Under CP and with the backing of the board the team has improved over the past two odd years.
Richard Murray had done all he could to keep the club afloat until he could find a buyer and there was no rush of people looking to take over.
IMHO we have kept our best players and Chris has been backed when looking to improve the squad with some good loan signings and free transfers.
How can we spend money on players that we don't have. Unless we can afford to spend the kind of money it would take (and that amount is anyones guess) what is the point. If CP can keep us competitive in this league then for me it is job done.
I sit in the North Lower and pay under £14.00 per game given the new price of my season ticket and I think this offers tremendous VFM.
The only way this club is going to be sold for profit is our success on the pitch and if they sell the club for profit I well this.
If they sell the club to an investor who has the money to bring success then good on them regardless of whether they make a profit or not.
My criticism of the board will come when they asset strip the club to get back losses when the knew the risks they were taking when taking over from RM. Or they sell the club to someone who has no interest in CAFC but as far as I can see just by going to the Valley everything is better now from a fans point of view than it has been since Curbs left.
I am now going to duck and wait for the onslaught but this is my genuine opinion.
0
Comments
I hope I’m wrong, but doubt I am.
Surely if you wait until "they asset strip the club to get back losses when the knew the risks they were taking when taking over from RM. Or they sell the club to someone who has no interest in CAFC" to start kicking up a fuss it'll be a bit late ?
If you think that this is an acceptable way to run a football club then I'm rather surprised.
When this was pointed out to you, you said you just wanted to know why there was mistrust. It was then explained to you that the mistrust is basically fear over lack of communication and the unknown element of the board.
In response you state that you disagree with this as a means to distrust the board.
IMO you therefore don't just 'want to know' you want to have another debate of the right or wrongs of distrusting the baord. Which, as had been said, has been done to death. Please consider ending this thread before we get into yet another rant where both sides dig there heels in and we make no real progression.
The season has started now, lets at least go back to slagging each other off over the reasons why we lost on Saturday and what it means for the entire season.
I agree there is poor communication between the board and fans but I am asking what is it that the board have done to warrant the abuse they receive on here based on facts.
This lunch time I could walk to the Travel Agent up the road and spend £5k or more on a trip to Australia courtesy of that credit card.
Whilst on my jaunt I would be thinking how great life is and how much better things are than they have been.
However after a few weeks I'd have to return home and go back to work with a big debt plus interest.
That is the stark reality.
To try and answer your question Vincent I suspect many, like me, are wary as to how the Board are financing the comparatively good times you validly refer too in your opening post rather like my hypothetical trip Down Under.
I have no idea how old you are, but suspect you maybe too young to remember September 1985. Up until then we had allowed the Board to "run the club in the way they see fit", not least because there had some investment on the playing side and we looked like we would challenge for promotion. Then we got a piece of paper telling us that we were moving to Selhurst Park next week, but that the 75 bus would take us directly there, and that the pitch at Selhurst is always in first class condition. We then "reacted when they gave us a reason". We invaded the pitch. Fat lot of good that did. The deal was done.
Some of us that day said 'never again'. That is why we take a closer interest in what goes on in the boardroom.
Tell me what you think the board have done so wrong
I am all for fans taking an interest in what is going on behind the scenes but I want to know why there is so much criticism of the board.
Well you are the first person I ever met who claimed they knew it was coming. I never up to now met a single person who had the remotest idea. And to my knowledge nor did Airman Brown who was both a member of the supporters club and becoming interested in a career in journalism.
From the time of the share issue to fans in 1994 (when, aside from raising a decent slug of capital from supporters, the existing directors converted loans to CAFC into equity), right up until Curbs' departure, all of the long-term capital injected by the largest backers (mainly a small group of directors, always including RM) was in the form of equity; once in, the funds couldn't be taken out and the backers could only realise their investment by selling their shares to others. There was NO debt to directors, other than occasional (and temporary provision of) working capital.
The downside of perennial share issues to plug recurring deificits for other shareholders was that their shareholdings were continually diluted but most were content that the club was not taking on a growing debt obligation that, historically, has become a millstone around the neck of many football clubs. IMHO, this was truly a period when directors, shareholders (who were fans) and fans generally shared the same view of the world and the way that CAFC needed to operate. It may seem hard to believe but the main backers accepted that they may or may not see their money again, though of course they hoped that the club would continue to progress and perhaps one day their investments may bear fruit financially to complement the joy of the journey.
When Dowie was given a shed load of cash to spend, it was done on the basis that Premier League revenues (due to rise sharply again) would continue and would fund the over-spend. The main backers pledged, in the worst-case, to cover the deficit.
When the wotsit hit the fan some months later they did indeed inject the required capital but, now staring at very straightened times for the club financially, would only do so in the form of debt. That is, it would need to be repaid.
From that point onwards, most of not all of the fund injected increased that debt due to directors, until of course they (at the time of RM's buyout) agreed to write off much of it and make repayment of the rest contingent on regaining Premier League status.
How the current board has financed the recurring deficit I have not a clue - no doubt it can be deduced to some degree from the accounts but I would hazard a guess that it has been by debt from themselves and/or "third parties". Not being dyed-in-the-wool Addicks they will wish to see their money again one day............................preferably one day soon no doubt.