tom it does seem that you have the unfortunate nack of sitting by miserable bastards.
so far this season our fans have been top notch, drives me mental that we always always always focus on the arseholes.
I would agree - it has been fantastic on the whole, but of course I'm going to get wound up by the odd idiot. The main reference was to the Leyton Orient game, which isn't representative of the support so far in the Birmingham/Leicester games. I was at both and thought we played a part on the whole.
Imagine the supporters trust had been set up,say four or five years ago.Just as things were starting to spiral out of control. Then late in 2010 Peter Varney returned with a group of people that could well provide the solution to all our financial problems.Only problem is that the group in question specifically request to remain completely anonymous and in return the will provide financial stability and hopefully some success on the pitch.The deal will not go ahead should they be asked to reveal themselves publicly. If asked to raise hands for or against how should our collective representitive vote?
An interesting question carly burn. Personally, I was a former shareholder who effectively lost my investment after the shares were wiped out in the first restructuring that saw Murray take full control in the search for new investors, but accepted this as in the greater good (and because I trusted Murray)
As it was PV who then brought in the new investors, I would also have gone along with their wishes...
As I have said before when faced with such a simplistic comment - do you run a business, by the way? - try "bending" your payment to the creditor known as HMRC, and see where that gets you
Actually HMRC are one of the easier creditors to bend. In the present economic climate they are themselves bending over backwards to assist businesses with temporary cash flow difficulties. The real problem lies with those people/businesses who simply try to ignore them and hope the problem goes away.
Whilst the attitude of HMRC has changed somewhat for the better unfortunately Government in its wisdom has also decided to outsource the debt collection function to the private sector. So you get debt collection firms like Fredricksons involved who have no knowledge of the tax regime. the result is that they send out their threatening letters and collection agents (Bailiffs). Those worthies have targets with the result that you can find little old ladies and genuine oversight cases being threatened with bankruptcy as they are the easiest targets whilst the larger concerns tend to be left alone for long periods because its not worth the aggravation of getting involved with Corporate lawyers/accountants who can play the system.
I personally believe HMRC are in meltdown at the moment and a major shake up is required but given that the current board are all businessmen who have been aroun the block once or twice I have no doubt that if there is any tax debt it is being properly managed under the very clear and helpful rules applied by the taxman.
In any event is there any evidence that the taxman is owed money?
I personally have no evidence regarding Charlton's tax affairs.
I have also read about supposed meltdown at HMRC. On the other hand there is evidence of HMRC paying a lot more attention to football clubs in the last couple of years. They of course messed it up in the case of Redknapp, but it would be foolish indeed to suppose that they are a bunch of incompetents who can be "bent" at will. (I accept that you are not advocating such a cavalier approach). At some point in the near future too, this will become a hot political topic. People are going to say "You want me to pay more tax? How about first of all collecting the tax you are already due?". And when that comes, football clubs will be a nice high profile target for 'being seen to do something"
It may be OK. Richard Murray has pointed out more than once that temporary cash flow problems are frequently experienced by football clubs during the close season. The relationship between CAFC and HMRC is however no longer in the hands of RM, PV, and SK. I hope that this will not result in a more cavalier approach to either HMRC or any other suppliers. Such behaviour always comes back to bite you on the bum in the end, no matter what impression people may have who don't actually run businesses themselves.
My answer to your question is this. If a Trust existed at that time, PV would have had another option. Lurking within the West Stand /lounge gang are people who could put in significant amounts of money - not enough as individuals to gain control but lets say 100k each. A Trust would have been a vehicle whereby such people would have been got together to form a significant equity stake. Something like the 'institutional shareholders' who have clout in FTSE companies.
Personally that is my dream for the current Trust but whether others see it that way, remains to be seen.
Well this didn't take long to turn into a misery fest. No notable departures, good start to the league campaign, signed a player most said we'd never get because of wages, and still it drags on, like a grumpy pitbull pulling it's sagging nuts over gravel. In the unlikely event that Solly is still with us in September and we somehow manage to complete the season, it will just be hailed as a result of a sudden turn in fortunes, probably directly because of the efforts of our concerned citizens. Thus far there's no solid evidence other than the facts that we've signed some promising players, the team are playing like a cohesive unit, we've upgraded the academy coaching. Sorryto be ignorant but I'm going to maintain my cheery outlook until someone comes up with something solid and then I'll happily revise it. Same approach as I take to the threat of dinosaur attack or being fingered by spooky ghosts.
My view of trusts are that they need to operate with the blessing and co-operation of the board to be effective and if they don't they are perceived to be working against the club and that could be destructive. They are of course essential in times of crisis - the difference between saving a club or it disapearing, but to form one now won't work a) because this board won't co-operate with one and b) because enough fans won't be galvanised into supporting it.
