I promised I would not touch this topic again but as I appear not to have answered Peanuts question let me try again.
After calculations of fixed costs, fixed revenue, variable costs, variable revenues, respective timings you have a view of your cashflow & any borrowing requirement. If expenditure is one off involves a major capital outlay you would seek fixed term facility to spread the cost over term of year trading or multiple year trading.
If a variable continuing expenditure over the period would include it in working capital facility which fluctuates per day by day trading usually an overdraft facility. Funding the ladies for 1yr fits into either. As an exit cost - it is a one off expenditure - i.e the sum is finite not be repeated in subsequent trading.
It also involves day to day trading, 100k is not up front but spread in years trading. In terms of banking requirements it is a legitimate trading expenditure, one you carried (apparently at notable loss 7yrs). You require increased facility. Repayment reduction in borrowing need is met from subsequent trading i.e next years parachute payment. This is one part of overall trading - against scale of Charlton trading it is a pimple.
If a bank would not fund a fixed one off cost for 1yr within a known business model against guaranteed incoming funds then a) it does not understand merchant trading b) the relationship with the client is in the toilet
Thank you for your opinion. Fortunately I participated in UK banking when it was about serving the need of its customers. As a senior manager in a High Street Bank and as a corporate executive I have sanctioned and secured such facilties.
I have worked with clients in debt management across farming, builders, retail, travel, engineering & manufacturing. It is clear you have not experienced managing finance in a recession, where half your customers are struggling to make ends meet.
I should have known better, this is what you get when you try and be polite and answer a stupid question. Your initial statement/ question is both surprising and naive. I politely sought to explain, whilst boring the pants of everbody else. All I have said is factually correct. Having spent 35 yrs in the business I have better things to do than argue banking with an apparently still wet behind the ears balance sheet banker. Jees - how UK banking standards have fallen - this is not rocket science.
Off it, I promise, promise, promise not to respond again no matter the stupidity of any future remarks.
Grapevine, i'm very keen to see this subject drop, bit given you're last post, and the continued passion you bring to this debate, perhaps you should get in touch with those involed with the ladies set up, and offer to share some of your considerable finance experience with them, and see how you could go about maintaining a successful womens club without accruing a shortfall into hundreds of thousands per annum.
If those with considerable experience in the mens game do not think it is currently anywhere close to being viable, then you personally would be bringing some good out of this, and the rest of us will be able to take seriously, and seriously congratulate, someone who at first impression appears to be just sounding off in front of their computer.
Grapevine, you have an impressive CV but please don't think you are the only person on this board who has worked or still works in business and/or finance.
Alan Watts was a regular fan of the women's team home and away. I have known him for some years and I have had long conversations with him about the current situation. I don't share his passion for the team but I can respect it because he was actually interested in the team before all this blew up.
Alan is trying to get a donation programme (Valley Silver anyone?) off the ground. Grapevine, why not take up AFKA's suggestion and offer your services and cash to him on WattsAlanw@aol.com
however good for reputation and front our women's set-up is, at the end of the day it brings us very little commercial revenue and we are now in a situation where every pound counts and we need to streamline in order to attempt to regain the priority of our club, ie. to play with the elite on a regular basis (not to win friends or develop what is a subsidiary sport in women's football)
football is now a business and as such we must pursue our operations as such, jobs are going from all departments and at the end of the day, the women's team is clearly more expendable than the academy or even community projects
you wouldn't build an extension on your house if the original structure was falling down would you, we didn't create and mould our club to play women's football, we need to get the house back in order before we are sustaining unprofitable activities
Not sure if any of you have read the the NOTW today, but on the Martin Samuel page he makes mentions to the woman's team.
He mentions about Ms Stoney's comments about the men get relegated and we get punished. He then goes on to say that this is about basic economics, not sporting glory.
Last home game v spurs 26k turned up, even though it was tough of us to stay up.
The average attendance for the woman's team last season was under 81.
