is, of course, after Richard Murray had personally guaranteed the finances for the whole season. So is Peter Varney calling Richard Murray a liar? Or were his calculations so far off that in the three months from the take over he managed to over spend to the point of Administration?
I don't doubt that we were in some trouble, but I just find it a little difficult to believe it was quite as bad is it is now being suggested.
Also, bearing in mind that the new board took on all the current debts, if Administration was so close why didn't they allow it to happen and pick up the club for a tenth of the debts and set out to stay up this season and start again next season debt free?
I'd even argue that had Slater et.al. picked up the club with no debts for 10% of the current liabilities they would have had more money to spend in January and we could well have signed BWP and others and sill had more money available now. I don't, personally, think we could have won any fewer points after Powell came in so I stand by my suggestion that administration would have left us better off now than we are, and in the same division.
The reason for avoiding administration was the potential for promotion last season, and we all know how that turned out.
It's not a question of calling Richard Murray a liar. Richard would have had every intention of keeping the club afloat, but that doesn't mean he could have done it in practice. It was very clear in late 2010 that we were running out of money to pay the bills.
Presumably if the new owners had allowed the business to go into administration they would, apart from the ten point deduction, have lost control, at least temporarily, as well as shafted the previius major shareholders, including Murray.
But in any case I doubt if the bank behind the north stand mortgage would have allowed the takeover to proceed on that basis and they would no doubt have a say in terms of the loan covenants, i.e. they could call in the loan if they don't like the look of the deal.