My view of trusts are that they need to operate with the blessing and co-operation of the board to be effective and if they don't they are perceived to be working against the club and that could be destructive. They are of course essential in times of crisis - the difference between saving a club or it disapearing, but to form one now won't work a) because this board won't co-operate with one and b) because enough fans won't be galvanised into supporting it.
Maybe too late to do anything about goings on now but I think a good idea going forward.
Prague.Is that not just a consortium though? Surely they could have all grouped together at any time and put in an offer. I don't see how a trust is needed as a vehicle to do this. CAFC Holdings seemed to move along without one.
I think a "consortium" would be say 3-6 people who could each put in half a million or more. Huge egos attached to them. But there are a fair few people on the West side of the Valley who are nowhere near that rich but might put in a decent chunk of money.(Say 20-100k each. I personally know several people who put in 20k or so to the share issue, without giving it too much thought) The Trust would act as a focal point to reel them in. I would imagine that there are such people at the top of the pile, in terms of contributions, within the Pompey trust for example.
When Charlton was publicly quoted, we didnt really make the most of that. I think responsibility for that lies both with us and with RM and the Board at the time. We'd need to learn from that...possibly by taking a good long look at how its done in Germany, among other things.
The problem with that type of 'fans consortium' is that until the club can find a way to operate without substantial deficits year-on-year, then the members of that consortium will either have to continually dip into their pockets in order to inject new equity (in proportion to their ownership), or be diluted down (which arguably ruins the point of the entire exercise).
Alternatively the deficits can be funded by debt, which is likely to be in the form of loans from the types of 'funders' that we are already nervous about (the banks have exited by now) - the previous directors loans were generously restructured to help save the club, but the next ones might not be. Of course, this also puts the entire club at risk if the loans are ever called in.
There may well be enough fans to inject say £20-100k each on a one-off basis, but if you ask them to do so on an annual basis in order to 'stay in the game', then I suspect the number of fans interested in participating falls precipitously.
NYA yes, I understand that. And I don't have a silver bullet answer. However this might appear once we have studied Trusts which already exist and have an equity stake, and also how the German model works
However I would suggest this much: if you've got a Trust that owns 20% stake, as at Swansea, and with a total membership of about 1500 (the number that could be bothered to vote for a fans' director when they had the chance), then you've got a large body of fans who are far better informed about the financial realities of the club. They then help to educate the rest, and you get a much better consensus about what financial risk the club should take to get into the FAPL. This is broadly what was happening in the 90s- early 2000's but rather informally.
It's worth bearing in mind that nearly all the other Champ teams broadly face a similar dilemma. And more and more of them have Trusts. If they get together, they form a potentially enormously powerful lobby for fairer distribution of the TV money. Far more so than the FSF, terminally compromised by the fact that they are partly funded by...the Premier League.
By the way, NYA, I asked on the Sky thread, but do you know where on the web i can find out how the Sky money is distributed to clubs?
Anyway, this thread has been well and truly hi-jacked and I apologise for my role in that. These issues can and will be discussed in threads about the Trust.
Hi - in short no it is surprising how difficult it is to ascertain exactly how the broadcasting rights money is distributed to clubs - however it is not only Sky, but BBC too.
I think the 3-year deal was £195m and that the Championship clubs receive 80% of the revenue, so roughly speaking (and some is distributed based on how many times teams are actually shown live), Championship clubs should expect about £2.2m pa - the latest deal was 26% worse than the previous one.
" I believe that us fans are being fed a line by those unhappy with the changes and taking it as gospel, ignoring the biases of those supplying this info in the first place."
I really wish you didn't have to make such a perjorative, evidence free comment about people who are every bit as much a "fan" as you and have often devoted an unreasonable part of their lives to helping to make CAFC a much better club than it would otherwise be.
I am all for comments like those that RCT started this thread with. Personally I'll join in with that when we get past August 31st and find that Chris Solly is lining up for us at the City Ground, if thats' OK with you?
Deal!
Solly still with us... Round one to me, I think? ;-)
Comments
so far this season our fans have been top notch, drives me mental that we always always always focus on the arseholes.
Imagine the supporters trust had been set up,say four or five years ago.Just as things were starting to spiral out of control.
Then late in 2010 Peter Varney returned with a group of people that could well provide the solution to all our financial problems.Only problem is that the group in question specifically request to remain completely anonymous and in return the will provide financial stability and hopefully some success on the pitch.The deal will not go ahead should they be asked to reveal themselves publicly.
If asked to raise hands for or against how should our collective representitive vote?
As it was PV who then brought in the new investors, I would also have gone along with their wishes...
