I don’t think we should waste too much sympathy on the demise of the Charlton Athletic women’s team. It’s a case of the biter being bit.
I used to be the editor of the Charlton Athletic annual handbook. What most fans do not recall is that there was a Charlton women’s team before the current one. They played in the third tier of English women’s football, the South East Combination and were a well established side.
As editor of the handbook, I attended their last game of the 1999/2000 season when they beat Ashford Town Ladies at the Welling FC ground to win the Kent Ladies Cup. They were a great bunch of girls and I was invited to their celebrations afterwards.
Just a few weeks later I was told as editor of the handbook that Charlton Athletic were recruiting a new team i.e. Croydon Women, the winners of the women’s national double for the 1999/2000 season. I was, to put it mildly, quite amazed. I was actually at the Charlton training ground when the Croydon team appeared for their first training session.
Then Charlton proceeded to maintain that the previous team had never been part of the club – despite their wearing Charlton shirts with the Charlton roundel badge, despite my putting them into the club’s official handbook and despite their featuring very prominently in the Valley programme when England Women played Croatia Women at the Valley in the European Championship Qualifying Group Three section in November 1995.
The effect was devastating on two sets of people. Firstly, on the previous Charlton women’s team who found themselves displaced – although they valiantly played on for a few more seasons, their Charlton shirts getting tattier and tattier before they gave up the ghost. Almost all of them were Charlton supporters, which was more than could be said for any of the Croydon team, so it was a double kick in the teeth for them.
Secondly, there was the effect on Croydon FC itself, then a small Isthmian League club (since relegated) who had nurtured their women’s team with great pride. In fact, the Croydon Women were themselves split, with the majority of the players coming over but some resisting, including the captain of the team who refused to make the move.
Croydon FC was devastated. One of their committee members even took the issue on their behalf through all levels of the appeal system up to UEFA itself without success. He died a couple of years and I know from talking to his family that he carried his sadness and bitterness at what had happened to the grave.
Why did Charlton do this? Despite their community image, the club are remarkably quick to issue legal threats so I have to tread carefully. The kindest explanation I can mention is the need for grandeur – to make a sudden impact on women’s football and boost their community credentials.
There was also a more practical reason. Communication between them and the previous team was not as good as it should have been. It was a fault on both sides but I know from my experience as handbook editor that Charlton did not lavish as much care and love on their former women’s team as they should have done and could easily have solved the problem had they really wanted.
The issue came to a head with a serious disciplinary offence committed by one of the players in a South East Combination game which Charlton only got to hear about when the Kent FA informed them.
But the irony was that they took on a team with a far worse disciplinary reputation as followers of women’s football at the time will know. So much so that Croydon FC were fined £1,000 by the FA for the behaviour of their women’s team after winning the FA Women’s Cup. I leave it to you listers to surmise what sort of behaviour it was.
And the real final blow for little Croydon FC of the Isthmian League was that they had to pay the £1,000 fine even though they had lost their team to Charlton Athletic.
Why I weep no tears for the demise of the current Charlton team is that I think women’s football has followed the wrong route by allowing itself to be tied to the glamour of Premiership teams. It’s distorting basic values. Women’s teams should either operate independently or tie themselves to smaller clubs where the financing will be more realistic and reflective of the actual level of support women’s football receives.
Little Croydon FC would still be doing a good job of loving and caring for women’s football had not we taken their team in 2000.
RR, i don't agree with some of the things you've said in the past, and know you've had a long agenda on this subject, but i think you've worded that post pretty well and agree with much there.
AFKA - he would actually like Villa to support a side, and sent me a link to an interesting article on how the Dutch FA are putting in place a proper structure to support women's football through the professional clubs:
It is time to draw this interesting dialog to a close clearly I am unable to draw your attention from what I see as a very narrow perspective of the situation, must as I respect Ricks input it is with great respect a fatuous argument - his direct correlation between the funding of the ladies section and more redundancies is nothing more than a gross assumption. Where are the facts to support such a statement?
The comments regarding the ladies section facing the those made redundant is an offensive journalistic spin. In fact I suspect the ladies section would have handled such interface considerably better than our esteemed Chief Exec.
