I buy and sell businesses for a living. Put simply, businesses for sale are only worth what someone is prepared to pay for them. Although there is a technical definition of ‘ enterprise value’ to include debt etc - if there is no willing buyer at the price then the seller has to decide whether to sell at a lower price than ‘ enterprise value’. An example would be that we just tried to buy Gaucho Restaurants, the fact that it had millions of accumulated debt didn’t stop us offering a price that meant that the sellers were going to have to write off most of that debt. The same is true with Roland, he has funded c £64m so far which includes his original cost of acquisition and annual operating losses. He has somehow secured a valuation ( probably from a firm of surveyors/ commercial agents) that the underlying property assets are worth £40m - therefore he is prepared to carry on funding the annual operating losses of c £8-10m but he is holding out for the perceived value of the property. In reality, in order to secure a sale he is going to have to write off some of his debt and accept a lower price than £40m. Despite the flimflam club announcements about price agreement it appears fairly clear that neither of the interested parties are prepared to pay his asking price and by the way they are right not to pay £40m or anywhere near that.
At last. Someone eminently qualified to make a reasoned house buying analogy.
Missing one important point, said property is mortgaged to 7 Ex Directors for £7mn . Unless he pays off those Loans he has no real estate assets to sell. But their security value is increasing every day so why take a discount , it’s a long game for them.
Apologies if I sound a bit thick, but are you suggesting the 7million owed to them is a now worth more than 7 million? Or have I misunderstood?
I'm sure he doesn't mean that.
£7 mill secured on an appreciating asset gives greater peace of mind than it being secured on a depreciating asset!
Right now, anyone can waltz into Newcastle and buy it for £400M. I hear Ashley is now willing to sell for £350M.
That is 2.7x turnover. Debt = 1x annual turnover For a club making at least £27M profit in 2017-18 And on pace to make a similar amount this season. Already in the PL. Selling out 51,000 seats per match. In a one club city with nothing else to do. And a Champions League manager.
Or... buy CAFC
at 3.3x turnover Debt = 5x annual turnover For a club in League One With 5 clubs in that city-area already in the Premier League A stadium that can probably never be developed past 30,000 anymore Losing a million per month Sold off its best players No CEO
I want CAFC to get out from RD, but frankly, any Saudis that are looking to buy CAFC when Newcastle is just sitting there must be 50th distant cousins in the royal family and not so rich.
Maybe a fair business analysis although I think you miss the ‘London’ factor in the above.
If you are a billionaire from Saudi you will fly to London to go look at your properties you own and not want to bother with a trip oopNorth to Newcastle.
Charlton is a stones throw away, that if any, is our pull for the mega wealthy like the Saudi Royals.
Not sure I buy this. Has never bothered Sheikh Mansour, has it?
In the corporate jet, Riyadh to Newcastle is only 40 mins more than to Stansted. And said jet would easily get you back to London for dinner at eight after a 3.00 KO
As I mentioned earlier, the London factor is more about corporate revenue as % of total, and London has lots of corporate revenue kicking around. But The Valley is not well placed to increase its capacity in that area.
What @NapaAddick says above makes sense to me, not least because it is largely based on rational business thinking. (I think a new owner might believe he doesn't have to lose £1m per month to get us out of League One, but it would only be a belief, whereas current losses are fact). The "London' factor is a bit airy-fairy, IMHO.
Right now, anyone can waltz into Newcastle and buy it for £400M. I hear Ashley is now willing to sell for £350M.
That is 2.7x turnover. Debt = 1x annual turnover For a club making at least £27M profit in 2017-18 And on pace to make a similar amount this season. Already in the PL. Selling out 51,000 seats per match. In a one club city with nothing else to do. And a Champions League manager.
Or... buy CAFC
at 3.3x turnover Debt = 5x annual turnover For a club in League One With 5 clubs in that city-area already in the Premier League A stadium that can probably never be developed past 30,000 anymore Losing a million per month Sold off its best players No CEO
I want CAFC to get out from RD, but frankly, any Saudis that are looking to buy CAFC when Newcastle is just sitting there must be 50th distant cousins in the royal family and not so rich.