He says the following to finish off the article
In the end, Charlton run a business, not a charity. Sad, but true.
[cite]Posted By: shirty5[/cite]Not sure if any of you have read the the NOTW today, but on the Martin Samuel page he makes mentions to the woman's team.
He mentions about Ms Stoney's comments about the men get relegated and we get punished. He then goes on to say that this is about basic economics, not sporting glory.
Last home game v spurs 26k turned up, even though it was tough of us to stay up.
The average attendance for the woman's team last season was under 81.
He says the following to finish off the article
In the end, Charlton run a business, not a charity. Sad, but true.
Christ the beared one sides with us... thats a first ..
Well I hope Mr Varney has taken a pay cut then....I can't stand to see his smug face anymore...please replace him !!!!! His handling of the Dowie and Reed affairs were a disgrace....his comments the other day on the Darren Bent sale as to either take a big gamble on going back up or come up with a budget for the championship shows me that he is resigned to the championship for the forseeable futute. I hope the England womens world cup team go out to China and win the World Cup unlike their male 'loser' counterparts. It will be sad there will be no Charlton players on the team. But then this board has missed the boat on more than one occasion. At least Jordan kept AJ for one season and gave it a go at coming straight back up. Please tell me how I tell my daughter that her dreaming of playing pro football in England for my beloved Charlton is no longer a dream!!!!!
The world has changed ... the world of big business and football has merged and more and more the corrupt principles that give companies/clubs an edge over smaller entities is becoming the norm...
The world of football is a diferent place to even 10 years ago and the rate that global money is being pumped in it will be a different place in another 10 years from now... and we may well miss the boat... it is testament to the sheer amount of money splashing about when teams form the top tier of the championship has ten plus million to throw around, when you think what the big boys must have it is frightening... were talking hundeds of miilions....
As for the board, theyre doing the best they can, they always have, there fans for god sake and have been with us through the whole journey... we know they made mistakes they know they made mistakes... there selling players at a loss and dropped a huge amount of money this year... so they KNOW they made some mistakes...
Its time for support I reckon... (christ Im sounding Aussie already)
[quote][cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: ct_addick[/cite]Well I hope Mr Varney has taken a pay cut then[/quote] his current secretary who worked for the club for 12 years has been made redundant !![/quote]
Great point ooaahh. How can the club justify spending 307,000 per year on the womens set-up when they are making long-serving employees redundant? They can't, its as simple as that. It would be like YOUR boss telling you that he/she is cutting your 30k job as part of a cost-cutting exercise but the firm is going to carry on spending 300,000 per year on providing a loss making service that is not connected to its core profit making business. You'd be furious and righly so.
Can people please get off Varney's back? He is not enjoying this process and is having to lay off people who he likes and respects and does not deserve some of the crap that is being thrown his way. By the way, nobody I know who has met Varney has ever described him as "arrogant", quite the opposite in fact.
Darren Bent Appreciation Thread has not even made 50 odd which is a disgrace really baring in mind what he has actually done for the club relative to what the womens team ever done.
Charlton FC was founded over 100 years ago, the Womens team has only been going a few years. I support the First Team not the reserves not the academy & certainly not the womens team. Perhaps I should not really post a comment as I watched precisely 0 Womens Games. Be interesting to see how many CAFC Womens games each of the posters on this thread have seen between them.
Just a bit of Research really I am guessing that when we add up the number of people who have actually been to a womens game It will not even reach double figures, I may be wrong though....
I've admitted before that I don't go to watch them (other than Cup Final on TV).
Players will always come and go (even Darren Bent).
What is/ isn't part of the core of the Club is perhaps more of a fundamental argument...as seen above.
When you strip out friends and family of both teams, how many do you reckon that left ? 10-15 ?
VCD in the Kent League average higher than that, and them and every other part time football club has to be run at a sustainable level. Losing £200k-£300k a year, every year is not sustainable.
