All seems a bit daft to buy, beg or borrow a striker when we already have TWO of our own that could do a decent job......Igor & Ajose. Now, what numpty would loan them out when we only have 2 experienced strikers in Mag & Novak.
I think Igor would rather chew Roland's toenails than pull on a Charlton shirt and Ajose just ain't up to it.
Konsa's fee will be earmarked to go towards this season's operating loss.
Well I suppose that's better than having the loans and interest payments going up every year.
Based on how people on here wet their pants complaining about the loans and the interest I would have thought they would be delighted that they are keeping them down.
The problem Duchatelet is loading all the debt onto the club (including purchase price & interest charged). This includes money for all the crap decisions & rubbish contracts handed out. Duchatelet has made at least £25m in player sales & somehow the club is £50m in debt. Doesn't look to me that running costs are being met. Duchatelet at Liege took money out of their club, IMO, he is doing the same at Charlton.
At the same time, a tight budget is imposed, the best young players are sold, & the squad is left short. Running on the spot to stand still. It would be great to see Charlton move forward for a change. IMO, Under Duchatelet's control & strategy, that just ain't going to happen. Positive PR & nicely packaged season ticket boxes & hoping does not change the basic flawed nature of Duchatelet's strategy.
All seems a bit daft to buy, beg or borrow a striker when we already have TWO of our own that could do a decent job......Igor & Ajose. Now, what numpty would loan them out when we only have 2 experienced strikers in Mag & Novak.
Especially as we're still paying Ajose almost 2.5k a week
We talk about having a big striker up front on his own but West Ham are playing Hernández 1.75 m (5ft 7in) on his own with Arnautovic playing behind. Is that why West Ham will not get many goals?
Konsa's fee will be earmarked to go towards this season's operating loss.
Well I suppose that's better than having the loans and interest payments going up every year.
Based on how people on here wet their pants complaining about the loans and the interest I would have thought they would be delighted that they are keeping them down.
The loan is inflated by £18.6m, plus interest, which Duchatelet never put into the club. What is the justification for that?
I can't see any reasonable basis for the club to be charged interest on what the owner paid to acquire the assets or why the purchase price should be owed by the business to the owner. That value should be in the assets that are held.
But the point is that Robinson won't be getting the fee when Konsa is sold any more than he got the fee for Lookman et al.
I'm sure all that is true, although I don't understand why you chose to tack it on to my post.
Are you saying that you would rather that when Konsa is sold you'd like Robinson to spend all that money and have the debts grow?
I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD is not going to just give the club money - before I get loads of abuse from people that want him to or, you know, give he club away and wipe off the debts.
Konsa's fee will be earmarked to go towards this season's operating loss.
Well I suppose that's better than having the loans and interest payments going up every year.
Based on how people on here wet their pants complaining about the loans and the interest I would have thought they would be delighted that they are keeping them down.
The problem Duchatelet is loading all the debt onto the club (including purchase price & interest charged). This includes money for all the crap decisions & rubbish contracts handed out. Duchatelet has made at least £25m in player sales & somehow the club is £50m in debt. Doesn't look to me that running costs are being met. Duchatelet at Liege took money out of their club, IMO, he is doing the same at Charlton.
At the same time, a tight budget is imposed, the best young players are sold, & the squad is left short. Running on the spot to stand still.
Are you suggesting that he's made a net £25m profit when transfer fees paid out have been taken off?
Even if not I can't for the life of me get to £25m in sales. Was that an estimation or did you add up the undisclosed transfer fees and get to £25m?
I have heard from a very good source at Everton that Lookman has not settled and is very homesick. It would be great if we could get him back on loan but more likely perhaps a London Prem club like Spurs might come in for him (on a permanent move).
Konsa's fee will be earmarked to go towards this season's operating loss.
Well I suppose that's better than having the loans and interest payments going up every year.
Based on how people on here wet their pants complaining about the loans and the interest I would have thought they would be delighted that they are keeping them down.
The loan is inflated by £18.6m, plus interest, which Duchatelet never put into the club. What is the justification for that?