Maybe a fair business analysis although I think you miss the ‘London’ factor in the above.
If you are a billionaire from Saudi you will fly to London to go look at your properties you own and not want to bother with a trip oopNorth to Newcastle.
Charlton is a stones throw away, that if any, is our pull for the mega wealthy like the Saudi Royals.
Not sure I buy this. Has never bothered Sheikh Mansour, has it?
In the corporate jet, Riyadh to Newcastle is only 40 mins more than to Stansted. And said jet would easily get you back to London for dinner at eight after a 3.00 KO
As I mentioned earlier, the London factor is more about corporate revenue as % of total, and London has lots of corporate revenue kicking around. But The Valley is not well placed to increase its capacity in that area.
What @NapaAddick says above makes sense to me, not least because it is largely based on rational business thinking. (I think a new owner might believe he doesn't have to lose £1m per month to get us out of League One, but it would only be a belief, whereas current losses are fact). The "London' factor is a bit airy-fairy, IMHO.
The Aussie interest, whatever anyone makes of it, has been very much based on London because that is where people involved wanted to be for personal reasons.
The other consideration is that there are numerous provincial clubs which could be bought that would struggle to sustain Premier League crowds because of the geography (Swindon, anyone? Ipswich?), even though they have potential. That isn't true of any London club because of the population density (which is also why nobody would ever move Charlton out of London).
Right now, anyone can waltz into Newcastle and buy it for £400M. I hear Ashley is now willing to sell for £350M.
That is 2.7x turnover. Debt = 1x annual turnover For a club making at least £27M profit in 2017-18 And on pace to make a similar amount this season. Already in the PL. Selling out 51,000 seats per match. In a one club city with nothing else to do. And a Champions League manager.
Or... buy CAFC
at 3.3x turnover Debt = 5x annual turnover For a club in League One With 5 clubs in that city-area already in the Premier League A stadium that can probably never be developed past 30,000 anymore Losing a million per month Sold off its best players No CEO
I want CAFC to get out from RD, but frankly, any Saudis that are looking to buy CAFC when Newcastle is just sitting there must be 50th distant cousins in the royal family and not so rich.
Maybe a fair business analysis although I think you miss the ‘London’ factor in the above.
If you are a billionaire from Saudi you will fly to London to go look at your properties you own and not want to bother with a trip oopNorth to Newcastle.
Charlton is a stones throw away, that if any, is our pull for the mega wealthy like the Saudi Royals.
Not sure I buy this. Has never bothered Sheikh Mansour, has it?
In the corporate jet, Riyadh to Newcastle is only 40 mins more than to Stansted. And said jet would easily get you back to London for dinner at eight after a 3.00 KO
As I mentioned earlier, the London factor is more about corporate revenue as % of total, and London has lots of corporate revenue kicking around. But The Valley is not well placed to increase its capacity in that area.
What @NapaAddick says above makes sense to me, not least because it is largely based on rational business thinking. (I think a new owner might believe he doesn't have to lose £1m per month to get us out of League One, but it would only be a belief, whereas current losses are fact). The "London' factor is a bit airy-fairy, IMHO.
The Aussie interest, whatever anyone makes of it, has been very much based on London because that is where people involved wanted to be for personal reasons.
The other consideration is that there are numerous provincial clubs which could be bought that would struggle to sustain Premier League crowds because of the geography (Swindon, anyone? Ipswich?), even though they have potential. That isn't true of any London club because of the population density (which is also why nobody would ever move Charlton out of London).
Would also corporate account for much less % of revenue, in the Premier league, now than when RM owned the club?