Whilst the attitude of HMRC has changed somewhat for the better unfortunately Government in its wisdom has also decided to outsource the debt collection function to the private sector. So you get debt collection firms like Fredricksons involved who have no knowledge of the tax regime. the result is that they send out their threatening letters and collection agents (Bailiffs). Those worthies have targets with the result that you can find little old ladies and genuine oversight cases being threatened with bankruptcy as they are the easiest targets whilst the larger concerns tend to be left alone for long periods because its not worth the aggravation of getting involved with Corporate lawyers/accountants who can play the system.
I personally believe HMRC are in meltdown at the moment and a major shake up is required but given that the current board are all businessmen who have been aroun the block once or twice I have no doubt that if there is any tax debt it is being properly managed under the very clear and helpful rules applied by the taxman.
In any event is there any evidence that the taxman is owed money?
I personally have no evidence regarding Charlton's tax affairs.
I have also read about supposed meltdown at HMRC. On the other hand there is evidence of HMRC paying a lot more attention to football clubs in the last couple of years. They of course messed it up in the case of Redknapp, but it would be foolish indeed to suppose that they are a bunch of incompetents who can be "bent" at will. (I accept that you are not advocating such a cavalier approach). At some point in the near future too, this will become a hot political topic. People are going to say "You want me to pay more tax? How about first of all collecting the tax you are already due?". And when that comes, football clubs will be a nice high profile target for 'being seen to do something"
It may be OK. Richard Murray has pointed out more than once that temporary cash flow problems are frequently experienced by football clubs during the close season. The relationship between CAFC and HMRC is however no longer in the hands of RM, PV, and SK. I hope that this will not result in a more cavalier approach to either HMRC or any other suppliers. Such behaviour always comes back to bite you on the bum in the end, no matter what impression people may have who don't actually run businesses themselves.
My answer to your question is this. If a Trust existed at that time, PV would have had another option. Lurking within the West Stand /lounge gang are people who could put in significant amounts of money - not enough as individuals to gain control but lets say 100k each. A Trust would have been a vehicle whereby such people would have been got together to form a significant equity stake. Something like the 'institutional shareholders' who have clout in FTSE companies.
Personally that is my dream for the current Trust but whether others see it that way, remains to be seen.
Prague.Is that not just a consortium though?
Surely they could have all grouped together at any time and put in an offer.
I don't see how a trust is needed as a vehicle to do this. CAFC Holdings seemed to move along without one.
I think a "consortium" would be say 3-6 people who could each put in half a million or more. Huge egos attached to them. But there are a fair few people on the West side of the Valley who are nowhere near that rich but might put in a decent chunk of money.(Say 20-100k each. I personally know several people who put in 20k or so to the share issue, without giving it too much thought) The Trust would act as a focal point to reel them in. I would imagine that there are such people at the top of the pile, in terms of contributions, within the Pompey trust for example.
When Charlton was publicly quoted, we didnt really make the most of that. I think responsibility for that lies both with us and with RM and the Board at the time. We'd need to learn from that...possibly by taking a good long look at how its done in Germany, among other things.
Alternatively the deficits can be funded by debt, which is likely to be in the form of loans from the types of 'funders' that we are already nervous about (the banks have exited by now) - the previous directors loans were generously restructured to help save the club, but the next ones might not be. Of course, this also puts the entire club at risk if the loans are ever called in.
There may well be enough fans to inject say £20-100k each on a one-off basis, but if you ask them to do so on an annual basis in order to 'stay in the game', then I suspect the number of fans interested in participating falls precipitously.
yes, I understand that. And I don't have a silver bullet answer. However this might appear once we have studied Trusts which already exist and have an equity stake, and also how the German model works
However I would suggest this much: if you've got a Trust that owns 20% stake, as at Swansea, and with a total membership of about 1500 (the number that could be bothered to vote for a fans' director when they had the chance), then you've got a large body of fans who are far better informed about the financial realities of the club. They then help to educate the rest, and you get a much better consensus about what financial risk the club should take to get into the FAPL. This is broadly what was happening in the 90s- early 2000's but rather informally.
It's worth bearing in mind that nearly all the other Champ teams broadly face a similar dilemma. And more and more of them have Trusts. If they get together, they form a potentially enormously powerful lobby for fairer distribution of the TV money. Far more so than the FSF, terminally compromised by the fact that they are partly funded by...the Premier League.
By the way, NYA, I asked on the Sky thread, but do you know where on the web i can find out how the Sky money is distributed to clubs?
I think the 3-year deal was £195m and that the Championship clubs receive 80% of the revenue, so roughly speaking (and some is distributed based on how many times teams are actually shown live), Championship clubs should expect about £2.2m pa - the latest deal was 26% worse than the previous one.