when peoples livelyhoods are being affected, it may be tough trying to explain to the redundant staff how the board see it fit to accept £16m (according to reports) for an asset they have stated that will not be leaving for anything less than "our valuation" (£17m).
It's the same old story. The justification for the immoral excessive diversification of wages in capitalist organisations is usually something along the line of the risks the bosses take or the demand for certain skills.
Yet when it all goes pear shaped who invariably gets the tin tack? Yes you've got it ordinary workers who have had no input whatsoever into the decisions that dropped the company in it. Some risk for the bosses!
People are mixing issues here. There is the general issue of womens football and its worth and there is the moral issue of what Charlton should be doing having decided to embrace womens football.
I hesitate to criticise the Board and am on record in often expressing my admiration for it's achievements.
However if the directors took less out of the business perhaps the womens team and other operations could continue.
Serious consideration should also be given to saving excessive wages by buying out non- performing and non- committed players like Marcus Bent.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]However if the directors took less out of the business perhaps the womens team and other operations could continue.[/quote]
Len, i may well be wrong but i think you'll find our directors take less 'out of the business' than any other board in the top two divisions.
So we can't afford 100K? I think this is a big mistake and an own goal on a biblical scale. When we pay thousands a week to a total tit like marcus bent how we can't afford this sum of money i don't know.I know womens footie isn't everybodys cup of tea but i've enjoyed watching the few games i've seen,my step daughter plays and will get her first cap for Wales at U16 level in August when she plays in Belfast,she's going to be a bit pissed off when i tell her that Charlton have scrapped the whole set up for the sake of saving 100K.
[cite]Posted By: addick1965[/cite]What a total shower of shite we must look!
I don't agree. It's a practical and pragmatic business decision. What would you prefer, the best run womens team in the league but a shite first team?
If nobody bothers to turn up to watch them and it's losing money why keep it? As AFKA says, the community work will still be there, so I don't really see what the problem is - it's not Charlton's role to almost single-handedly bring on and develop the womens game after all.
The ladies team finished 3rd in the league behind Arsenal and Everton. If they had finished 2nd they would have been in Europe. Would the Board have been as quick to ditch them then. I think not.
If saving £100k, or whatever it is, means that people associated with the "real" running of the club - ticket office staff, etc - don't lose their jobs then that's fine by me. Take care of the pennies and all that.
As for the comments about the board not getting rid if the women qualified for Europe - why? Because of the extra TV/gate revenue that would have generated? No ...... thought not.
why on earth did we take them on in the first place ffs .....
still all those who said it'll be a good thing to go down maybe want to rethink about the consequences that our relegation has had on the staff and their families that have been affected by the cost cutting....
Although i've never really played that much interest in Charlton Women I feel abit embarassed on behalf of Charlton that they can't fund 100k to keep the womens team running. Especially when we are top 2 in the country. It gets alot of younger girls into football and to shatter alot of girls dreams for the sake of 100k when marcus lazy arse bent gets that in 10 weeks! Makes you laugh.
I have never seen them play and most probably never would have but I had a kind of detached pride in Charlton having a successful women's team.
I do wonder whether a decent sponsorship drive, plus a reduction in wages/fully part time players could have meant the set up kept running in a mostly self sufficient manner until we could afford a higher investment again or the women's game grew in popularity/financial stability. The team may not have been as competitive but it would have kept going.
As for the PR disaster I am not so sure. If any of the media tries to make a big deal out of it then they should take a look at their coverage of the women's game first and see whether they gave it the support it needed before picking this particular event as the place to state its moral stance.
I wonder how women's football in general might grow. Summer leagues? While the men's game is quiet could the women's game fill a football free summer void? Playing the matches after the men's game on a Saturday - to get some of the crowd to remain, perhaps allowing beer to be drunk on the terraces so that it becomes the post match place for a drink? I haven't given it much thought so I hope these ideas don't sound patronising.
I can't say I've given it much support but I won't dismiss or try to do down women's football.
I agree with the decision personally. People are saying it was a succesful side etc, but not in the terms we need - if it didn't lose us money, we'd have kept it.
But isn't Womens football is always going to lose money??
For me the Womens team was only ever PR to fit in with our community/family club image. I personally have never seen (and was never likely to go to see) a womens game. Just doesn't interest me.
When you see certain over-paid players (and we seemed to have acquired a complete squad full of em) still at the club, it is hard for a fan not bothered about the business side to understand.
It's a reality of business I know full well, but the PR that has eminated out of the club since Curbishley left has been beyond poor and I'm not sure if the club have taken enough notice of that. (I mentioned this previously when talking about Richard Murray earlier in the season)
The morale among the employees down there must be at rock bottom, and having made people redundant myself, I don't envy Reg's job one bit. I think his job now will be trying to keep hold of the staff left down there....:o(
I went to watch the women's team once and never went again.