The loss of peoples employment is very hard and I have great sympathy for the employees and their families. I clearly do not know the individuals concerned, their period and terms of employment so I cannot comment specifically on the rights and wrongs of such terminations - neither can Rick - but judging by Varneys current performance I expect he has probably got a few of those wrong as well.
I am saddened you and apparently many others cannot see past a line on the balance sheet. A line on a balance sheet that is apparently worth more than a club commitment which happens to be to the ladies section and the womens game - resulting in the close down a major channel for footballers to access the top of their game.
I note RR comments which have value. The only comment I would make on his view is that two wrongs do not make a right and that many of those involved today were not around 7yrs ago.
I will not comment further as I have probably bored people to death already and we are now going round in circles
I'm delighted that you are drawing your contribution to this discussion to a close as I doubt I could bite my tongue much longer while you continued to make snide innuendos and unsubstantiated slights against people with whom I may not always agree but that I respect greatly for their dedication and honesty.
I note your graceless reply which I regret requires a response.
You really do not get it do you? I have already stated my respect for the board in all it has achieved. It is not a question of individuals dedication & honesty. It is about competency and consistency which this episode has blown a coach and horses through.
Anyone can look at balance sheet and add & subtract numbers. It is the strategic decisions and their execution around those numbers to limit the damage that is required.
Carrying the section for 1yr for it to be restructured or floated off was all that was required to give people a chance to manage the impact. The cost will have probably fitted into any budget contingency. You could not carry the cost to next years budget as exit cost? You will have achieved your aim to withdraw but given people a chance to respond.
I agree my comments on the performance of the club are unpleasant. Unsubstantiated? Not judging from the comments from the ladies section and the FA. You sir have said nothing to explain the manner in which this has been handled - just save the money, save the money.
Oh and someone broke their confidentiality - well theres a surprise.
Charlton is certainly not the organization I thought it was. With that I will once again attempt to withdraw but if you of course you want to have another go, teeth clenched or otherwise - be my guest - although i think "Off it" may end up being seriously unwell.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Matt Wright is editor of the handbook, although I know he'd agree that Colin Cameron's contribution is massive.
Of course, that may be "spin" too - after all it contradicts something someone else believes and that seems to be the favoured definition :-)
And unsubstatiated spin as well as you would have no insight or knowledge of the people made redundent or their roles. It's not as if you were ever a manager in the club or even still do some work for them. : -)
Anyone can look at balance sheet and add & subtract numbers. It is the strategic decisions and their execution around those numbers to limit the damage that is required.
Carrying the section for 1yr for it to be restructured or floated off was all that was required to give people a chance to manage the impact. The cost will have probably fitted into any budget contingency. You could not carry the cost to next years budget as exit cost?
Grapevine49
Pardon me for intruding but may I make one observation?
There is no such thing as an "exit cost" in the world of finance which establishes some sort of credit upon which your bank will permit you to draw. At the end of the day you cannot call for the Women's team to be saved unless you identify either how the club can raise the necessary cash elsewhere (an "exit cost" or a budgetary contingency is not an answer that will satisfy the bank when it is presented with cheques to process against an already full overdraft) or which director or shareholder should write a personal cheque to fund it.
Rick's argument which Henry posted here was sound in every way.
A simple fact: relegation = dire financial circumstances.
All I can add is that I now regret voting for you, Henry. I understood the role was to represent the views of supporters to the board, not defend the board at all costs against well thought out and genuine concerns voiced by fellow fans.
[cite]Posted By: Weegie Addick[/cite]All I can add is that I now regret voting for you, Henry. I understood the role was to represent the views of supporters to the board, not defend the board at all costs against well thought out and genuine concerns voiced by fellow fans.
But the majority of fans, on here at least, agree with the decision so I am representing their views.
The role is to both represent the views of fans at board and other meetings and in 1-2-1 conversations/passing on e-mails etc AND to communicate to the fans the reasoning behind decisions once made. Whether I do that well or not is for others to say but I try and that is what I have done above.
Here here henry,cuts are never easy to make and as always the board have made them with the clubs and fans best interest at heart.Grapevine get back to that platform you train spotter.
