Turnover £350m Operating profit £3.7m Net loss £22m (prior year loss £17m) Fixed assets £158m Current assets £396m (incl cash of £69m) Liabilities £476m Net worth negative £79m (prior year negative £55m)
On the face of it, awful
BUT during the year the group acquired 15 other businesses, raised £1bn in debt from one lender and a new £40m revolving credit line from NatWest - it’s EBITDA has grown from £17m in 2017 to £40m in 2021, and turnover has grown from £111m in 2017 to £350m in 2021
Clearly a business that is on a huge growth and acquisition strategy
My only reservation - and this is me being the boring risk averse banker - it’s growth is all funded by debt - sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t - but we are now in a world of rising interest rates and inflation …….
Useful analysis.
The positive view, from this semi-financially literate poster, on that is that £1bn loan/debt is approx three years turnover and it has been spent, it appears, on growth and income generating acquisitions.
So if the 15 other business do well, and I presume there is some synergy between them and RSK as a group, then those top line figures will improve over the next 5 to 10 years.
My guess is that the annual payments to Charlton are, at best, six figures so not hugely significant on the P & L.
The doom and glom view (and so the most popular on CL) is that they are loaded with debt and so must be a bunch of crooks. (this is not my view BTW).
High praise
Is this fair? 20% yes 78 % no 5% unsure
To be clear, I was talking about myself, not @lordflashheart
After all these years, finally working in civil engineering consultancy comes in handy.
RSK are a fairly big name in our industry, and well respected. "Consultant" doesn't mean the same thing for us as in most industries - in engineering the standard arrangement is that the consultants design things, then contractors build it. Yes, they will be providing advice about environmental or planning matters, but a lot of their work will be designing the solution to the problem, not just writing reports with advice. There's a lot of overlap between civil engineering and environmental work, due to the big environmental impacts that engineering projects can have, meaning lots of work for environmentalists to try to design out the problems. RSK have specialised more in the planning and environment side of things, while the names you may have heard of as designers of bridges or roads, like Arup or Atkins, specialise more in the engineering, but all basically do both.
This is going to put me in an interesting situation at company sports events, as they're technically commercial rivals to my employers, albeit different specialisations mean we don't often bid against each other. Not going to be a great career move to wear a Charlton shirt with their logo on.
This is good insight @Swindon_Addick. From the OS, I understand that "RSK is a fully integrated group of over 130 environmental, engineering and technical services businesses".
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
OK, so that confirms that RSK is a brand in the UK, but that the name will mean little or nothing overseas.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Who really cares assuming it is actually an income of some description and we haven’t sold ourselves short ?
It’s for TS to manage / balance the books in any event.
Never convinced any sponsor at our level is really getting much for their money / truly raising brand awareness and hence any income is surely a good deal fir the club.
Who really cares assuming it is actually an income of some description and we haven’t sold ourselves short ?
It’s for TS to manage / balance the books in any event.
Never convinced any sponsor at our level is really getting much for their money / truly raising brand awareness and hence any income is surely a good deal fir the club.
I care.
I care about the type of company we have on our shirts especially that it is the same name on adult and kids shirts.
I care that the money is "honest" but I doubt many Chelsea fans do.
And as pointed out re: ITV digital I care that the sponsor is still going to be around in five years time
Who really cares assuming it is actually an income of some description and we haven’t sold ourselves short ?
It’s for TS to manage / balance the books in any event.
Never convinced any sponsor at our level is really getting much for their money / truly raising brand awareness and hence any income is surely a good deal fir the club.
I also care.
Yes, having the (clean) income is good.
But I care that any Company chosen with the stated intent of supporting a 'Charlton globalisation' strategy is a good fit.
Or is it another example of Sandgaard's good ideas and intentions, but coupled with an incorrect implementation approach?
