Following info from ONS site makes it clear what the difference is:
In 2010–12, male life expectancy at birth was highest in East Dorset (82.9 years) and lowest in Blackpool (74.0 years). For females, life expectancy at birth was highest in Purbeck at 86.6 years and lowest in Manchester where females could expect to live for 79.5 years.
On average, life expectancy at birth increased across all local areas in England and Wales by 1.3 years for males and 1.0 year for females between 2006–08 and 2010–12.
Life expectancy at age 65 was highest for men in Harrow, where they could expect to live for a further 20.9 years compared with 15.8 years for men in Manchester.
For women at age 65, life expectancy was highest in Camden (23.8 years) and lowest in Blaenau Gwent (18.7 years).
Basically, if you look at the population of 65 year olds you have already got rid of the deadwood - or 'smokers' as we usually refer to them ;-)
@ChrisSlegg: Belgian media report #charlton owner Roland Duchatelet set to expand his network by buying Bari of Italy's Serie B. http://t.co/Sx0QUpf0eb
One of the thing that bothers me about the network is the management time. Each new club further dilutes the thinking time RD can devote to each one. He has never built up and run a network like this before made up of 'people businesses'; let alone 'people businesses' where the customers are stakeholders. And he is 67. He is asking a lot of himself.
Mark Price CEO of Waitrose is looking after 300 stores. Perhaps he relies on the managers to actually make them work and he does the strategic stuff.
ain. Of c
I am not making my point clearly enough. In the case of Waitrose, all the individual shops are perfectly aligned behind the same business goal and strategy. An individual Waitrose store cannot and will not do something like offer, say DIY or electrical goods, even if there is a shortage of such goods in the area, and short term sales gaines could be made by stocking such items.
I'm asking whether this network really is expected to operate like Waitrose. If so, the only possible goal will be the maximising of profit for the group, or to put it another way for RD to make as much possible from his overall involvement in football.
if you take that on board there are huge potential business issues. As the Trust has amply illustrated you need to cover losses of 5-8m just to stand still in the Champ, but even more investment is needed to get out of it, because we have to compete with clubs which have parachute money or owners willing to splash cash (Bournemouth). Is RD willing to do that? and if so what are the consequences, particularly for Standard? He might starve them of cash because he sees more group revenue from getting Charlton into the Prem. Or on the contrary he might think the FAPL is a risky target and concentrates on making Standard a regular UCL entrant.
The clubs are not aligned, like individual Waitrose stores (or Napoleon's armies). It seems to me their goals, and needs, to achieve those goals, are dangerously difficult to reconcile. But maybe I am wrong.
RD is the only one who can explain, but in the meantime it is good if we try to figure it out here, and I hope we can continue with this discussion
Mark Price CEO of Waitrose is looking after 300 stores. Perhaps he relies on the managers to actually make them work and he does the strategic stuff.
ain. Of c
I am not making my point clearly enough. In the case of Waitrose, all the individual shops are perfectly aligned behind the same business goal and strategy. An individual Waitrose store cannot and will not do something like offer, say DIY or electrical goods, even if there is a shortage of such goods in the area, and short term sales gaines could be made by stocking such items.
I'm asking whether this network really is expected to operate like Waitrose. If so, the only possible goal will be the maximising of profit for the group, or to put it another way for RD to make as much possible from his overall involvement in football.
if you take that on board there are huge potential business issues. As the Trust has amply illustrated you need to cover losses of 5-8m just to stand still in the Champ, but even more investment is needed to get out of it, because we have to compete with clubs which have parachute money or owners willing to splash cash (Bournemouth). Is RD willing to do that? and if so what are the consequences, particularly for Standard? He might starve them of cash because he sees more group revenue from getting Charlton into the Prem. Or on the contrary he might think the FAPL is a risky target and concentrates on making Standard a regular UCL entrant.
The clubs are not aligned, like individual Waitrose stores (or Napoleon's armies). It seems to me their goals, and needs, to achieve those goals, are dangerously difficult to reconcile. But maybe I am wrong.
RD is the only one who can explain, but in the meantime it is good if we try to figure it out here, and I hope we can continue with this discussion
I see Waitrose as the wrong business analogy as they are a homogenous group of businesses run under a single branding to the same target market with a single infrastructure. A better analogy, in my opinion, Would be Associated British Foods (ABF) who include within their operation across 40 plus countries, Retail - Primark, Commodities - British Sugar, Branded - Twinnings, Westmill Foods, Ingredients .......
Very different businesses - very different businesses working in different environments, headed by a different manager, different individual objectives feeding into a single group objective of shareholder value.