As for the people who moan about our directors, such as on the Guardian blog page, why aren't they moaning at big clubs like Man Utd for never having tried?
We tried and tried hard and realised it was a waste of money.
By the way: We are a men's team. We are a men's team. We are a men's team. We are a men's team. We are a men's team.
CAFC Board Member 1
We have to retrench. So let's focus on what's defining about Charlton, what make us World Class.
CAFC Board Member 2
Yes, we have to define what our product is, who are customers are. What puts bums in seats and sell eyeballs to our sponsors.
CAFC Board member 3
Well it's sure not the women's team. They cost us money and they don't generate any revenue.
CAFC Board Member 1
Good point CAFC3
We get some PR from them, but really the idea of socially responsible businesses is so eighties, and face it guys we're in business.
CAFC 2
We have a responsibility to our shareholders to maximize their return, we have to be lean and mean. Those who don't pull their weight have to go.
CAFFC 3
So the women's team has to go. Tough on them but everybody has to tighten their belts in this time of crisis. How much will that save?
CAFC 1
Dunno, that's what the accountants will figure out. Maybe enough to keep our Public Relations staff up to full complement. And they can explain it to the media.
CAFC 4
Right.
So what else is on the agenda?
CAFC 1
Proposal to change our name to CAFC Holdings Inc.
CAFC 2
And an expression of interest from a certain Mikhail Khordorkovsky.
everyone says close the women team down cos it loses money but as someone said (on another thread) about the academy , that's probably been running at a loss for a few years why not close that down ...oh and if we're supposedly a well run business why don't we close down cos i'd like to know how many profitable years we've had ...can't remember receiving any dividends on my shares.... we're more than a business, i'd like to think so anyway
So the academy runs at a loss, so what atleast it is part of the real Charlton Athletic. Its sole purpose is to generate players for the first team and some of the current crop look set to make the grade (Arter, Wright and Basey) also there are the two young keepers. I support Charlton and I have always been a bit annoyed at my money being siphoned off to support another team, although it carries a CAFC badge.
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]everyone says close the women team down cos it loses money but as someone said (on another thread) about the academy , that's probably been running at a loss for a few years why not close that down ...oh and if we're supposedly a well run business why don't we close down cos i'd like to know how many profitable years we've had ...can't remember receiving any dividends on my shares.... we're more than a business, i'd like to think so anyway
Because the academy every now and again produces a player like Richard Rufus, Lee Bowyer, Scott Parker and has produced players like Defoe, J Lloyd Samuel and others who have made it at other clubs, plus quite a few who have been comparatively ordinary club players.
The Women's team is never going to produce a Charlton First team regular let alone a star. The club invested in the female team as a statement of its credentials as a family/community club, but women's football has never caught on and become either a money earner in its own right or capable of breaking even. I imagine this decision, regrettable though it is, is being made because the prospects for women's football in the UK just aren't good and relegation and cost cutting have allowed the club to make a hard decision now.
Whether we like it or not the business of Charlton is produce the best football club possible, to get into the Premiership, stay there and go on to become a major team in that league. Everything else is a distraction and business wise you shouldn't be pumping money into a non-core loss making division, especially if has no impact on the first team and the core business. I'm happy in that regard with the academy being a loss leader as it every now and again uncovers a star, the general community work is good for the profile of the club and has a side effect in that it helps market the club, the women's team however was doing none of these things. A shame that they've gone and seemingly without much notice giving time to find an alternative home for them but I can understand the logic.
This is unfortunate as the woman's team has been quite successful and I think they are right to feel aggreived that the men's team has let them down. It'd be nice to see Marcus Bent and JFH amongst others sticking in a week's wages to keep them going.
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]I support the decision and i don't think many of you are concentrating on the main issues.
The fact is running a ladies team drains our club of cash, over £100k plus every year, with no real return other than a bit of a PR exercise. The men's side is the sole focal point of our club, its what 20k+ people pay there money on. The vast majority of those paying supporters have zero interest in the women's side.
In business terms, our set up is having to be streamlined. By axing the womens team we will probably keep in a necessary job 8-10 other club staff. What is valued to the club is the community work, which is largely self-funded, and is crucial to not just local presence, but getting boys and girls involved in Charlton. That won't, and musn't be changed, but dropping a loss-making women's team is a sacrifice that can be lived with.
AFKA, I think you need to remember that generating bad PR to save £100k isn't good business. We have a paarchute payment plus the impending cash from the Bent sale. Keeing Charlton Women going on a reduced budget looked like the most sensible business option unless we are genuinely cash strapped.
There is a separate argument about the value of womens football as a product. My own take is that at the moment as a specator sport it is mediocre. However as a way of getting girls involved in football and as supporters it is pretty good.