Despite what some others think, I have found this thread fascinating and have been enjoying the arguing with several contributors making very valid points. To some extent I can see both sides of the arguement.
I for one am disappointed that the Club has made this decision. I believe Henry that the Board have been considering this position for some time, though I do believe they could of perhaps handled it better by given the team one last throw of the dice to self finance itself or at least significantly reduce the cost to the Club itself.
There are people posting like Bruxelles and Grapevine who seem disappointed by this descion who could actively provide support for the womens team both for now and in the long term. Unfortunately they only appear able to tell us what they can do; and then doing nothing but complain that the Club is wrong to close this side of the Football Clubs operation.
I like AFKAs analogy with the supporters club team - and I'd give my 'support' to any womens team that would wish to start up and operate in a similar way. Just don't ask for me to attend matches or to provide financial support.
Bottom line is that the Club cannot justify funding the Womens team to the tune of £300k just to support their hobby, whilst the Club are having to make long serving and valuable staff members redundant.
Comments
Hang on ive got an idea.... why dont we agree to differ!
After calculations of fixed costs, fixed revenue, variable costs, variable revenues, respective timings you have a view of your cashflow & any borrowing requirement. If expenditure is one off involves a major capital outlay you would seek fixed term facility to spread the cost over term of year trading or multiple year trading.
If a variable continuing expenditure over the period would include it in working capital facility which fluctuates per day by day trading usually an overdraft facility. Funding the ladies for 1yr fits into either. As an exit cost - it is a one off expenditure - i.e the sum is finite not be repeated in subsequent trading.
It also involves day to day trading, 100k is not up front but spread in years trading. In terms of banking requirements it is a legitimate trading expenditure, one you carried (apparently at notable loss 7yrs). You require increased facility. Repayment reduction in borrowing need is met from subsequent trading i.e next years parachute payment. This is one part of overall trading - against scale of Charlton trading it is a pimple.
If a bank would not fund a fixed one off cost for 1yr within a known business model against guaranteed incoming funds then a) it does not understand merchant trading b) the relationship with the client is in the toilet
Which is an area I did and do not want to go
Grapevine49
Thank you for your opinion. Fortunately I participated in UK banking when it was about serving the need of its customers. As a senior manager in a High Street Bank and as a corporate executive I have sanctioned and secured such facilties.
I have worked with clients in debt management across farming, builders, retail, travel, engineering & manufacturing. It is clear you have not experienced managing finance in a recession, where half your customers are struggling to make ends meet.
I should have known better, this is what you get when you try and be polite and answer a stupid question. Your initial statement/ question is both surprising and naive. I politely sought to explain, whilst boring the pants of everbody else. All I have said is factually correct. Having spent 35 yrs in the business I have better things to do than argue banking with an apparently still wet behind the ears balance sheet banker. Jees - how UK banking standards have fallen - this is not rocket science.
Off it, I promise, promise, promise not to respond again no matter the stupidity of any future remarks.
Grapevine49
If those with considerable experience in the mens game do not think it is currently anywhere close to being viable, then you personally would be bringing some good out of this, and the rest of us will be able to take seriously, and seriously congratulate, someone who at first impression appears to be just sounding off in front of their computer.
Grapevine, you have an impressive CV but please don't think you are the only person on this board who has worked or still works in business and/or finance.
Alan Watts was a regular fan of the women's team home and away. I have known him for some years and I have had long conversations with him about the current situation. I don't share his passion for the team but I can respect it because he was actually interested in the team before all this blew up.