Hi Kap, yes yours looks like a closer fit. But the killer phrase is:
a single group objective of shareholder value.
and of course ABF is publicly quoted. It is supposed to have short, medium and long term strategies. Does RD as the only significant shareholder expect to even be in the football business in 5 years time?
I see Waitrose as the wrong business analogy as they are a homogenous group of businesses run under a single branding to the same target market with a single infrastructure. A better analogy, in my opinion, Would be Associated British Foods (ABF) who include within their operation across 40 plus countries, Retail - Primark, Commodities - British Sugar, Branded - Twinnings, Westmill Foods, Ingredients .......
Very different businesses - very different businesses working in different environments, headed by a different manager, different individual objectives feeding into a single group objective of shareholder value.
Disucss!
Not suggesting for one moment that a football business is like Waitrose, simply that a business does not require micro management by its head. If RD was saying he will be closely involved with every football decision of every club I would be very worried.
With football it is far less certain that investing in an asset like a player, will yield a return. Waitrose knows what return it will get for every square foot of selling space it invests in. Making an investment in a football club simply carries more risk as your main assets are players delivering unpredictable returns.
If a club wants cash RD might apply normal business criteria and determine if it will be working capital or an investment. An investment needs to demonstrate that it adds value, working capital is to fund a cash flow shortfall. The danger is that clubs needing working capital are starving clubs of cash that would be an investment, say in players or ground improvements. Hopefully, RD will look at past performance of his management before making an investment decision, not try and back his own judgement based on limited football knowledge. He has no choice in whether to provide working capital, but can dispose of an under performing business that is bleeding cash.
So yes CAFC is unlikely to get cash for players if it is needing cash for working capital to keep it going, but that has nothing to do with a "network" model. The priority will be for a club to be financially stable and not be going cap in hand to RD for working capital. Every club is going to need its own business plan, not RD's business plan and that is where I part company about the need to set out a grand plan. I just don't believe there has to be. RD is intelligent enough to realise that good managers are more likely to deliver him a shareholder return from football than him trying to run 10 or 20 football clubs.
Why can't we accept that his plan is simply to provide a central core of administrative/technical/financial/research resources to make his clubs more efficient operationally. If that equates into clubs that are more competitive and more likely to succeed and give him a return, job done, rest is up to local management and players. That's how I read his remarks about success, winning stuff doesn't have to be part of his plans, but it should be part of a club's plans if they want to flourish and keep fans happy.
I would like a sugar daddy as much as anyone else, but anyone judging RD on the basis of whether he keeps us up and how he stacks up against a sugar daddy is probably going to be anti RD.
Why can't we accept that his plan is simply to provide a central core of administrative/technical/financial/research resources to make his clubs more efficient operationally
Because he hasn't yet made it clear that is his plan. I would be very happy if it turns out that way. My problem is that I can see several reasons - drawing on past personal experience in 'people business international network companies' - why it might not work in practice. And if it doesn't, our club will suffer.
Take for example his remark that clubs need to break even. In principal I agree with him but we know that the Championship is currently a league where that is impossible if you don't have parachute money. So it then becomes a key question: when is CAFC expected to break even? This season? Next season? The only significant way to reduce costs is to slash our current wage bill. The only significant way to increase revenue is to get into the FAPL and get the TV money. Everything else is fiddling at the margins.
Now I could believe that he actually does have a goal to get us to the FAPL in maybe three years, and if so, I recognise that he can't come out and say that because it will enrage the Standard fans. But if I understand your post correctly you believe that his "central core" services will make the club more 'competitive'. But how much more competitive? Personally I could live with Charlton being top half of this league with some good runs, but even to become that 'competitive', the club will incur operating losses . How long will he put up with those losses, and indeed for what reason will he put up with them?
I just can't work it out, and sorry, but while I find your posts very interesting, they still haven't made it clear to me how the plan might work financially for him. Not blaming you, you are not RD, but I'm just not yet ready to accept what you have suggested. I am worried.
I'm not saying he should say "the transfer budget will be £XX" as, as you say, that would be counterproductive.
He could say " The club loses £5m pa and I expect to reduce that to £2m pa within three years through increased income and cutting costs and the remainder will be covered by selling a player every other season. We'll also spend £2m on the new academy facility and another £1.5m a year on the academy to get Cat 1 status"
RD hasn't said what will be done about the pitch. Bradshaw did and as you say that was odd as it gives the contractors an idea. But has the deal been signed? Presumably Bradshaw didn't just pluck £600m out the air so my guess is that is a figure quoted by the contractor.