For any buyer of us - surely they can see the potential of the club. Getting to the PL would be the obvious pull but maxing out on Corporate would add to the Income. Have never understood why we do not offer a fixed priced ST like Bradford. Trying to take out the politics but doubling the attendance would surely increase overal income even with reduced ST prices. We are a little'sleeping giant'
For any buyer of us - surely they can see the potential of the club. Getting to the PL would be the obvious pull but maxing out on Corporate would add to the Income. Have never understood why we do not offer a fixed priced ST like Bradford. Trying to take out the politics but doubling the attendance would surely increase overal income even with reduced ST prices. We are a little'sleeping giant'
This issue is, in my opinion, there are plenty of other clubs who are closer to the premier league and would cost a similar amount as us. For £45 million you could buy almost any Championship team and be only one good season away from the Prem.
I buy and sell businesses for a living. Put simply, businesses for sale are only worth what someone is prepared to pay for them. Although there is a technical definition of ‘ enterprise value’ to include debt etc - if there is no willing buyer at the price then the seller has to decide whether to sell at a lower price than ‘ enterprise value’. An example would be that we just tried to buy Gaucho Restaurants, the fact that it had millions of accumulated debt didn’t stop us offering a price that meant that the sellers were going to have to write off most of that debt. The same is true with Roland, he has funded c £64m so far which includes his original cost of acquisition and annual operating losses. He has somehow secured a valuation ( probably from a firm of surveyors/ commercial agents) that the underlying property assets are worth £40m - therefore he is prepared to carry on funding the annual operating losses of c £8-10m but he is holding out for the perceived value of the property. In reality, in order to secure a sale he is going to have to write off some of his debt and accept a lower price than £40m. Despite the flimflam club announcements about price agreement it appears fairly clear that neither of the interested parties are prepared to pay his asking price and by the way they are right not to pay £40m or anywhere near that.
At last. Someone eminently qualified to make a reasoned house buying analogy.
Missing one important point, said property is mortgaged to 7 Ex Directors for £7mn . Unless he pays off those Loans he has no real estate assets to sell. But their security value is increasing every day so why take a discount , it’s a long game for them.
Apologies if I sound a bit thick, but are you suggesting the 7million owed to them is a now worth more than 7 million? Or have I misunderstood?
I'm sure he doesn't mean that.
£7 mill secured on an appreciating asset gives greater peace of mind than it being secured on a depreciating asset!
Precisely the point, when those Loans were given they were at the time second in line to the Bank Mortgage on all assets and the Land value was probably £25mn. So in a situation where the club sinks into administration those Directors loans are now totally covered by fixed assets 5 times over. So why would they ever take a discount on their loans, when they have no downside if Roland totally screws up, it is Roland and his unsecured debt that will be haircut by an administrator as it sits behind the Ex Directors Loans in a default situation.
For any buyer of us - surely they can see the potential of the club. Getting to the PL would be the obvious pull but maxing out on Corporate would add to the Income. Have never understood why we do not offer a fixed priced ST like Bradford. Trying to take out the politics but doubling the attendance would surely increase overal income even with reduced ST prices. We are a little'sleeping giant'
So we're a bit smaller than a giant, we're like a sleeping human.
Right now, anyone can waltz into Newcastle and buy it for £400M. I hear Ashley is now willing to sell for £350M.
That is 2.7x turnover. Debt = 1x annual turnover For a club making at least £27M profit in 2017-18 And on pace to make a similar amount this season. Already in the PL. Selling out 51,000 seats per match. In a one club city with nothing else to do. And a Champions League manager.
Or... buy CAFC
at 3.3x turnover Debt = 5x annual turnover For a club in League One With 5 clubs in that city-area already in the Premier League A stadium that can probably never be developed past 30,000 anymore Losing a million per month Sold off its best players No CEO
I want CAFC to get out from RD, but frankly, any Saudis that are looking to buy CAFC when Newcastle is just sitting there must be 50th distant cousins in the royal family and not so rich.
Maybe a fair business analysis although I think you miss the ‘London’ factor in the above.
If you are a billionaire from Saudi you will fly to London to go look at your properties you own and not want to bother with a trip oopNorth to Newcastle.