It's not going to be bad PR, not on the scale people are saying anyway. It will get 30 words in the pages of most papers i would imagine and come August the 11th it will be forgotten about.
Whether thats right or wrong is a completely different argument but facts are facts.
We got relegated. We have to cut costs all across the business. People lose jobs. Divisions need to shut down.
I'm sorry but i think we should realise that running a football club is now business orientated whether we like it or not and therefore decisions like this have to be made.
Further to the references of the relative costs of Marcus Bent, a good line from Frankie Valley on his site:
"I'm convinced it won't have registered on Marcus Bent's radar. Unless of course he was planning to sleep with a few of them, in which case he'll be utterly distraught at this lost opportunity."
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]It's not going to be bad PR, not on the scale people are saying anyway. It will get 30 words in the pages of most papers i would imagine and come August the 11th it will be forgotten about.
Whether thats right or wrong is a completely different argument but facts are facts.
We got relegated. We have to cut costs all across the business. People lose jobs. Divisions need to shut down.
I'm sorry but i think we should realise that running a football club is now business orientated whether we like it or not and therefore decisions like this have to be made.
I am arguing from a business perspective. The club have misjudged the PR side of this and whilst it isn't a huge issue it is more significant than the savings made. It blows a bit of a hole in the community club image. But then again our PR is rarely sure footed so the decision is not that much of a shock.
Part of the problem is that it reveals our finances are not quite as strong as many fans think. In fairness to the Board they are in possession of all finacial infrmation and have to consider issues like a stay in the CCC of more than a season. It looks to me as if they are making sure that in the event of still being in the CCC in say threee seasons we remain viable.
I don't even think the PR is that bad. Maybe internally but not externally. Who hears of our women's apart from Charlton fans and the odd appearance on a Bank Holiday monday? I don't personally think it will make much difference. Especially if the first team are winning games. The women's team is arguably the least important part of our community work as well. The summer courses, half term breaks, working with Demelza to just speak of a few will still be going on.
I can't wait for us to have a bad spell and the comments from the crowd:
"You sacked the women's team and they could do bloody better than this lot"
Comments
Article and discussion in today's Observer:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/06/23/costcutting_charlton_scrap_wom.html
Yet when it all goes pear shaped who invariably gets the tin tack? Yes you've got it ordinary workers who have had no input whatsoever into the decisions that dropped the company in it. Some risk for the bosses!
People are mixing issues here. There is the general issue of womens football and its worth and there is the moral issue of what Charlton should be doing having decided to embrace womens football.
I hesitate to criticise the Board and am on record in often expressing my admiration for it's achievements.
However if the directors took less out of the business perhaps the womens team and other operations could continue.
Serious consideration should also be given to saving excessive wages by buying out non- performing and non- committed players like Marcus Bent.
Len, i may well be wrong but i think you'll find our directors take less 'out of the business' than any other board in the top two divisions.
What a total shower of shite we must look!
Guys that were probably on a yearly wage less than 1 nightout with the likes of Marcus Bent/Jerome Thomas.
Last seasons players have got off far too lightly IMHO...
Imagine the amount saved if you got rid of MBent.
I can't believe he will still have the gall to show up next season (though he never showed up last season)
I don't agree. It's a practical and pragmatic business decision. What would you prefer, the best run womens team in the league but a shite first team?
If nobody bothers to turn up to watch them and it's losing money why keep it? As AFKA says, the community work will still be there, so I don't really see what the problem is - it's not Charlton's role to almost single-handedly bring on and develop the womens game after all.
As for the comments about the board not getting rid if the women qualified for Europe - why? Because of the extra TV/gate revenue that would have generated? No ...... thought not.
still all those who said it'll be a good thing to go down maybe want to rethink about the consequences that our relegation has had on the staff and their families that have been affected by the cost cutting....
I do wonder whether a decent sponsorship drive, plus a reduction in wages/fully part time players could have meant the set up kept running in a mostly self sufficient manner until we could afford a higher investment again or the women's game grew in popularity/financial stability. The team may not have been as competitive but it would have kept going.
As for the PR disaster I am not so sure. If any of the media tries to make a big deal out of it then they should take a look at their coverage of the women's game first and see whether they gave it the support it needed before picking this particular event as the place to state its moral stance.
I wonder how women's football in general might grow. Summer leagues? While the men's game is quiet could the women's game fill a football free summer void? Playing the matches after the men's game on a Saturday - to get some of the crowd to remain, perhaps allowing beer to be drunk on the terraces so that it becomes the post match place for a drink? I haven't given it much thought so I hope these ideas don't sound patronising.
I can't say I've given it much support but I won't dismiss or try to do down women's football.
For me the Womens team was only ever PR to fit in with our community/family club image. I personally have never seen (and was never likely to go to see) a womens game. Just doesn't interest me.
When you see certain over-paid players (and we seemed to have acquired a complete squad full of em) still at the club, it is hard for a fan not bothered about the business side to understand.