What we don't know is has RD agreed that and given the go ahead and if so for what exactly? New top surface, whole new pitch and drainage, all that plus undersoil heating or new 4D plastic pitch?
That RD is 67 just re-enforces the point.How long do you plan to be around?
Or, to put it another way: What is your personal exit strategy?
The September/October 1998 edition of the Harvard Business Review included an article entitled "Desperately seeking synergy". Here's the abstract;
"Corporate executives have strong biases in favor of synergy, and those biases can lead them into ill-advised attempts to force business units to cooperate - even when the ultimate benefits are unclear. But executives can separate the real opportunities from the mirages, say Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell. They simply need to take a more disciplined approach to synergy. These biases take four forms. First comes the synergy bias, which leads executives to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the costs of synergy. Then comes the parenting bias, a belief that synergy will be captured only by cajoling or compelling business units to cooperate. The parenting bias is usually accompanied by the skills bias - the assumption that whatever know-how is required to achieve synergy will be available within the organization. Finally, executives fall victim to the upside bias, which causes them to concentrate so hard on the potential benefits of synergy that they overlook the possible downside risks. In combination, these four biases make synergy seem more attractive and more easily achievable than it truly is. As a result, corporate executives often launch initiatives that ultimately waste time and money and sometimes even severely damage their businesses. To avoid such failures, executives need to subject all synergy opportunities to a clear-eyed analysis that clarifies the benefits to be gained, examines the potential for corporate involvement, and takes into account the possible downsides. Such a disciplined approach will inevitably mean that fewer initiatives will be launched. But those that are pursued will be far more likely to deliver substantial gains."
Hope often triumphs over experience. What we need to see from Duchatelet is less wishful thinking and more structure and discipline. For example, network wide coordination and collaboration on football matters is not really credible without a structure to achieve that and this probably means a Director of Football. This will become even more necessary as and when Duchatelet adds more Clubs.
I too am unconvinced. Open minded, but waiting for actions which back up the rhetoric.
Hi Kap, yes yours looks like a closer fit. But the killer phrase is:
a single group objective of shareholder value.
and of course ABF is publicly quoted. It is supposed to have short, medium and long term strategies. Does RD as the only significant shareholder expect to even be in the football business in 5 years time?
Or even be alive!!!
However
a single group objective of shareholder value.
I think we agree that we do not know what that means in RD's mind and I suspect we never will do.
A little something to read on the journey to Sheffield - Wi fi permitting.
No matter what "owner template" we it seems as supporters are determined to never be satisfied. In recent times we have had one “hands on" model, with a fairly open style, and the last lot who barely said a word over the last 18 months of their tenure. Neither covered themselves in financial glory.
We now have a 3rd iteration. I agree today it is rare, but some people do work on the basis if they have nothing to say, it is better they say "nothing" at all. The hunger for answers from RD is, in the short term at least, likely to be unfulfilled. I am disappointed people do not respect a different approach.
We all refer to our own experiences but there is a basic flaw in trying to draw analogies with other industries. The model pursued by professional football is totally out of step with normal business practice. What other business budgets a £5mn annual loss for the foreseeable future with, at best, a 12.5% chance of partial payback - partial because to retain PL revenues needs you to spend a large part of it to stay in the PL.
RD is the one trying to follow proper business disciplines but recognises to have any chance of success, in a completely distorted market, he needs a different "angle". The perversity is not "balancing the books" it is the market in which RD is trying to do it.
Only the film industry approaches a comparable risk reward. One can invest millions in making a film in anticipation of box office sales. The difference is the success of one film is not mutually exclusive to any other. Other industries will have their research & development projects but they do not form the core disciplines of their usual business practice.
Have we not just burned through large parts of the personal fortunes of Messrs Murray, Chappell, a few of Mr Murrays' acquaintances, and dug into a mystery investors' spare cash, while no doubt giving TJs' bankers palpitations?
How many Don Quixote do we expect to ride over the hill to tilt at the PL "windmill"? For those who want to challenge the RD "model" what is your realistic expectation. How much do people really expect our owners to spend is it £10mn?, £20mn? £30mn?
If you had bought a club ALREADY struggling to stay in the championship and projected to lose £5mn this year, how would you propose to cover such losses? If your tangible assets are subject to multiple liens to former investors re contingent liabilities circa £7mn & bank debt circa £5mn, debts which influence your daily costs how do you reduce/remove their impact?
If the vendors had scheduled 80% intangible assets (players/coaches) to be gone in June how do you handle 2 senior players, subject of transfer bids, refusing to sign new contracts. One who will never sign, as he wants to go "North" and then signs for Brighton. The other an ageing Breton, who starts 60% games, wanting an additional 2yrs (which you agree) and contracts for CP [& staff]. Would you sign off a £2.5mn liability after just 3 weeks in the chair?