Charlton is a stones throw away, that if any, is our pull for the mega wealthy like the Saudi Royals.
Not sure I buy this. Has never bothered Sheikh Mansour, has it?
In the corporate jet, Riyadh to Newcastle is only 40 mins more than to Stansted. And said jet would easily get you back to London for dinner at eight after a 3.00 KO
As I mentioned earlier, the London factor is more about corporate revenue as % of total, and London has lots of corporate revenue kicking around. But The Valley is not well placed to increase its capacity in that area.
What @NapaAddick says above makes sense to me, not least because it is largely based on rational business thinking. (I think a new owner might believe he doesn't have to lose £1m per month to get us out of League One, but it would only be a belief, whereas current losses are fact). The "London' factor is a bit airy-fairy, IMHO.
The Aussie interest, whatever anyone makes of it, has been very much based on London because that is where people involved wanted to be for personal reasons.
The other consideration is that there are numerous provincial clubs which could be bought that would struggle to sustain Premier League crowds because of the geography (Swindon, anyone? Ipswich?), even though they have potential. That isn't true of any London club because of the population density (which is also why nobody would ever move Charlton out of London).
Would also corporate account for much less % of revenue, in the Premier league, now than when RM owned the club?
I don't think corporate matchday revenue was ever that big a percentage or would be now, although I still think Charlton are better placed than Palace, for example, because of the proximity of the City. The increase in TV money is the big change to the equation.
Right now, anyone can waltz into Newcastle and buy it for £400M. I hear Ashley is now willing to sell for £350M.
That is 2.7x turnover. Debt = 1x annual turnover For a club making at least £27M profit in 2017-18 And on pace to make a similar amount this season. Already in the PL. Selling out 51,000 seats per match. In a one club city with nothing else to do. And a Champions League manager.
Or... buy CAFC
at 3.3x turnover Debt = 5x annual turnover For a club in League One With 5 clubs in that city-area already in the Premier League A stadium that can probably never be developed past 30,000 anymore Losing a million per month Sold off its best players No CEO
I want CAFC to get out from RD, but frankly, any Saudis that are looking to buy CAFC when Newcastle is just sitting there must be 50th distant cousins in the royal family and not so rich.
Maybe a fair business analysis although I think you miss the ‘London’ factor in the above.
If you are a billionaire from Saudi you will fly to London to go look at your properties you own and not want to bother with a trip oopNorth to Newcastle.
Charlton is a stones throw away, that if any, is our pull for the mega wealthy like the Saudi Royals.
Not sure I buy this. Has never bothered Sheikh Mansour, has it?
In the corporate jet, Riyadh to Newcastle is only 40 mins more than to Stansted. And said jet would easily get you back to London for dinner at eight after a 3.00 KO
As I mentioned earlier, the London factor is more about corporate revenue as % of total, and London has lots of corporate revenue kicking around. But The Valley is not well placed to increase its capacity in that area.
What @NapaAddick says above makes sense to me, not least because it is largely based on rational business thinking. (I think a new owner might believe he doesn't have to lose £1m per month to get us out of League One, but it would only be a belief, whereas current losses are fact). The "London' factor is a bit airy-fairy, IMHO.
The Aussie interest, whatever anyone makes of it, has been very much based on London because that is where people involved wanted to be for personal reasons.
The other consideration is that there are numerous provincial clubs which could be bought that would struggle to sustain Premier League crowds because of the geography (Swindon, anyone? Ipswich?), even though they have potential. That isn't true of any London club because of the population density (which is also why nobody would ever move Charlton out of London).
The other major factor taken into consideration is that the players (quality) that you attract once in the premiership generally want to be in or very near to areas such as London, Manchester, Liverpool.