Alan is trying to get a donation programme (Valley Silver anyone?) off the ground. Grapevine, why not take up AFKA's suggestion and offer your services and cash to him on WattsAlanw@aol.com
Any way Dr Who is about to start so TTFN.
however good for reputation and front our women's set-up is, at the end of the day it brings us very little commercial revenue and we are now in a situation where every pound counts and we need to streamline in order to attempt to regain the priority of our club, ie. to play with the elite on a regular basis (not to win friends or develop what is a subsidiary sport in women's football)
football is now a business and as such we must pursue our operations as such, jobs are going from all departments and at the end of the day, the women's team is clearly more expendable than the academy or even community projects
you wouldn't build an extension on your house if the original structure was falling down would you, we didn't create and mould our club to play women's football, we need to get the house back in order before we are sustaining unprofitable activities
I can only think that the apparent popularity of this subject has got something to do with the drumming Henry.
He mentions about Ms Stoney's comments about the men get relegated and we get punished. He then goes on to say that this is about basic economics, not sporting glory.
Last home game v spurs 26k turned up, even though it was tough of us to stay up.
The average attendance for the woman's team last season was under 81.
He says the following to finish off the article
In the end, Charlton run a business, not a charity. Sad, but true.
Christ the beared one sides with us... thats a first ..
The world of football is a diferent place to even 10 years ago and the rate that global money is being pumped in it will be a different place in another 10 years from now... and we may well miss the boat... it is testament to the sheer amount of money splashing about when teams form the top tier of the championship has ten plus million to throw around, when you think what the big boys must have it is frightening... were talking hundeds of miilions....
As for the board, theyre doing the best they can, they always have, there fans for god sake and have been with us through the whole journey... we know they made mistakes they know they made mistakes... there selling players at a loss and dropped a huge amount of money this year... so they KNOW they made some mistakes...
Its time for support I reckon... (christ Im sounding Aussie already)
his current secretary who worked for the club for 12 years has been made redundant !![/quote]
Great point ooaahh. How can the club justify spending 307,000 per year on the womens set-up when they are making long-serving employees redundant? They can't, its as simple as that. It would be like YOUR boss telling you that he/she is cutting your 30k job as part of a cost-cutting exercise but the firm is going to carry on spending 300,000 per year on providing a loss making service that is not connected to its core profit making business. You'd be furious and righly so.
Can people please get off Varney's back? He is not enjoying this process and is having to lay off people who he likes and respects and does not deserve some of the crap that is being thrown his way. By the way, nobody I know who has met Varney has ever described him as "arrogant", quite the opposite in fact.
If you're not - don't. ;-)
Charlton FC was founded over 100 years ago, the Womens team has only been going a few years. I support the First Team not the reserves not the academy & certainly not the womens team. Perhaps I should not really post a comment as I watched precisely 0 Womens Games. Be interesting to see how many CAFC Womens games each of the posters on this thread have seen between them.
Ketman 0
Anyone...?
Players will always come and go (even Darren Bent).
What is/ isn't part of the core of the Club is perhaps more of a fundamental argument...as seen above.
Went to the International againstr Holland that The Valley hosted last season with two of my daughters.
Average attendance last season = 80
When you strip out friends and family of both teams, how many do you reckon that left ? 10-15 ?
VCD in the Kent League average higher than that, and them and every other part time football club has to be run at a sustainable level. Losing £200k-£300k a year, every year is not sustainable.
But I did watch 5 mins of this years FA Cup final before turning it off cos it was shit
Second that!!!!!
I for one am disappointed that the Club has made this decision. I believe Henry that the Board have been considering this position for some time, though I do believe they could of perhaps handled it better by given the team one last throw of the dice to self finance itself or at least significantly reduce the cost to the Club itself.
There are people posting like Bruxelles and Grapevine who seem disappointed by this descion who could actively provide support for the womens team both for now and in the long term. Unfortunately they only appear able to tell us what they can do; and then doing nothing but complain that the Club is wrong to close this side of the Football Clubs operation.
I like AFKAs analogy with the supporters club team - and I'd give my 'support' to any womens team that would wish to start up and operate in a similar way. Just don't ask for me to attend matches or to provide financial support.
Bottom line is that the Club cannot justify funding the Womens team to the tune of £300k just to support their hobby, whilst the Club are having to make long serving and valuable staff members redundant.