You are keen to secure the right “Head Coach and coaching team”. Subject to results you see a future role for CP. To determine the role you clearly want to see the man in operation and understand exactly what he brings to the table.
How about his 3yr playing strategy including player retention, integrating U21 & academy players, fast tracking youth assets, target recruits, with initial investment costs, current performance analysis clarifying why circa 30% senior player payroll seems to make no contribution to the club.
The endless financial fire fighting is exhausting & expensive you need the transition team to produce a 3yr plan covering Championship/ LI operating budgets, outline investment costs; a) to retain relevant league status b) compete for promotion for relevant division c) relevant optimum playing squad numbers & construct.
You ask the operating staff for a full evaluation of the business case for investing in a "fit for purpose" playing surface, and the best 3 options for implementing the required solution
You ask the academy staff for a full evaluation of the cost benefits/ analysis of securing Category 1 status for the academy.
You have made interim finance available to meet operating expenses for 2013/2014 season.
You will exceptionally extend the interim finance to cater for in case of need new playing staff.
In answer to all those many questions people have, you can but advise, at this point,
So do/ does you/ RD.
When you/ he have/ has the answers then maybe you/ he will be in a better position to answer theirs.
PS. It may be May 2014 before you get your answers - so tell them not to hold their breath - they will make themselves ill - PPS. You are not an American - you do not do business "fluff".
I recognise some do not get it, others do not like it and the new situation is outside of many a comfort zone. What I do not understand is why people do not comprehend for a club to survive whether it plays in the Sidcup League, the Sussex County League or the Championship - the club has to be financially viable.
The unknown has its risk but with the growing paranoia we are getting to the point where someone is soon going to ask RD when he stopped beating his partner. The reaction and expectations here are way, way, way over the top.
The latest "storm" started after comments on player movement across the RDs' clubs, notably Standard Liege. In reality at the time of writing no player is even rumoured to be heading to SL, although as 23 players, courtesy of our prior owners, are soon out of contract, they can have their pick without paying a penny, just like every other overseas club.
If a player reaches Champions League standard, as Mundell says, he will find a path to play at the level. If the path be via Liege it is all rather moot. The CAFC Euro qualification thread has to be one of the funniest ever. The Anglo Italian apart we have only once (2003/2004) even approached qualifying for an UEFA competition.
If we can compete for an UEFA place, I will be ecstatic as we will be seeking our best league position for 50+yrs, while the last Cup Final we reached was in 1947! Much as we may wish an "UEFA Cup dilemma" was a reality, todays ambitions apart, the word delusional springs to mind.
CAFC just over 60 days ago, to all intents & purposes, was insolvent, with the debts to investors, former investors, banks & trade creditors exceeding club assets. For those challenging RD to invest he has paid £12/16mn (+/- £4mn if we stay up?) to enable us to continue trading.
As a retired business "engineer" from my experience there is nothing unusual going on here. When you need to rebuild a business you often need to start from scratch.
For all those other supposed investors looking to buy the club, most waiting for the club to go "broke", one has put his money on the table. If you want to react, think liquidation, think 10 point penalty, think guaranteed relegation, think redundancies and fire sale.
I get the demands for clarity on the vision and assurances for the future, but agree with Mundell, at this point in time, I don’t think RD has all the answers. It is not that uncommon. I spent too much of my life pawing over client or internal business plans, 90% do not have all the answers. You wouldn’t believe it if they did.
It is OK to start a venture and develop the plan as market knowledge grows. As long as you have flexibility to adapt and the funds to meet each new challenge it can work very well.
Does RD have an idea how the concept might hang together? Does he know what he wants to achieve? I am sure he does. Is he going to share it until he has a better understanding of what he has bought, and fleshed out how we fit in the concept? No chance.
So ladies and gentlemen it is time to breathe and enjoy the day.
Grapevine. It is still possible to fully support Charlton and express some sceptism or disagreement with the owners or managements strategy or tactics.
Today is all about every Charlton supporter getting behind the team. The outs and ins of RD can wait until after. For all those in Addicks in Sheffield and Charlton supporters everywhere watching, have an excellent day ! COYRs !!!
At the end of the day, we can't hold on to players that are nowhere near Sandard Liege level. Stephens and Kermorgant certainly weren't and we couldn't stop other clubs taking them. I don't see there ever being a scenario where a good Charlton player goes to Liege that wouldn't have gone to another club anyway. At least this way we should get some players who aren't quite Liege level but are decent at Championship level in return, I.e Ajdarevic.