For any buyer of us - surely they can see the potential of the club. Getting to the PL would be the obvious pull but maxing out on Corporate would add to the Income. Have never understood why we do not offer a fixed priced ST like Bradford. Trying to take out the politics but doubling the attendance would surely increase overal income even with reduced ST prices. We are a little'sleeping giant'
It works for them. It may well not work for us. We looked at it in some detail in 2011 and it was rejected by the board. However, Charlton have £200 season tickets (and have had cheaper ones in recent years) without a dramatic effect on sales, even when they were available in the east and west stands. I am highly doubtful this price point has been successful in terms of revenue, although it has allowed the club to hold on to some people who would not have renewed - others have downgraded.
Bradford don't publish detailed accounts, but they will get about £6 per season ticket per match, allowing for VAT and concessions. That's £2m if they have 15,000 season tickets. They will probably make another half million on away tickets, casual home sales and ancillary income, maybe a bit more.
Charlton's matchday revenue in 2016/17, which includes things like programme receipts and catering profit (but not cost of sale, so not the full price of what you buy) and away receipts, was £3.2m. It has probably fallen a bit further since then. Given that you can already buy a season ticket at Charlton for £200 I struggle to see that you would compensate for lost £300-£500 purchases in the east/west/upper north made at £200 with income from extra sales.
The argument that you get extra revenue by selling other things to larger numbers of fans is a thin one because merchandise, food, etc, has a cost price and requires extra staff to sell. An average PROFIT of £2 per spectator would be a good return. For example, let's say Charlton sell 2,000 programmes to 8,000 fans with revenue of £6,000 and make a profit of £1.50 per programme after all related costs (excluding salaries). That is still only a profit of 37.5p per spectator, even though the price is £3.
In short, the numbers don't stack up. In general people are not staying away from The Valley because of the price and people in London are likely to have more money than those in Bradford anyway.
Right now Millwall must be a better prospect than us. Closer to London, punching above their weight in a division above us, fairly stable club, stadium that could cope in the Premier League.
Right now Millwall must be a better prospect than us. Closer to London, punching above their weight in a division above us, fairly stable club, stadium that could cope in the Premier League.
Brentford also a better option surely?
Don’t own their stadium or training ground. You buy Millwall you buy the brand only. Shitty brand at that.
Right now Millwall must be a better prospect than us. Closer to London, punching above their weight in a division above us, fairly stable club, stadium that could cope in the Premier League.
Brentford also a better option surely?
Don’t own their stadium or training ground. You buy Millwall you buy the brand only. Shitty brand at that.
Having the incinerator next door has increased the appeal.
Right now Millwall must be a better prospect than us. Closer to London, punching above their weight in a division above us, fairly stable club, stadium that could cope in the Premier League.
Brentford also a better option surely?
Don’t own their stadium or training ground. You buy Millwall you buy the brand only. Shitty brand at that.
Right now Millwall must be a better prospect than us. Closer to London, punching above their weight in a division above us, fairly stable club, stadium that could cope in the Premier League.
Brentford also a better option surely?
Don’t own their stadium or training ground. You buy Millwall you buy the brand only. Shitty brand at that.
Could always move them.
Madness. And completely undercuts the idea they are a better proposition currently (which they are not), because of cost.
For any buyer of us - surely they can see the potential of the club. Getting to the PL would be the obvious pull but maxing out on Corporate would add to the Income. Have never understood why we do not offer a fixed priced ST like Bradford. Trying to take out the politics but doubling the attendance would surely increase overal income even with reduced ST prices. We are a little'sleeping giant'
It works for them. It may well not work for us. We looked at it in some detail in 2011 and it was rejected by the board. However, Charlton have £200 season tickets (and have had cheaper ones in recent years) without a dramatic effect on sales, even when they were available in the east and west stands. I am highly doubtful this price point has been successful in terms of revenue, although it has allowed the club to hold on to some people who would not have renewed - others have downgraded.
Bradford don't publish detailed accounts, but they will get about £6 per season ticket per match, allowing for VAT and concessions. That's £2m if they have 15,000 season tickets. They will probably make another half million on away tickets, casual home sales and ancillary income, maybe a bit more.