I can't see any reasonable basis for the club to be charged interest on what the owner paid to acquire the assets or why the purchase price should be owed by the business to the owner. That value should be in the assets that are held.
But the point is that Robinson won't be getting the fee when Konsa is sold any more than he got the fee for Lookman et al.
I'm sure all that is true, although I don't understand why you chose to tack it on to my post.
Are you saying that you would rather that when Konsa is sold you'd like Robinson to spend all that money and have the debts grow?
I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD is not going to just give the club money - before I get loads of abuse from people that want him to or, you know, give he club away and wipe off the debts.
I included it because you infer that the debt doesn't matter, whereas I view it as the only reason Duchatelet still owns the club, that is other potential owners are unwilling to pay him in full for his own hugely expensive mistakes. The fact the club had an operating loss of £13.5m in getting relegated from the Championship is ridiculous and well off the scale of what should have been necessary to retain that status. As he chooses to burn money unnecessarily I am not sure why we should regard the debt as of any meaning whatsoever - except that he wants the money back. It's certainly not generosity - stupidity, more like.
In terms of Konsa, weakening the squad further at this stage is likely to increase the operating loss and further diminish the value of the club by making it less likely the team is promoted. So selling him to strengthen other areas in order to assist getting promoted might be sensible if the funds were well invested. Selling him now to fund the operating loss may carry a financial penalty of its own.
Konsa's fee will be earmarked to go towards this season's operating loss.
Well I suppose that's better than having the loans and interest payments going up every year.
Based on how people on here wet their pants complaining about the loans and the interest I would have thought they would be delighted that they are keeping them down.
The problem Duchatelet is loading all the debt onto the club (including purchase price & interest charged). This includes money for all the crap decisions & rubbish contracts handed out. Duchatelet has made at least £25m in player sales & somehow the club is £50m in debt. Doesn't look to me that running costs are being met. Duchatelet at Liege took money out of their club, IMO, he is doing the same at Charlton.
At the same time, a tight budget is imposed, the best young players are sold, & the squad is left short. Running on the spot to stand still.
Are you suggesting that he's made a net £25m profit when transfer fees paid out have been taken off?
Even if not I can't for the life of me get to £25m in sales. Was that an estimation or did you add up the undisclosed transfer fees and get to £25m?
No, thanks for misinterpretation though. I am wondering where all the money for player sales have gone. I am suggesting that Duchatelet is taking money out of the club & loading the club for debt for his crap decisions whilst the squad remains light.
All seems a bit daft to buy, beg or borrow a striker when we already have TWO of our own that could do a decent job......Igor & Ajose. Now, what numpty would loan them out when we only have 2 experienced strikers in Mag & Novak.
Leave off mate, one clearly doesn't want to play in England the other is shite living off of one good season at Swindon, he was crap before that and crap since! Was on the bench for Bury today wasn't he?
I have heard from a very good source at Everton that Lookman has not settled and is very homesick. It would be great if we could get him back on loan but more likely perhaps a London Prem club like Spurs might come in for him.
Could see a club like Southampton being interested.
Selling Konsa could be a key in so far as it might provide the opportunity to negotiate a loan for a decent player for a year as part of the deal. For some reason, the buying club dictates to us evry time. If we have a player they want, we ought to have some bargening power as long as we don't look too desperate.
Selling Konsa could be a key in so far as it might provide the opportunity to negotiate a loan for a decent player for a year as part of the deal. For some reason, the buying club dictates to us evry time. If we have a player they want, we ought to have some bargening power as long as we don't look too desperate.
But we are desperate, very desperate. It's plain for all to see!
I have heard from a very good source at Everton that Lookman has not settled and is very homesick. It would be great if we could get him back on loan but more likely perhaps a London Prem club like Spurs might come in for him.
Not a chance he'd come back to league one. Wasn't he linked with a loan to Derby a week or so ago, that'd be much more likely
All seems a bit daft to buy, beg or borrow a striker when we already have TWO of our own that could do a decent job......Igor & Ajose. Now, what numpty would loan them out when we only have 2 experienced strikers in Mag & Novak.
Leave off mate, one clearly doesn't want to play in England the other is shite living off of one good season at Swindon, he was crap before that and crap since! Was on the bench for Bury today wasn't he?