Are Liege really such a great team that we have to accept being some sort of feeder club? Their reserves don't look very good at all to me, and though there are some excellent Belgian players, all of them seem to be playing abroad. I would say they are probably on a par with the lower end of the prem. I'm not sure anyone would accept the notion that Hull, stoke and Palace are infinitely better or have more potential than Charlton.
I hope everything about our our best players going to Liege is just a misunderstanding.
So assessing the various arguments for a moment about RD's strategy in the light of today's fiasco.
Dippenhall and others have suggested that RD is not going to micro-manage the clubs, he will leave it to strong locally empowered managers.
Well that begs the question, which 'strong local managers' were responsible for the squad which took on Sheffield United today, and blew the chance to earn an extra million in revenue? Was it Chris Powell? Katrien Meire? Richard Murray? Which of them decided to sell Kermorgant and bring in players which happened to be surplus to other clubs' needs, rather than what Chris Powell wanted?
I think the answer can only be, none of them. It was Roland Duchatelet.
Now this is a slightly dangerous game to play but I will assert that if we'd had Yann today, and if RD had sent us - or we had loaned - a quality right side attacking midfielder we'd have beaten Sheffield United easily. In which case there would have been an instant ROI on Yann's contract extension.
Ok let's not go all Championship Manager with this discussion, but my point to Dippenhall is that it seems to me that RD DID micromanage his way through the transfer window. He immediately DID start to impose 'synergies' on a business he had only started considering to buy six weeks earlier. All the anecdotal evidence suggests that he did NOT sit down with his "strong local management" and evaluate what the businesses short term needs are. Indeed there are credible stories that Katrien Meire was so taken aback by the strong reaction to news of Yann's situation that she called RD to check whether the club should not reconsider its position.
So picking up on Mundell's excellent post above where he quotes the Harvard Business Review, RD came rampaging in, anxious to try out his untested model of 'synergies'. I would have thought it would have been better to introduce such ideas more gradually. But no, he charges in and imposes on us a goalkeeper (the one position where we had cover) who may turn out to be talented, but has no idea about how to dominate his area when some Yorkshire outfit is constantly throwing it in the mixer ( both keepers today were highly competent in that regard).
Would it not have been wiser to say, "OK, the first objective is to avoid relegation. What does this management tell me is needed in order to do that? How much does that cost?" And then only start playing synergies if they are clearly in line with this goal. I do not believe that this is what happened.
Comments
It's like a new signing
One of the thing that bothers me about the network is the management time. Each new club further dilutes the thinking time RD can devote to each one. He has never built up and run a network like this before made up of 'people businesses'; let alone 'people businesses' where the customers are stakeholders. And he is 67. He is asking a lot of himself.
the european train timetable has stopped being published after a hundred and something years of continuous publication...
one man was very upset about this so decided to publish it himself.....
que an interview with said man......
what is sitting on his desk you ask?
a charlton mug of course!!!!
PROPER CHARLTON!
I am not making my point clearly enough. In the case of Waitrose, all the individual shops are perfectly aligned behind the same business goal and strategy. An individual Waitrose store cannot and will not do something like offer, say DIY or electrical goods, even if there is a shortage of such goods in the area, and short term sales gaines could be made by stocking such items.
I'm asking whether this network really is expected to operate like Waitrose. If so, the only possible goal will be the maximising of profit for the group, or to put it another way for RD to make as much possible from his overall involvement in football.
if you take that on board there are huge potential business issues. As the Trust has amply illustrated you need to cover losses of 5-8m just to stand still in the Champ, but even more investment is needed to get out of it, because we have to compete with clubs which have parachute money or owners willing to splash cash (Bournemouth). Is RD willing to do that? and if so what are the consequences, particularly for Standard? He might starve them of cash because he sees more group revenue from getting Charlton into the Prem. Or on the contrary he might think the FAPL is a risky target and concentrates on making Standard a regular UCL entrant.
The clubs are not aligned, like individual Waitrose stores (or Napoleon's armies). It seems to me their goals, and needs, to achieve those goals, are dangerously difficult to reconcile. But maybe I am wrong.
RD is the only one who can explain, but in the meantime it is good if we try to figure it out here, and I hope we can continue with this discussion
Very different businesses - very different businesses working in different environments, headed by a different manager, different individual objectives feeding into a single group objective of shareholder value.
Disucss!
a single group objective of shareholder value.
and of course ABF is publicly quoted. It is supposed to have short, medium and long term strategies. Does RD as the only significant shareholder expect to even be in the football business in 5 years time?