Interesting point I can but refer to my work experience in banking, corporate, business development & project finance in UK & US 35yrs. Assessment of budget encompassing years business plans (incl. retrenchment or expansion), should include exit plans, covering revenue impact, market impact and related costs - can be viewed as sunk costs.
Such are projections and as practical matter you need to allow 10-15% margin simply to facilitate line management ability to progress business plan without running to its executive/ finance office. ROI is assessed on worst case scenario. It is practical finance.
Bank requirement depend on nature of plan, financing is by way of fixed/ working capital facilities. I will be worried if business submitted finance requirements without contingency planning. Most businesses fail due to being under capitalized at the outset.
Removing contingency means the business will be spending time coming to you for increased facilities, a) undermines your confidence in business b) impacts their focus on delivering plan c) incurs additional cost. It is the true cost of doing business you should evaluate any business plan.
Lost count of sound plans screwed up by CEO's signing off with half the funds to deliver it, or bad plans not addressing true business cost signed off on false ROI. Needless to say the plan cannot be delivered properly and fails and everybody loses.
I think Henry just stole my line - There's none so blind as those that refuse to see.
I am saddened you and apparently many others cannot see past a line on the balance sheet.
I guess you are right about agreeing to disagree, but I honestly cannot see how or where the tabloid based opinions of Stenhousmuir supporters in Yakutsk, or Scunthorpe fans in Bora Bora make a ha'peth of difference to Charlton, either long term or short term. Will your pal's opinion cost CAFC a red cent? No.
I also don't know anyone who chose to follow Charlton over Chelsea because of the ladies team, the quality of food in the lounges, or the colour of the carpets in crossbars. In the end all that matters is the mens football team, and how they perform. I am sad that this decision has been made, and as I previously said, I prefer Charlton to be seen in a favourable light - after all, running the only Charlton Pub in mainland Europe, means Karen and I probably have more fans of other clubs wanting to talk about Charlton's mistakes in a week than you have in a year - but if, for five minutes, we are not the shining beacon of virtue that some other supporters thought we were, does it really matter?
As you say, to some it does, to others it does not. It will all be tomorrows chip paper anyway.
Interesting point I can but refer to my work experience in banking, corporate, business development & project finance in UK & US 35yrs. Assessment of budget encompassing years business plans (incl. retrenchment or expansion), should include exit plans, covering revenue impact, market impact and related costs - can be viewed as sunk costs.
Such are projections and as practical matter you need to allow 10-15% margin simply to facilitate line management ability to progress business plan without running to its executive/ finance office. ROI is assessed on worst case scenario. It is practical finance.
Bank requirement depend on nature of plan, financing is by way of fixed/ working capital facilities. I will be worried if business submitted finance requirements without contingency planning. Most businesses fail due to being under capitalized at the outset.
Removing contingency means the business will be spending time coming to you for increased facilities, a) undermines your confidence in business b) impacts their focus on delivering plan c) incurs additional cost. It is the true cost of doing business you should evaluate any business plan.
Lost count of sound plans screwed up by CEO's signing off with half the funds to deliver it, or bad plans not addressing true business cost signed off on false ROI. Needless to say the plan cannot be delivered properly and fails and everybody loses.
I think Henry just stole my line - There's none so blind as those that refuse to see.
I am saddened you and apparently many others cannot see past a line on the balance sheet.
Regards
Grapevine49
So, given that:
a) the worst-case scenario has, regrettably, materialised, and
b) the business has an acute shortage of capital
it would be a dereliction of their duty to the Club's shareholders (and, indeed, to current and future generations of fans) if the directors were not to shut down immediately activities which are non-core and which have no hope of generating anything other than a substantial and recurring loss for the foreseeable future.
If duty to shareholders is the sole criterion then why support a loss making enterprise for 7 years? Shareholders' profits have not been maximised for all this time!
Can I put it to you that sometimes benefits accrue from loss leaders? The retail trade, particularly supermarkets, are well aware of this?
If you want to talk accounting then what about intangibles like goodwill?
Many have made the point but I think Weegie put it best when she referred to the Charlton brand which has taken time to build up and establish.
