CAS Trust: Club Finance Autumn 2013 - Part 1(Includes 2013-14 losses forecast)

castrust

CAS Trust’s Role

In order to assist in preserving the long term future of the club, CAS Trust aim to develop and maintain as full an understanding and knowledge of the financial state of the Football Club as possible. We therefore welcome any access to financial information that we can analyse and publish to assist in that aim.


Communication

In the programme for the recent local derby with neighbours Millwall, Charlton released an overview of the club’s Finances for 2012-13 and offered some insight on 2013-14, via an article by its Chief Financial Officer David Joyes.

read more here

seriously_red

If anyone wishes to comment or ask questions we can see if we can answer or ask the club

PragueAddick

Good work chaps. Very easy to read and digest.

Steve Dowman

excellent stuff. As PA said very easy to read and understand.

Henry Irving

"However, what is not covered in David Joyes’s article is that the same FFP framework also allows a Championship club to invest a further £5M this season (giving a total of £8m allowed) via a ‘non-returnable’ equity investment, which therefore does not add to the overall debt level Perhaps, space permitting, this angle can be explored in further articles?"

Disappointing that you mention this, which was the glaring omission from the article in the Millwall programme, and which undermines the whole "we can't spend more due to FFP" argument but then don't delve any deeper or analyse what it means.

Why worry about "space permitting" when it is on a website? There are no page limits. And why wait to future articles?

Good though that it has got some comment at last.

razil

Its meant to refer to DJ in later programmes - now amended to be more clear

We have billed part 2 which will cover more analysis

PragueAddick

Henry Irving said:

"However, what is not covered in David Joyes’s article is that the same FFP framework also allows a Championship club to invest a further £5M this season (giving a total of £8m allowed) via a ‘non-returnable’ equity investment, which therefore does not add to the overall debt level Perhaps, space permitting, this angle can be explored in further articles?"

Disappointing that you mention this, which was the glaring omission from the article in the Millwall programme, and which undermines the whole "we can't spend more due to FFP" argument but then don't delve any deeper or analyse what it means.

Why worry about "space permitting" when it is on a website? There are no page limits. And why wait to future articles?

Good though that it has got some comment at last.

There may be no page limits, Henry, but there are other limits. People's day jobs, their increasingly not-understanding families, the difficulties of working as a team when you are not physically alongside each other, and when each has all the other commitments and pressures I just mentioned.

I've noticed through other voluntary work how easy it is, once something becomes an "institution",for people to easily and casually aim criticisms at it. They forget the reality. It is not an organisation of people earning fat salaries. In the case of the Trust it is just a few fans who are doing all this for free, because they think it is important for the Club they love and which they perceive to be under threat. Sometimes its nice to cut such people some slack. Even if that means just a slightly more moderate choice of words.

Henry Irving

PragueAddick said:

Henry Irving said:

"However, what is not covered in David Joyes’s article is that the same FFP framework also allows a Championship club to invest a further £5M this season (giving a total of £8m allowed) via a ‘non-returnable’ equity investment, which therefore does not add to the overall debt level Perhaps, space permitting, this angle can be explored in further articles?"

Disappointing that you mention this, which was the glaring omission from the article in the Millwall programme, and which undermines the whole "we can't spend more due to FFP" argument but then don't delve any deeper or analyse what it means.

Why worry about "space permitting" when it is on a website? There are no page limits. And why wait to future articles?

Good though that it has got some comment at last.

There may be no page limits, Henry, but there are other limits. People's day jobs, their increasingly not-understanding families, the difficulties of working as a team when you are not physically alongside each other, and when each has all the other commitments and pressures I just mentioned.

I've noticed through other voluntary work how easy it is, once something becomes an "institution",for people to easily and casually aim criticisms at it. They forget the reality. It is not an organisation of people earning fat salaries. In the case of the Trust it is just a few fans who are doing all this for free, because they think it is important for the Club they love and which they perceive to be under threat. Sometimes its nice to cut such people some slack. Even if that means just a slightly more moderate choice of words.

I think the word I used was "disappointing" so not sure how much more moderate I could have been. And I think you are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs with regard to voluntary work for the Club.

Regardless the £5m equity was and is the key omission from the Joyes article yet draws no analysis? In an article on finance £5m is rather a large sum to come back to some time unspecified time later

PragueAddick

I'm aware that you've done a lot of voluntary work for the Club, Henry. I am not aware that anyone on this Forum described any aspect of your work as "disappointing'. Had they done so, I can imagine your response.

Henry Irving

PragueAddick said:

I'm aware that you've done a lot of voluntary work for the Club, Henry. I am not aware that anyone on this Forum described any aspect of your work as "disappointing'. Had they done so, I can imagine your response.

"Disappointing, I lie awake at night dreaming of someone calling my work disappointing"

: - )

razil

I am sure there are some who will argue it doesn't go far enough, we have to make a judgement call in these mattters.

Ben we welcome you positive comments. Will you acknowledge my amendment which clarifies one of the points you raise (i.e. we are referring to David's programme articles in future - and not space on the website, as you point out that would be silly)?

LenGlover

A succinct, clear summary. Thanks for that.

I may admittedly have read this thread post Razil's amendment but as things stand I'm not entirely sure what point Henry is making.

The article states that David Joyes may be consulted with a view to casting further light on the potential £5m which seems clear enough and fair enough to me.