Good post.
Fuck me those ciders I had at lunchtime must have been stronger than I thought..........I am agreeing with Essex_Al now
Konsa's fee will be earmarked to go towards this season's operating loss.
Well I suppose that's better than having the loans and interest payments going up every year.
Based on how people on here wet their pants complaining about the loans and the interest I would have thought they would be delighted that they are keeping them down.
The loan is inflated by £18.6m, plus interest, which Duchatelet never put into the club. What is the justification for that?
I can't see any reasonable basis for the club to be charged interest on what the owner paid to acquire the assets or why the purchase price should be owed by the business to the owner. That value should be in the assets that are held.
But the point is that Robinson won't be getting the fee when Konsa is sold any more than he got the fee for Lookman et al.
I'm sure all that is true, although I don't understand why you chose to tack it on to my post.
Are you saying that you would rather that when Konsa is sold you'd like Robinson to spend all that money and have the debts grow?
I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD is not going to just give the club money - before I get loads of abuse from people that want him to or, you know, give he club away and wipe off the debts.
I included it because you infer that the debt doesn't matter, whereas I view it as the only reason Duchatelet still owns the club, that is other potential owners are unwilling to pay him in full for his own hugely expensive mistakes. The fact the club had an operating loss of £13.5m in getting relegated from the Championship is ridiculous and well off the scale of what should have been necessary to retain that status. As he chooses to burn money unnecessarily I am not sure why we should regard the debt as of any meaning whatsoever - except that he wants the money back. It's certainly not generosity - stupidity, more like.
In terms of Konsa, weakening the squad further at this stage is likely to increase the operating loss and further diminish the value of the club by making it less likely the team is promoted. So selling him to strengthen other areas in order to assist getting promoted might be sensible if the funds were well invested. Selling him now to fund the operating loss may carry a financial penalty of its own.
Quite the opposite, I was saying, directly, that the operating losses should be reduced not increased.
I have no idea how you concluded that I think that the debts don't matter from me suggesting that if Konsa is sold the money should be used to prevent them getting bigger.
I would prefer not to sell him as he is a good footballer and I believe that his value will rise but if he is sold I would not want Robinson (even if he isn't guided by a Belgian) to be allowed to spunk the money up the wall and having the losses rise, the debts rise and the annual interest payments rise.
I have heard from a very good source at Everton that Lookman has not settled and is very homesick. It would be great if we could get him back on loan but more likely perhaps a London Prem club like Spurs might come in for him.
Not a chance he'd come back to league one. Wasn't he linked with a loan to Derby a week or so ago, that'd be much more likely
If he's homesick why would he go to Derby which is still nearly three hours from London?
Konsa's fee will be earmarked to go towards this season's operating loss.
Well I suppose that's better than having the loans and interest payments going up every year.
Based on how people on here wet their pants complaining about the loans and the interest I would have thought they would be delighted that they are keeping them down.
The loan is inflated by £18.6m, plus interest, which Duchatelet never put into the club. What is the justification for that?
I can't see any reasonable basis for the club to be charged interest on what the owner paid to acquire the assets or why the purchase price should be owed by the business to the owner. That value should be in the assets that are held.
But the point is that Robinson won't be getting the fee when Konsa is sold any more than he got the fee for Lookman et al.
I'm sure all that is true, although I don't understand why you chose to tack it on to my post.
Are you saying that you would rather that when Konsa is sold you'd like Robinson to spend all that money and have the debts grow?
I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD is not going to just give the club money - before I get loads of abuse from people that want him to or, you know, give he club away and wipe off the debts.
I included it because you infer that the debt doesn't matter, whereas I view it as the only reason Duchatelet still owns the club, that is other potential owners are unwilling to pay him in full for his own hugely expensive mistakes. The fact the club had an operating loss of £13.5m in getting relegated from the Championship is ridiculous and well off the scale of what should have been necessary to retain that status. As he chooses to burn money unnecessarily I am not sure why we should regard the debt as of any meaning whatsoever - except that he wants the money back. It's certainly not generosity - stupidity, more like.