That brand is based on Community and inclusiveness. I saw my Spurs supporting relations yesterday for the first time since they relegated us. They were genuinely shocked that this decision had been made. My nephew's exact words were:..."joking aside Charlton have to be respected because they're about more than money. I don't know what they'll save in pounds, shillings and pence but I'd put money on the damage to the reputation of the Club costing more".....
Trouble is with this is that women's football will always divide opinions where it collides with the men's game. There'll be those who see it as an optional add-on, there'll be those that see it as an integral part of our community work.
There'll be few that know the reality behind the situation - how many of us really know what effect a saved £300,000 will have on our budgets this season? But it seems that too many people seem to have their minds made up already, and have little respect for those with opposing views. As far as I'm concerned, both views are equally valid.
I think it's a desperate shame we're dropping the women's team. But I don't know what the cashflow is, and perhaps this points to bigger issues in the women's game, where the only club that's consistently done well has been Arsenal.
But a bollock appears to have been dropped in the handling of the situation, and too many bridges appear to have been burned already - Keith Boanas shouldn't have leaked the news to a journalist, Danielle Murphy's ridiculous assertion that the board is luxuriating in Laura Ashley furnishings (!) may well have scuppered any sponsorship deal that may have been forthcoming. Nobody's covered themselves in glory out of this.
For those who say it doesn't matter - of course it does, or I wouldn't be making the 180th post on this thread. But it reflects badly on our club, and erodes a lot of the goodwill we'd enjoyed. It just makes our need to get back into the top flight, and back into a position where we can afford this kind of work, even more important than it was.
You ask, "Can I put it to you that sometimes benefits accrue from loss leaders? The retail trade, particularly supermarkets, are well aware of this?"
The fact is that big supermarkets are loaded with capital and make substantial profits.
It is not all about duty to shareholders (although, as we all know, that is the legal duty of a board of directors), it is also about a duty to the Club's fans to ensure that there is a Club to support in the future. People say that £300k is not a significant some of money but I think they underestimate the gravity of the change in finances of a club that has become relatively established in the PL (with a cost structure to go with it) if it is relegated.
The question I asked Grapevine remains unanswered. In light of an acute shortage of capital, if you call for the Women's team to be saved you must be prepared to identify either how the club can raise the necessary cash elsewhere (telling the bank that it is an "exit cost", budgetary contingency or loss leader will not satisfy it when it is presented with cheques to process against an already full overdraft) or which director or shareholder or other benefactor should write a personal cheque to fund it.
"Why support a loss making enterprise for 7 years? Shareholders' profits have not been maximised for all this time!"
Good question but it is possible that at the outset the board considered that the women's game may have been able to attract TV coverage and/or sponsorship to become self-financing. For all we know, the women's team would have been shut down or downsized anyway, regardless of relegation, because it had become evident that it could not become self-financing in the foreseeable future. Relegation of course, regrettably, sealed its fate.
With the benefit of hindsight, the Club may well wish it had not sunk so much money into the women's game over recent years but one thing is for sure; the bizarre furore over this matter has surely guaranteed that it will never re-establish a professional women's team. Perhaps we shall all agree that that is a good thing.
Comments
I used to be the editor of the Charlton Athletic annual handbook. What most fans do not recall is that there was a Charlton women’s team before the current one. They played in the third tier of English women’s football, the South East Combination and were a well established side.
As editor of the handbook, I attended their last game of the 1999/2000 season when they beat Ashford Town Ladies at the Welling FC ground to win the Kent Ladies Cup. They were a great bunch of girls and I was invited to their celebrations afterwards.
Just a few weeks later I was told as editor of the handbook that Charlton Athletic were recruiting a new team i.e. Croydon Women, the winners of the women’s national double for the 1999/2000 season. I was, to put it mildly, quite amazed. I was actually at the Charlton training ground when the Croydon team appeared for their first training session.
Then Charlton proceeded to maintain that the previous team had never been part of the club – despite their wearing Charlton shirts with the Charlton roundel badge, despite my putting them into the club’s official handbook and despite their featuring very prominently in the Valley programme when England Women played Croatia Women at the Valley in the European Championship Qualifying Group Three section in November 1995.