It's a reality of business I know full well, but the PR that has eminated out of the club since Curbishley left has been beyond poor and I'm not sure if the club have taken enough notice of that. (I mentioned this previously when talking about Richard Murray earlier in the season)
The morale among the employees down there must be at rock bottom, and having made people redundant myself, I don't envy Reg's job one bit. I think his job now will be trying to keep hold of the staff left down there....:o(
Some of the players have a lot to answer for.
As for the people who moan about our directors, such as on the Guardian blog page, why aren't they moaning at big clubs like Man Utd for never having tried?
We tried and tried hard and realised it was a waste of money.
By the way:
We are a men's team.
We are a men's team.
We are a men's team.
We are a men's team.
We are a men's team.
We have to retrench. So let's focus on what's defining about Charlton, what make us World Class.
CAFC Board Member 2
Yes, we have to define what our product is, who are customers are. What puts bums in seats and sell eyeballs to our sponsors.
CAFC Board member 3
Well it's sure not the women's team. They cost us money and they don't generate any revenue.
CAFC Board Member 1
Good point CAFC3
We get some PR from them, but really the idea of socially responsible businesses is so eighties, and face it guys we're in business.
CAFC 2
We have a responsibility to our shareholders to maximize their return, we have to be lean and mean. Those who don't pull their weight have to go.
CAFFC 3
So the women's team has to go. Tough on them but everybody has to tighten their belts in this time of crisis. How much will that save?
CAFC 1
Dunno, that's what the accountants will figure out. Maybe enough to keep our Public Relations staff up to full complement. And they can explain it to the media.
CAFC 4
Right.
So what else is on the agenda?
CAFC 1
Proposal to change our name to CAFC Holdings Inc.
CAFC 2
And an expression of interest from a certain Mikhail Khordorkovsky.
CAFC 3
Isn't he under arrest or something?
CAFC 2
Doesn't stop Thaksin.
All CAFC Board Members
[Appreciative chuckles]
Because the academy every now and again produces a player like Richard Rufus, Lee Bowyer, Scott Parker and has produced players like Defoe, J Lloyd Samuel and others who have made it at other clubs, plus quite a few who have been comparatively ordinary club players.
The Women's team is never going to produce a Charlton First team regular let alone a star. The club invested in the female team as a statement of its credentials as a family/community club, but women's football has never caught on and become either a money earner in its own right or capable of breaking even. I imagine this decision, regrettable though it is, is being made because the prospects for women's football in the UK just aren't good and relegation and cost cutting have allowed the club to make a hard decision now.
Whether we like it or not the business of Charlton is produce the best football club possible, to get into the Premiership, stay there and go on to become a major team in that league. Everything else is a distraction and business wise you shouldn't be pumping money into a non-core loss making division, especially if has no impact on the first team and the core business. I'm happy in that regard with the academy being a loss leader as it every now and again uncovers a star, the general community work is good for the profile of the club and has a side effect in that it helps market the club, the women's team however was doing none of these things. A shame that they've gone and seemingly without much notice giving time to find an alternative home for them but I can understand the logic.
This is unfortunate as the woman's team has been quite successful and I think they are right to feel aggreived that the men's team has let them down. It'd be nice to see Marcus Bent and JFH amongst others sticking in a week's wages to keep them going.
AFKA, I think you need to remember that generating bad PR to save £100k isn't good business. We have a paarchute payment plus the impending cash from the Bent sale. Keeing Charlton Women going on a reduced budget looked like the most sensible business option unless we are genuinely cash strapped.
There is a separate argument about the value of womens football as a product. My own take is that at the moment as a specator sport it is mediocre. However as a way of getting girls involved in football and as supporters it is pretty good.
Whether thats right or wrong is a completely different argument but facts are facts.
We got relegated. We have to cut costs all across the business. People lose jobs. Divisions need to shut down.
I'm sorry but i think we should realise that running a football club is now business orientated whether we like it or not and therefore decisions like this have to be made.
"I'm convinced it won't have registered on Marcus Bent's radar. Unless of course he was planning to sleep with a few of them, in which case he'll be utterly distraught at this lost opportunity."
I am arguing from a business perspective. The club have misjudged the PR side of this and whilst it isn't a huge issue it is more significant than the savings made. It blows a bit of a hole in the community club image. But then again our PR is rarely sure footed so the decision is not that much of a shock.
Part of the problem is that it reveals our finances are not quite as strong as many fans think. In fairness to the Board they are in possession of all finacial infrmation and have to consider issues like a stay in the CCC of more than a season. It looks to me as if they are making sure that in the event of still being in the CCC in say threee seasons we remain viable.
I can't wait for us to have a bad spell and the comments from the crowd:
"You sacked the women's team and they could do bloody better than this lot"