1min 15 in the vid. lad
I see Waitrose as the wrong business analogy as they are a homogenous group of businesses run under a single branding to the same target market with a single infrastructure. A better analogy, in my opinion, Would be Associated British Foods (ABF) who include within their operation across 40 plus countries, Retail - Primark, Commodities - British Sugar, Branded - Twinnings, Westmill Foods, Ingredients .......
Very different businesses - very different businesses working in different environments, headed by a different manager, different individual objectives feeding into a single group objective of shareholder value.
Disucss!
Not suggesting for one moment that a football business is like Waitrose, simply that a business does not require micro management by its head. If RD was saying he will be closely involved with every football decision of every club I would be very worried.
With football it is far less certain that investing in an asset like a player, will yield a return. Waitrose knows what return it will get for every square foot of selling space it invests in. Making an investment in a football club simply carries more risk as your main assets are players delivering unpredictable returns.
If a club wants cash RD might apply normal business criteria and determine if it will be working capital or an investment. An investment needs to demonstrate that it adds value, working capital is to fund a cash flow shortfall. The danger is that clubs needing working capital are starving clubs of cash that would be an investment, say in players or ground improvements. Hopefully, RD will look at past performance of his management before making an investment decision, not try and back his own judgement based on limited football knowledge. He has no choice in whether to provide working capital, but can dispose of an under performing business that is bleeding cash.
So yes CAFC is unlikely to get cash for players if it is needing cash for working capital to keep it going, but that has nothing to do with a "network" model. The priority will be for a club to be financially stable and not be going cap in hand to RD for working capital. Every club is going to need its own business plan, not RD's business plan and that is where I part company about the need to set out a grand plan. I just don't believe there has to be. RD is intelligent enough to realise that good managers are more likely to deliver him a shareholder return from football than him trying to run 10 or 20 football clubs.
Why can't we accept that his plan is simply to provide a central core of administrative/technical/financial/research resources to make his clubs more efficient operationally. If that equates into clubs that are more competitive and more likely to succeed and give him a return, job done, rest is up to local management and players. That's how I read his remarks about success, winning stuff doesn't have to be part of his plans, but it should be part of a club's plans if they want to flourish and keep fans happy.
I would like a sugar daddy as much as anyone else, but anyone judging RD on the basis of whether he keeps us up and how he stacks up against a sugar daddy is probably going to be anti RD.
Why can't we accept that his plan is simply to provide a central core of administrative/technical/financial/research resources to make his clubs more efficient operationally
Because he hasn't yet made it clear that is his plan. I would be very happy if it turns out that way. My problem is that I can see several reasons - drawing on past personal experience in 'people business international network companies' - why it might not work in practice. And if it doesn't, our club will suffer.
Take for example his remark that clubs need to break even. In principal I agree with him but we know that the Championship is currently a league where that is impossible if you don't have parachute money. So it then becomes a key question: when is CAFC expected to break even? This season? Next season? The only significant way to reduce costs is to slash our current wage bill. The only significant way to increase revenue is to get into the FAPL and get the TV money. Everything else is fiddling at the margins.
Now I could believe that he actually does have a goal to get us to the FAPL in maybe three years, and if so, I recognise that he can't come out and say that because it will enrage the Standard fans. But if I understand your post correctly you believe that his "central core" services will make the club more 'competitive'. But how much more competitive? Personally I could live with Charlton being top half of this league with some good runs, but even to become that 'competitive', the club will incur operating losses . How long will he put up with those losses, and indeed for what reason will he put up with them?
I just can't work it out, and sorry, but while I find your posts very interesting, they still haven't made it clear to me how the plan might work financially for him. Not blaming you, you are not RD, but I'm just not yet ready to accept what you have suggested. I am worried.
"Corporate executives have strong biases in favor of synergy, and those biases can lead them into ill-advised attempts to force business units to cooperate - even when the ultimate benefits are unclear. But executives can separate the real opportunities from the mirages, say Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell. They simply need to take a more disciplined approach to synergy. These biases take four forms. First comes the synergy bias, which leads executives to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the costs of synergy. Then comes the parenting bias, a belief that synergy will be captured only by cajoling or compelling business units to cooperate. The parenting bias is usually accompanied by the skills bias - the assumption that whatever know-how is required to achieve synergy will be available within the organization. Finally, executives fall victim to the upside bias, which causes them to concentrate so hard on the potential benefits of synergy that they overlook the possible downside risks. In combination, these four biases make synergy seem more attractive and more easily achievable than it truly is. As a result, corporate executives often launch initiatives that ultimately waste time and money and sometimes even severely damage their businesses. To avoid such failures, executives need to subject all synergy opportunities to a clear-eyed analysis that clarifies the benefits to be gained, examines the potential for corporate involvement, and takes into account the possible downsides. Such a disciplined approach will inevitably mean that fewer initiatives will be launched. But those that are pursued will be far more likely to deliver substantial gains."