In terms of Konsa, weakening the squad further at this stage is likely to increase the operating loss and further diminish the value of the club by making it less likely the team is promoted. So selling him to strengthen other areas in order to assist getting promoted might be sensible if the funds were well invested. Selling him now to fund the operating loss may carry a financial penalty of its own.
Quite the opposite, I was saying, directly, that the operating losses should be reduced not increased.
I have no idea how you concluded that I think that the debts don't matter from me suggesting that if Konsa is sold the money should be used to prevent them getting bigger.
I would prefer not to sell him as he is a good footballer and I believe that his value will rise but if he is sold I would not want Robinson (even if he isn't guided by a Belgian) to be allowed to spunk the money up the wall and having the losses rise, the debts rise and the annual interest payments rise.
Probably from the gratuitous language you used to describe people who think the debt is significant.
But the context of the discussion was whether money from selling Konsa might be spent to strengthen the squad - nobody would be in favour of it being spent badly, but that's a different issue.
I have heard from a very good source at Everton that Lookman has not settled and is very homesick. It would be great if we could get him back on loan but more likely perhaps a London Prem club like Spurs might come in for him.
Not a chance he'd come back to league one. Wasn't he linked with a loan to Derby a week or so ago, that'd be much more likely
I was thinking more in terms of a permanent move if a Prem club came in for him as someone else said Derby is still a very long way from home. If not Spurs then West Ham or Palarse god forbid, as Leuth touched upon.
All seems a bit daft to buy, beg or borrow a striker when we already have TWO of our own that could do a decent job......Igor & Ajose. Now, what numpty would loan them out when we only have 2 experienced strikers in Mag & Novak.
I think Igor would rather chew Roland's toenails than pull on a Charlton shirt and Ajose just ain't up to it.
Agree about Ajose. He had plenty of opportunities to show what he can do, and did virtually nothing to impress (apart from the rather cooly taken goal v. the Spanners). Igor is another matter, and beyond my ken, as they used to say. I've always said Mag is only good when 100% fit, and after plenty of match practice, which isn't that useful for a club in our position. If we only have 300K to spend on a striker, then it's going to take a great feat of scouting to find one who'll join us. My money's on a loan.
Comments
At the same time, a tight budget is imposed, the best young players are sold, & the squad is left short. Running on the spot to stand still. It would be great to see Charlton move forward for a change. IMO, Under Duchatelet's control & strategy, that just ain't going to happen. Positive PR & nicely packaged season ticket boxes & hoping does not change the basic flawed nature of Duchatelet's strategy.
Are you saying that you would rather that when Konsa is sold you'd like Robinson to spend all that money and have the debts grow?
I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD is not going to just give the club money - before I get loads of abuse from people that want him to or, you know, give he club away and wipe off the debts.
Even if not I can't for the life of me get to £25m in sales. Was that an estimation or did you add up the undisclosed transfer fees and get to £25m?
In terms of Konsa, weakening the squad further at this stage is likely to increase the operating loss and further diminish the value of the club by making it less likely the team is promoted. So selling him to strengthen other areas in order to assist getting promoted might be sensible if the funds were well invested. Selling him now to fund the operating loss may carry a financial penalty of its own.
Fuck me those ciders I had at lunchtime must have been stronger than I thought..........I am agreeing with Essex_Al now
I have no idea how you concluded that I think that the debts don't matter from me suggesting that if Konsa is sold the money should be used to prevent them getting bigger.
I would prefer not to sell him as he is a good footballer and I believe that his value will rise but if he is sold I would not want Robinson (even if he isn't guided by a Belgian) to be allowed to spunk the money up the wall and having the losses rise, the debts rise and the annual interest payments rise.
But the context of the discussion was whether money from selling Konsa might be spent to strengthen the squad - nobody would be in favour of it being spent badly, but that's a different issue.
Igor is another matter, and beyond my ken, as they used to say.
I've always said Mag is only good when 100% fit, and after plenty of match practice, which isn't that useful for a club in our position.
If we only have 300K to spend on a striker, then it's going to take a great feat of scouting to find one who'll join us.
My money's on a loan.