The point that leaps straight into my little brain is that if we are "potless" isn't discussion of the potential £5m somewhat academic since it is highly unlikely to crystallise as things stand?

razil

I think Ben is suggesting as others have that the original article could be interpreted as suggesting that FFP was the reason for the lack of investment, I think we have set that straight and allowed David to respond in a further article.

To me its all about the definition of being a critical friend and this defines our relationship to some extent, obviously even that is open to interpretation itself, but the point is made and our judgement call was made thus - not always an easy one. We also leave others to make their own minds up when presented with what we hope are the fuller facts. At the same time I welcome comments, I think a Supporter's Trust should always be open and humble in that way.

I would much prefer that we as fans had representation in the Boardroom but we don't anymore, and at present we can only encourage the information flow, which has very recently increased.

seriously_red

LenGlover said:

A succinct, clear summary. Thanks for that.

I may admittedly have read this thread post Razil's amendment but as things stand I'm not entirely sure what point Henry is making.

The article states that David Joyes may be consulted with a view to casting further light on the potential £5m which seems clear enough and fair enough to me.

The point that leaps straight into my little brain is that if we are "potless" isn't discussion of the potential £5m somewhat academic since it is highly unlikely to crystallise as things stand?

There is a very broad discussion to be had about whether CAFC should move towards breakeven and how quickly OR whether it should break the bank and buy players to climb up the league but with zero guarantee of promotion...which is exactly what CAFC did under Pardew.
Only 10% of fans strongly agree with this or 225 out of 2,250 in our May survey and the same number strongly disagree...It will be interesting to ask again now we are at the wrong end of the table.
And who will inject the £5M?
The irony is that the financial strategy being pursued strengthens the club long term as long as we don't get relegated!
The important thing is to highlight reality and then look at what comes next. As I have posted elsewhere living so close to the bottom three may cost more to fix than getting it right now in terms of loans...After two great seasons the least that Chris Powell deserves is a loan budget.

razil

Would be interested to hear any more feedback on the article from any other lifers, as mentioned there is a part 2 coming which will attempt to assess the strategy.

carly burn

Good piece and nice to see a bit of acknowledgment from the club.
Any idea what part of the budget 'out of court settlements' are in?

stilladdicted

Numerous thanks to all concerned for their efforts especially as I've found Henry's voluntary work for the club to be disappointing ;-)

Why publish the accounts so very early though? I am also looking eagerly to P11.

seriously_red

stilladdicted said:

Numerous thanks to all concerned for their efforts especially as I've found Henry's voluntary work for the club to be disappointing ;-)

Why publish the accounts so very early though? I am also looking eagerly to P11.

There is a school of thought that says CAFC board / owners are using FFP as an alibi for reducing losses. But the losses are being reduced far faster than they need to be in order to comply.

There was simply no mention of the potential to invest £5M equity in the programme and therefore no CAFC explanation on why it should not be used. The Trust answer is that it could be used by new owners to invest in the squad OR it may be needed this season to get us out of a tailspin if we don't see a win for a while.

Steve Dowman

You cannot blame anyone for trying to reduce the clubs losses. Surely without a sugar daddy there is no other sustainable course medium or long term, I find it odd that some people seem to think other people's money should be spent in this manner. We need to get back to a more even kiel before we can move forward again. Patience is required from all, including those calling for a change of manager, I have been critical, but still feel he should be given time. But he has to do it in a sustainable way, so stop griping about his lack of activity in the loan or transfer markets, unless you want to fund it personally of course.

Steve Dowman

BTW I fully support everything the trust is doing and stand for, it would appear to be the best long term way forward but will take time. Keep up the good work.

castrust

SD Newsround Championship clubs under risk from FFP and more

razil

link fixed

seriously_red

castrust said:

CAS Trust’s Role

In order to assist in preserving the long term future of the club, CAS Trust aim to develop and maintain as full an understanding and knowledge of the financial state of the Football Club as possible. We therefore welcome any access to financial information that we can analyse and publish to assist in that aim.


Communication

In the programme for the recent local derby with neighbours Millwall, Charlton released an overview of the club’s Finances for 2012-13 and offered some insight on 2013-14, via an article by its Chief Financial Officer David Joyes.

read more here

The headline number of an FFP result of £2.6m loss was released today by David Joyes.
This is not dissimilar to the Trust forecast made 13 months back in 2013 for the year next.
Intentions were good... To paint an accurate picture...enable fans to comment on the outlook.
Bingo! It was accurate!

Spend more of others money scream ze gallery... But in its stead we trod another path... The irony of the whole narrative was that the falling league position perhaps helped the then owners adjust their value expectations and speed upsa ze deal.

And we all come out the other side in a different place

As posted at the time, as long as we didn't get relegated it was important to pursue a path which strengthened the club.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger!

We move on again now and let me take this opportunity to suggest that whatever fans view of Staprix it's important to strengthen the movement and the club for the journey to come. Who knows whether Staprix burns some cash to push on? And whether the next nine months are as successful as the last.

Let us be very clear that the fun with CAFC is that there is no certainty...a bumpy road if you will!

Try not to believe all the false whispers...enjoy the ride but time for this poster to cash in.

I thank you

Airman Brown

Not so much a forecast as clairvoyancy, given the important role you subsequently attributed to 1) the FA Cup run and 2) the fees and salary savings on Kermorgant and Stephens, which you could not have anticipated and which as I recall you claimed here had brought the club "close to breakeven" - or, as you see it now, a £5m loss.

At the same time the club itself had been telling potential purchasers there would be a loss of £8m last season, a figure it had no interest in exaggerating.