Hope often triumphs over experience. What we need to see from Duchatelet is less wishful thinking and more structure and discipline. For example, network wide coordination and collaboration on football matters is not really credible without a structure to achieve that and this probably means a Director of Football. This will become even more necessary as and when Duchatelet adds more Clubs.
I too am unconvinced. Open minded, but waiting for actions which back up the rhetoric.
However
a single group objective of shareholder value.
I think we agree that we do not know what that means in RD's mind and I suspect we never will do.
No matter what "owner template" we it seems as supporters are determined to never be satisfied. In recent times we have had one “hands on" model, with a fairly open style, and the last lot who barely said a word over the last 18 months of their tenure. Neither covered themselves in financial glory.
We now have a 3rd iteration. I agree today it is rare, but some people do work on the basis if they have nothing to say, it is better they say "nothing" at all. The hunger for answers from RD is, in the short term at least, likely to be unfulfilled. I am disappointed people do not respect a different approach.
We all refer to our own experiences but there is a basic flaw in trying to draw analogies with other industries. The model pursued by professional football is totally out of step with normal business practice. What other business budgets a £5mn annual loss for the foreseeable future with, at best, a 12.5% chance of partial payback - partial because to retain PL revenues needs you to spend a large part of it to stay in the PL.
RD is the one trying to follow proper business disciplines but recognises to have any chance of success, in a completely distorted market, he needs a different "angle". The perversity is not "balancing the books" it is the market in which RD is trying to do it.
Only the film industry approaches a comparable risk reward. One can invest millions in making a film in anticipation of box office sales. The difference is the success of one film is not mutually exclusive to any other. Other industries will have their research & development projects but they do not form the core disciplines of their usual business practice.
Have we not just burned through large parts of the personal fortunes of Messrs Murray, Chappell, a few of Mr Murrays' acquaintances, and dug into a mystery investors' spare cash, while no doubt giving TJs' bankers palpitations?
How many Don Quixote do we expect to ride over the hill to tilt at the PL "windmill"? For those who want to challenge the RD "model" what is your realistic expectation. How much do people really expect our owners to spend is it £10mn?, £20mn? £30mn?
If you had bought a club ALREADY struggling to stay in the championship and projected to lose £5mn this year, how would you propose to cover such losses? If your tangible assets are subject to multiple liens to former investors re contingent liabilities circa £7mn & bank debt circa £5mn, debts which influence your daily costs how do you reduce/remove their impact?
If the vendors had scheduled 80% intangible assets (players/coaches) to be gone in June how do you handle 2 senior players, subject of transfer bids, refusing to sign new contracts. One who will never sign, as he wants to go "North" and then signs for Brighton. The other an ageing Breton, who starts 60% games, wanting an additional 2yrs (which you agree) and contracts for CP [& staff]. Would you sign off a £2.5mn liability after just 3 weeks in the chair?
You are keen to secure the right “Head Coach and coaching team”. Subject to results you see a future role for CP. To determine the role you clearly want to see the man in operation and understand exactly what he brings to the table.
How about his 3yr playing strategy including player retention, integrating U21 & academy players, fast tracking youth assets, target recruits, with initial investment costs, current performance analysis clarifying why circa 30% senior player payroll seems to make no contribution to the club.
The endless financial fire fighting is exhausting & expensive you need the transition team to produce a 3yr plan covering Championship/ LI operating budgets, outline investment costs; a) to retain relevant league status b) compete for promotion for relevant division c) relevant optimum playing squad numbers & construct.
You ask the operating staff for a full evaluation of the business case for investing in a "fit for purpose" playing surface, and the best 3 options for implementing the required solution
You ask the academy staff for a full evaluation of the cost benefits/ analysis of securing Category 1 status for the academy.
You have made interim finance available to meet operating expenses for 2013/2014 season.
You will exceptionally extend the interim finance to cater for in case of need new playing staff.
In answer to all those many questions people have, you can but advise, at this point,
So do/ does you/ RD.
When you/ he have/ has the answers then maybe you/ he will be in a better position to answer theirs.
PS. It may be May 2014 before you get your answers - so tell them not to hold their breath - they will make themselves ill - PPS. You are not an American - you do not do business "fluff".
I recognise some do not get it, others do not like it and the new situation is outside of many a comfort zone. What I do not understand is why people do not comprehend for a club to survive whether it plays in the Sidcup League, the Sussex County League or the Championship - the club has to be financially viable.