Charlton's matchday revenue in 2016/17, which includes things like programme receipts and catering profit (but not cost of sale, so not the full price of what you buy) and away receipts, was £3.2m. It has probably fallen a bit further since then. Given that you can already buy a season ticket at Charlton for £200 I struggle to see that you would compensate for lost £300-£500 purchases in the east/west/upper north made at £200 with income from extra sales.
The argument that you get extra revenue by selling other things to larger numbers of fans is a thin one because merchandise, food, etc, has a cost price and requires extra staff to sell. An average PROFIT of £2 per spectator would be a good return. For example, let's say Charlton sell 2,000 programmes to 8,000 fans with revenue of £6,000 and make a profit of £1.50 per programme after all related costs (excluding salaries). That is still only a profit of 37.5p per spectator, even though the price is £3.
In short, the numbers don't stack up. In general people are not staying away from The Valley because of the price and people in London are likely to have more money than those in Bradford anyway.
Fair enough Airman - you are a lot closer to the figures than most. Still see us as a club with a lot of potential for any prospective buyer And still maintain that the club has never fully maxed out on its true marketing potential
I buy and sell businesses for a living. Put simply, businesses for sale are only worth what someone is prepared to pay for them. Although there is a technical definition of ‘ enterprise value’ to include debt etc - if there is no willing buyer at the price then the seller has to decide whether to sell at a lower price than ‘ enterprise value’. An example would be that we just tried to buy Gaucho Restaurants, the fact that it had millions of accumulated debt didn’t stop us offering a price that meant that the sellers were going to have to write off most of that debt. The same is true with Roland, he has funded c £64m so far which includes his original cost of acquisition and annual operating losses. He has somehow secured a valuation ( probably from a firm of surveyors/ commercial agents) that the underlying property assets are worth £40m - therefore he is prepared to carry on funding the annual operating losses of c £8-10m but he is holding out for the perceived value of the property. In reality, in order to secure a sale he is going to have to write off some of his debt and accept a lower price than £40m. Despite the flimflam club announcements about price agreement it appears fairly clear that neither of the interested parties are prepared to pay his asking price and by the way they are right not to pay £40m or anywhere near that.
Right now Millwall must be a better prospect than us. Closer to London, punching above their weight in a division above us, fairly stable club, stadium that could cope in the Premier League.
Brentford also a better option surely?
How much closer can you get to London than being in London? ;-)
Sorry forgot - Charlton are in Kent and my sons keep reminding me of that false fact. They were born in Kent but are wannabe Londoners!!
Right now Millwall must be a better prospect than us. Closer to London, punching above their weight in a division above us, fairly stable club, stadium that could cope in the Premier League.
Brentford also a better option surely?
Don’t own their stadium or training ground. You buy Millwall you buy the brand only. Shitty brand at that.
Could always move them.
Madness. And completely undercuts the idea they are a better proposition currently (which they are not), because of cost.
More wishful thinking on part really. Move them out of London altogether.
I buy and sell businesses for a living. Put simply, businesses for sale are only worth what someone is prepared to pay for them. Although there is a technical definition of ‘ enterprise value’ to include debt etc - if there is no willing buyer at the price then the seller has to decide whether to sell at a lower price than ‘ enterprise value’. An example would be that we just tried to buy Gaucho Restaurants, the fact that it had millions of accumulated debt didn’t stop us offering a price that meant that the sellers were going to have to write off most of that debt. The same is true with Roland, he has funded c £64m so far which includes his original cost of acquisition and annual operating losses. He has somehow secured a valuation ( probably from a firm of surveyors/ commercial agents) that the underlying property assets are worth £40m - therefore he is prepared to carry on funding the annual operating losses of c £8-10m but he is holding out for the perceived value of the property. In reality, in order to secure a sale he is going to have to write off some of his debt and accept a lower price than £40m. Despite the flimflam club announcements about price agreement it appears fairly clear that neither of the interested parties are prepared to pay his asking price and by the way they are right not to pay £40m or anywhere near that.