The effect was devastating on two sets of people. Firstly, on the previous Charlton women’s team who found themselves displaced – although they valiantly played on for a few more seasons, their Charlton shirts getting tattier and tattier before they gave up the ghost. Almost all of them were Charlton supporters, which was more than could be said for any of the Croydon team, so it was a double kick in the teeth for them.
Secondly, there was the effect on Croydon FC itself, then a small Isthmian League club (since relegated) who had nurtured their women’s team with great pride. In fact, the Croydon Women were themselves split, with the majority of the players coming over but some resisting, including the captain of the team who refused to make the move.
Croydon FC was devastated. One of their committee members even took the issue on their behalf through all levels of the appeal system up to UEFA itself without success. He died a couple of years and I know from talking to his family that he carried his sadness and bitterness at what had happened to the grave.
Why did Charlton do this? Despite their community image, the club are remarkably quick to issue legal threats so I have to tread carefully. The kindest explanation I can mention is the need for grandeur – to make a sudden impact on women’s football and boost their community credentials.
There was also a more practical reason. Communication between them and the previous team was not as good as it should have been. It was a fault on both sides but I know from my experience as handbook editor that Charlton did not lavish as much care and love on their former women’s team as they should have done and could easily have solved the problem had they really wanted.
The issue came to a head with a serious disciplinary offence committed by one of the players in a South East Combination game which Charlton only got to hear about when the Kent FA informed them.
But the irony was that they took on a team with a far worse disciplinary reputation as followers of women’s football at the time will know. So much so that Croydon FC were fined £1,000 by the FA for the behaviour of their women’s team after winning the FA Women’s Cup. I leave it to you listers to surmise what sort of behaviour it was.
And the real final blow for little Croydon FC of the Isthmian League was that they had to pay the £1,000 fine even though they had lost their team to Charlton Athletic.
Why I weep no tears for the demise of the current Charlton team is that I think women’s football has followed the wrong route by allowing itself to be tied to the glamour of Premiership teams. It’s distorting basic values. Women’s teams should either operate independently or tie themselves to smaller clubs where the financing will be more realistic and reflective of the actual level of support women’s football receives.
Little Croydon FC would still be doing a good job of loving and caring for women’s football had not we taken their team in 2000.
In return to your friend Weegs, ask your mate why Villa don't support a side and why Birmingham have withdrawn their funding for theirs.
Colin Cameron i think.....
It is time to draw this interesting dialog to a close clearly I am unable to draw your attention from what I see as a very narrow perspective of the situation, must as I respect Ricks input it is with great respect a fatuous argument - his direct correlation between the funding of the ladies section and more redundancies is nothing more than a gross assumption. Where are the facts to support such a statement?
The comments regarding the ladies section facing the those made redundant is an offensive journalistic spin. In fact I suspect the ladies section would have handled such interface considerably better than our esteemed Chief Exec.
The loss of peoples employment is very hard and I have great sympathy for the employees and their families. I clearly do not know the individuals concerned, their period and terms of employment so I cannot comment specifically on the rights and wrongs of such terminations - neither can Rick - but judging by Varneys current performance I expect he has probably got a few of those wrong as well.
I am saddened you and apparently many others cannot see past a line on the balance sheet. A line on a balance sheet that is apparently worth more than a club commitment which happens to be to the ladies section and the womens game - resulting in the close down a major channel for footballers to access the top of their game.
I note RR comments which have value. The only comment I would make on his view is that two wrongs do not make a right and that many of those involved today were not around 7yrs ago.
I will not comment further as I have probably bored people to death already and we are now going round in circles
Grapevine49
Blimey they weren't hanging around eh.
not proper charlton you see...(im joking!)
Yeah a few of us disagree on this so lets lets it slide...
I'm delighted that you are drawing your contribution to this discussion to a close as I doubt I could bite my tongue much longer while you continued to make snide innuendos and unsubstantiated slights against people with whom I may not always agree but that I respect greatly for their dedication and honesty.
Ben Hayes
And an excellent job he does too.
I note your graceless reply which I regret requires a response.