The unknown has its risk but with the growing paranoia we are getting to the point where someone is soon going to ask RD when he stopped beating his partner. The reaction and expectations here are way, way, way over the top.
The latest "storm" started after comments on player movement across the RDs' clubs, notably Standard Liege. In reality at the time of writing no player is even rumoured to be heading to SL, although as 23 players, courtesy of our prior owners, are soon out of contract, they can have their pick without paying a penny, just like every other overseas club.
If a player reaches Champions League standard, as Mundell says, he will find a path to play at the level. If the path be via Liege it is all rather moot. The CAFC Euro qualification thread has to be one of the funniest ever. The Anglo Italian apart we have only once (2003/2004) even approached qualifying for an UEFA competition.
If we can compete for an UEFA place, I will be ecstatic as we will be seeking our best league position for 50+yrs, while the last Cup Final we reached was in 1947! Much as we may wish an "UEFA Cup dilemma" was a reality, todays ambitions apart, the word delusional springs to mind.
CAFC just over 60 days ago, to all intents & purposes, was insolvent, with the debts to investors, former investors, banks & trade creditors exceeding club assets. For those challenging RD to invest he has paid £12/16mn (+/- £4mn if we stay up?) to enable us to continue trading.
As a retired business "engineer" from my experience there is nothing unusual going on here. When you need to rebuild a business you often need to start from scratch.
For all those other supposed investors looking to buy the club, most waiting for the club to go "broke", one has put his money on the table. If you want to react, think liquidation, think 10 point penalty, think guaranteed relegation, think redundancies and fire sale.
I get the demands for clarity on the vision and assurances for the future, but agree with Mundell, at this point in time, I don’t think RD has all the answers. It is not that uncommon. I spent too much of my life pawing over client or internal business plans, 90% do not have all the answers. You wouldn’t believe it if they did.
It is OK to start a venture and develop the plan as market knowledge grows. As long as you have flexibility to adapt and the funds to meet each new challenge it can work very well.
Does RD have an idea how the concept might hang together? Does he know what he wants to achieve? I am sure he does. Is he going to share it until he has a better understanding of what he has bought, and fleshed out how we fit in the concept? No chance.
So ladies and gentlemen it is time to breathe and enjoy the day.
COYR
Today is all about every Charlton supporter getting behind the team. The outs and ins of RD can wait until after.
For all those in Addicks in Sheffield and Charlton supporters everywhere watching, have an excellent day !
COYRs !!!
I hope everything about our our best players going to Liege is just a misunderstanding.
So assessing the various arguments for a moment about RD's strategy in the light of today's fiasco.
Dippenhall and others have suggested that RD is not going to micro-manage the clubs, he will leave it to strong locally empowered managers.
Well that begs the question, which 'strong local managers' were responsible for the squad which took on Sheffield United today, and blew the chance to earn an extra million in revenue? Was it Chris Powell? Katrien Meire? Richard Murray? Which of them decided to sell Kermorgant and bring in players which happened to be surplus to other clubs' needs, rather than what Chris Powell wanted?
I think the answer can only be, none of them. It was Roland Duchatelet.
Now this is a slightly dangerous game to play but I will assert that if we'd had Yann today, and if RD had sent us - or we had loaned - a quality right side attacking midfielder we'd have beaten Sheffield United easily. In which case there would have been an instant ROI on Yann's contract extension.
Ok let's not go all Championship Manager with this discussion, but my point to Dippenhall is that it seems to me that RD DID micromanage his way through the transfer window. He immediately DID start to impose 'synergies' on a business he had only started considering to buy six weeks earlier. All the anecdotal evidence suggests that he did NOT sit down with his "strong local management" and evaluate what the businesses short term needs are. Indeed there are credible stories that Katrien Meire was so taken aback by the strong reaction to news of Yann's situation that she called RD to check whether the club should not reconsider its position.
So picking up on Mundell's excellent post above where he quotes the Harvard Business Review, RD came rampaging in, anxious to try out his untested model of 'synergies'. I would have thought it would have been better to introduce such ideas more gradually. But no, he charges in and imposes on us a goalkeeper (the one position where we had cover) who may turn out to be talented, but has no idea about how to dominate his area when some Yorkshire outfit is constantly throwing it in the mixer ( both keepers today were highly competent in that regard).
Would it not have been wiser to say, "OK, the first objective is to avoid relegation. What does this management tell me is needed in order to do that? How much does that cost?" And then only start playing synergies if they are clearly in line with this goal. I do not believe that this is what happened.