A friend of mine had a stake in Gaucho.
I had a steak in Gaucho once as well.
I was going to reply with the Steak gag but I thought with only one "Lol" and the potential flags from the grammar police for the spelling of stake/steak I didnt want to risk it.
I buy and sell businesses for a living. Put simply, businesses for sale are only worth what someone is prepared to pay for them. Although there is a technical definition of ‘ enterprise value’ to include debt etc - if there is no willing buyer at the price then the seller has to decide whether to sell at a lower price than ‘ enterprise value’. An example would be that we just tried to buy Gaucho Restaurants, the fact that it had millions of accumulated debt didn’t stop us offering a price that meant that the sellers were going to have to write off most of that debt. The same is true with Roland, he has funded c £64m so far which includes his original cost of acquisition and annual operating losses. He has somehow secured a valuation ( probably from a firm of surveyors/ commercial agents) that the underlying property assets are worth £40m - therefore he is prepared to carry on funding the annual operating losses of c £8-10m but he is holding out for the perceived value of the property. In reality, in order to secure a sale he is going to have to write off some of his debt and accept a lower price than £40m. Despite the flimflam club announcements about price agreement it appears fairly clear that neither of the interested parties are prepared to pay his asking price and by the way they are right not to pay £40m or anywhere near that.
A friend of mine had a stake in Gaucho.
I had a steak in Gaucho once as well.
I was going to reply with the Steak gag but I thought with only one "Lol" and the potential flags from the grammar police for the spelling of stake/steak I didnt want to risk it.
Whilst I don't doubt the business case Airman what about the potential of having an extra 5000 bums on seats supporting the team - was that taken into consideration.
Its probably largely irrelevant post RD but did we not consider in 2011 that an extra potential few thousand fans cheering the team on might make a difference to performance of the team and potential non relegation or promotion?
Whilst I don't doubt the business case Airman what about the potential of having an extra 5000 bums on seats supporting the team - was that taken into consideration.
Its probably largely irrelevant post RD but did we not consider in 2011 that an extra potential few thousand fans cheering the team on might make a difference to performance of the team and potential non relegation or promotion?
Not sure that would have been a persuasive argument with Messrs Jimenez and Slater... on reflection I’d have to check whether it was 2011 or 2012, but in 2011 it’s hard to see it could have made much difference to performance.
Of course you’d rather have a bigger crowd but the risk was you reduce the revenue. Given what was going on internally in 2012, if it was then, there is no way they were going to risk hundreds of thousands on boosting crowds.
Whilst I don't doubt the business case Airman what about the potential of having an extra 5000 bums on seats supporting the team - was that taken into consideration.
Its probably largely irrelevant post RD but did we not consider in 2011 that an extra potential few thousand fans cheering the team on might make a difference to performance of the team and potential non relegation or promotion?
Not sure that would have been a persuasive argument with Messrs Jimenez and Slater... on reflection I’d have to check whether it was 2011 or 2012, but in 2011 it’s hard to see it could have made much difference to performance.
Of course you’d rather have a bigger crowd but the risk was you reduce the revenue. Given what was going on internally in 2012, if it was then, there is no way they were going to risk hundreds of thousands on boosting crowds.
I thought it was earlier than that then but can't really remember now, but iirc we did talk about an increase in gates and the possible positive impact of that. There was always getting that difficult balance between increasing gates and increasing income, the aim being to do both but not one at the expense of the other.
At that time gates were much higher and so the drop in income would have been greater and I think I argued against the idea on those grounds and because once you've cut the price it then becomes much harder to put them up again (assuming that's what you would want to do). As Bradford and to a lesser extent ourselves show, having a large number of season ticket holders doesn't automatically mean more bums on seats nor a more vociferous crowd.
Anyway, the debates were always, IMHO, quite broad in that they were about long and short term benefit and both crowd size and income hence football for a fiver that was discussed in the same group.