You really do not get it do you? I have already stated my respect for the board in all it has achieved. It is not a question of individuals dedication & honesty. It is about competency and consistency which this episode has blown a coach and horses through.
Anyone can look at balance sheet and add & subtract numbers. It is the strategic decisions and their execution around those numbers to limit the damage that is required.
Carrying the section for 1yr for it to be restructured or floated off was all that was required to give people a chance to manage the impact. The cost will have probably fitted into any budget contingency. You could not carry the cost to next years budget as exit cost? You will have achieved your aim to withdraw but given people a chance to respond.
I agree my comments on the performance of the club are unpleasant. Unsubstantiated? Not judging from the comments from the ladies section and the FA. You sir have said nothing to explain the manner in which this has been handled - just save the money, save the money.
Oh and someone broke their confidentiality - well theres a surprise.
Charlton is certainly not the organization I thought it was. With that I will once again attempt to withdraw but if you of course you want to have another go, teeth clenched or otherwise - be my guest - although i think "Off it" may end up being seriously unwell.
Grapevine49
Of course, that may be "spin" too - after all it contradicts something someone else believes and that seems to be the favoured definition :-)
And unsubstatiated spin as well as you would have no insight or knowledge of the people made redundent or their roles. It's not as if you were ever a manager in the club or even still do some work for them. : -)
Pardon me for intruding but may I make one observation?
There is no such thing as an "exit cost" in the world of finance which establishes some sort of credit upon which your bank will permit you to draw. At the end of the day you cannot call for the Women's team to be saved unless you identify either how the club can raise the necessary cash elsewhere (an "exit cost" or a budgetary contingency is not an answer that will satisfy the bank when it is presented with cheques to process against an already full overdraft) or which director or shareholder should write a personal cheque to fund it.
Rick's argument which Henry posted here was sound in every way.
A simple fact: relegation = dire financial circumstances.
But the majority of fans, on here at least, agree with the decision so I am representing their views.
The role is to both represent the views of fans at board and other meetings and in 1-2-1 conversations/passing on e-mails etc AND to communicate to the fans the reasoning behind decisions once made. Whether I do that well or not is for others to say but I try and that is what I have done above.
Interesting point I can but refer to my work experience in banking, corporate, business development & project finance in UK & US 35yrs. Assessment of budget encompassing years business plans (incl. retrenchment or expansion), should include exit plans, covering revenue impact, market impact and related costs - can be viewed as sunk costs.
Such are projections and as practical matter you need to allow 10-15% margin simply to facilitate line management ability to progress business plan without running to its executive/ finance office. ROI is assessed on worst case scenario. It is practical finance.
Bank requirement depend on nature of plan, financing is by way of fixed/ working capital facilities. I will be worried if business submitted finance requirements without contingency planning. Most businesses fail due to being under capitalized at the outset.
Removing contingency means the business will be spending time coming to you for increased facilities, a) undermines your confidence in business b) impacts their focus on delivering plan c) incurs additional cost. It is the true cost of doing business you should evaluate any business plan.
Lost count of sound plans screwed up by CEO's signing off with half the funds to deliver it, or bad plans not addressing true business cost signed off on false ROI. Needless to say the plan cannot be delivered properly and fails and everybody loses.
I think Henry just stole my line - There's none so blind as those that refuse to see.
I am saddened you and apparently many others cannot see past a line on the balance sheet.
Regards
Grapevine49
I guess you are right about agreeing to disagree, but I honestly cannot see how or where the tabloid based opinions of Stenhousmuir supporters in Yakutsk, or Scunthorpe fans in Bora Bora make a ha'peth of difference to Charlton, either long term or short term. Will your pal's opinion cost CAFC a red cent? No.
I also don't know anyone who chose to follow Charlton over Chelsea because of the ladies team, the quality of food in the lounges, or the colour of the carpets in crossbars. In the end all that matters is the mens football team, and how they perform. I am sad that this decision has been made, and as I previously said, I prefer Charlton to be seen in a favourable light - after all, running the only Charlton Pub in mainland Europe, means Karen and I probably have more fans of other clubs wanting to talk about Charlton's mistakes in a week than you have in a year - but if, for five minutes, we are not the shining beacon of virtue that some other supporters thought we were, does it really matter?
As you say, to some it does, to others it does not. It will all be tomorrows chip paper anyway.
So, given that:
a) the worst-case scenario has, regrettably, materialised, and
b) the business has an acute shortage of capital
it would be a dereliction of their duty to the Club's shareholders (and, indeed, to current and future generations of fans) if the directors were not to shut down immediately activities which are non-core and which have no hope of generating anything other than a substantial and recurring loss for the foreseeable future.
If duty to shareholders is the sole criterion then why support a loss making enterprise for 7 years? Shareholders' profits have not been maximised for all this time!
Can I put it to you that sometimes benefits accrue from loss leaders? The retail trade, particularly supermarkets, are well aware of this?
If you want to talk accounting then what about intangibles like goodwill?
Many have made the point but I think Weegie put it best when she referred to the Charlton brand which has taken time to build up and establish.
That brand is based on Community and inclusiveness. I saw my Spurs supporting relations yesterday for the first time since they relegated us. They were genuinely shocked that this decision had been made. My nephew's exact words were:..."joking aside Charlton have to be respected because they're about more than money. I don't know what they'll save in pounds, shillings and pence but I'd put money on the damage to the reputation of the Club costing more".....
I rest my case.
Next person to post on this thread is either
a) pompously overly self opinionated; or
b) Palace
You make your own choice.
Erm....oh bugger
SO people lets us unite in our ununitedness and let this one GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There'll be few that know the reality behind the situation - how many of us really know what effect a saved £300,000 will have on our budgets this season? But it seems that too many people seem to have their minds made up already, and have little respect for those with opposing views. As far as I'm concerned, both views are equally valid.
I think it's a desperate shame we're dropping the women's team. But I don't know what the cashflow is, and perhaps this points to bigger issues in the women's game, where the only club that's consistently done well has been Arsenal.
But a bollock appears to have been dropped in the handling of the situation, and too many bridges appear to have been burned already - Keith Boanas shouldn't have leaked the news to a journalist, Danielle Murphy's ridiculous assertion that the board is luxuriating in Laura Ashley furnishings (!) may well have scuppered any sponsorship deal that may have been forthcoming. Nobody's covered themselves in glory out of this.
For those who say it doesn't matter - of course it does, or I wouldn't be making the 180th post on this thread. But it reflects badly on our club, and erodes a lot of the goodwill we'd enjoyed. It just makes our need to get back into the top flight, and back into a position where we can afford this kind of work, even more important than it was.
Len,
You ask, "Can I put it to you that sometimes benefits accrue from loss leaders? The retail trade, particularly supermarkets, are well aware of this?"
The fact is that big supermarkets are loaded with capital and make substantial profits.
It is not all about duty to shareholders (although, as we all know, that is the legal duty of a board of directors), it is also about a duty to the Club's fans to ensure that there is a Club to support in the future. People say that £300k is not a significant some of money but I think they underestimate the gravity of the change in finances of a club that has become relatively established in the PL (with a cost structure to go with it) if it is relegated.
The question I asked Grapevine remains unanswered. In light of an acute shortage of capital, if you call for the Women's team to be saved you must be prepared to identify either how the club can raise the necessary cash elsewhere (telling the bank that it is an "exit cost", budgetary contingency or loss leader will not satisfy it when it is presented with cheques to process against an already full overdraft) or which director or shareholder or other benefactor should write a personal cheque to fund it.
"Why support a loss making enterprise for 7 years? Shareholders' profits have not been maximised for all this time!"
Good question but it is possible that at the outset the board considered that the women's game may have been able to attract TV coverage and/or sponsorship to become self-financing. For all we know, the women's team would have been shut down or downsized anyway, regardless of relegation, because it had become evident that it could not become self-financing in the foreseeable future. Relegation of course, regrettably, sealed its fate.
With the benefit of hindsight, the Club may well wish it had not sunk so much money into the women's game over recent years but one thing is for sure; the bizarre furore over this matter has surely guaranteed that it will never re-establish a professional women's team. Perhaps we shall all agree that that is a good thing.