Comments
In the corporate jet, Riyadh to Newcastle is only 40 mins more than to Stansted. And said jet would easily get you back to London for dinner at eight after a 3.00 KO
As I mentioned earlier, the London factor is more about corporate revenue as % of total, and London has lots of corporate revenue kicking around. But The Valley is not well placed to increase its capacity in that area.
What @NapaAddick says above makes sense to me, not least because it is largely based on rational business thinking. (I think a new owner might believe he doesn't have to lose £1m per month to get us out of League One, but it would only be a belief, whereas current losses are fact). The "London' factor is a bit airy-fairy, IMHO.
The other consideration is that there are numerous provincial clubs which could be bought that would struggle to sustain Premier League crowds because of the geography (Swindon, anyone? Ipswich?), even though they have potential. That isn't true of any London club because of the population density (which is also why nobody would ever move Charlton out of London).
Roland preparing for the EFL meeting.
Getting to the PL would be the obvious pull but maxing out on Corporate would add to the Income.
Have never understood why we do not offer a fixed priced ST like Bradford.
Trying to take out the politics but doubling the attendance would surely increase overal income even with reduced ST prices.
We are a little'sleeping giant'
So in a situation where the club sinks into administration those Directors loans are now totally covered by fixed assets 5 times over.
So why would they ever take a discount on their loans, when they have no downside if Roland totally screws up, it is Roland and his unsecured debt that will be haircut by an administrator as it sits behind the Ex Directors Loans in a default situation.
Bradford don't publish detailed accounts, but they will get about £6 per season ticket per match, allowing for VAT and concessions. That's £2m if they have 15,000 season tickets. They will probably make another half million on away tickets, casual home sales and ancillary income, maybe a bit more.
Charlton's matchday revenue in 2016/17, which includes things like programme receipts and catering profit (but not cost of sale, so not the full price of what you buy) and away receipts, was £3.2m. It has probably fallen a bit further since then. Given that you can already buy a season ticket at Charlton for £200 I struggle to see that you would compensate for lost £300-£500 purchases in the east/west/upper north made at £200 with income from extra sales.
The argument that you get extra revenue by selling other things to larger numbers of fans is a thin one because merchandise, food, etc, has a cost price and requires extra staff to sell. An average PROFIT of £2 per spectator would be a good return. For example, let's say Charlton sell 2,000 programmes to 8,000 fans with revenue of £6,000 and make a profit of £1.50 per programme after all related costs (excluding salaries). That is still only a profit of 37.5p per spectator, even though the price is £3.
In short, the numbers don't stack up. In general people are not staying away from The Valley because of the price and people in London are likely to have more money than those in Bradford anyway.
Brentford also a better option surely?
Still see us as a club with a lot of potential for any prospective buyer
And still maintain that the club has never fully maxed out on its true marketing potential
A friend of mine had a stake in Gaucho.
I had a steak in Gaucho once as well.
Sorry forgot - Charlton are in Kent and my sons keep reminding me of that false fact. They were born in Kent but are wannabe Londoners!!
I was going to reply with the Steak gag but I thought with only one "Lol" and the potential flags from the grammar police for the spelling of stake/steak I didnt want to risk it.
Take a 'lol' from me.
Its probably largely irrelevant post RD but did we not consider in 2011 that an extra potential few thousand fans cheering the team on might make a difference to performance of the team and potential non relegation or promotion?
Of course you’d rather have a bigger crowd but the risk was you reduce the revenue. Given what was going on internally in 2012, if it was then, there is no way they were going to risk hundreds of thousands on boosting crowds.
At that time gates were much higher and so the drop in income would have been greater and I think I argued against the idea on those grounds and because once you've cut the price it then becomes much harder to put them up again (assuming that's what you would want to do). As Bradford and to a lesser extent ourselves show, having a large number of season ticket holders doesn't automatically mean more bums on seats nor a more vociferous crowd.
Anyway, the debates were always, IMHO, quite broad in that they were about long and short term benefit and both crowd size and income hence football for a fiver that was discussed in the same group.