Really great to see its not a gambling company. They're everywhere you look these days, no only on football shirts but the TV, internet, radio, high street etc. Sky Bet is one thats hard to avoid seeing. I know people enjoy a bet but I do think they dont need encouraging to lose their money.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
OK, so that confirms that RSK is a brand in the UK, but that the name will mean little or nothing overseas.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Hmmm.
I suspect overseas might well end up using the names/connections better known in those countries for networking purposes but I don't think it's necessary nor sensible to try and break that down in this kind of interview.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
OK, so that confirms that RSK is a brand in the UK, but that the name will mean little or nothing overseas.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Hmmm.
I suspect overseas might well end up using the names/connections better known in those countries for networking purposes but I don't think it's necessary nor sensible to try and break that down in this kind of interview.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but my point is that 'RSK' (the name on our shirts) isn't going to mean much outside the UK.
Who really cares assuming it is actually an income of some description and we haven’t sold ourselves short ?
It’s for TS to manage / balance the books in any event.
Never convinced any sponsor at our level is really getting much for their money / truly raising brand awareness and hence any income is surely a good deal fir the club.
I care.
I care about the type of company we have on our shirts especially that it is the same name on adult and kids shirts.
I care that the money is "honest" but I doubt many Chelsea fans do.
And as pointed out re: ITV digital I care that the sponsor is still going to be around in five years time
If they go bust we renegotiate elsewhere - at our League 1 level its not going to be a vast sum of money in any event. Also TS / the club will have negotiated commercial terms for a 5 year period they find acceptable. Should not be a concern for fans as wont be the deal that keeps us in business or not.
As to honest & type of company they will always be legal and really we are describing preferences I think. 'Beggars cannot be choosers' (not quite literally) is the reality we face in most commercial aspects.
My real point was that at a League 1 level it really is 'small fry' and to have secured sponsor however unknown they may be is a positive and really need not be critiqued in detail to the point where some find (or seek to find) an issue with it. I remain amazed any sponsor stumps up.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
OK, so that confirms that RSK is a brand in the UK, but that the name will mean little or nothing overseas.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Hmmm.
I suspect overseas might well end up using the names/connections better known in those countries for networking purposes but I don't think it's necessary nor sensible to try and break that down in this kind of interview.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but my point is that 'RSK' (the name on our shirts) isn't going to mean much outside the UK.
Not great for 'International growth'.
The point being if he's focused international growth I doubt its the RSK brand name he is relying on outside of the UK.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
OK, so that confirms that RSK is a brand in the UK, but that the name will mean little or nothing overseas.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Hmmm.
I suspect overseas might well end up using the names/connections better known in those countries for networking purposes but I don't think it's necessary nor sensible to try and break that down in this kind of interview.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but my point is that 'RSK' (the name on our shirts) isn't going to mean much outside the UK.
Not great for 'International growth'.
The point being if he's focused international growth I doubt its the RSK brand name he is relying on outside of the UK.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
OK, so that confirms that RSK is a brand in the UK, but that the name will mean little or nothing overseas.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Hmmm.
I suspect overseas might well end up using the names/connections better known in those countries for networking purposes but I don't think it's necessary nor sensible to try and break that down in this kind of interview.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but my point is that 'RSK' (the name on our shirts) isn't going to mean much outside the UK.
Not great for 'International growth'.
The point being if he's focused international growth I doubt its the RSK brand name he is relying on outside of the UK.
Oh, OK.
Who is it then?
If you take a look at their website, you can see the international businesses who typically have “a RSK company” included in their branding. Alternatively, they have RSK as a prefix to the local company name (a little like RSM and UHY in the accountancy world). They’ve added a lot of new acquisitions in the last few years, so might see this as a way of raising their own brand name awareness (although it would obviously be better for them if we were at least at Championship level).
Other than that, seems like a sound business and one that we should be happy to be associated with.
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
It's standard practice for consultancies to operate through a different company in each country they work in. It makes the various registration and licencing rules easier to comply with and also makes it easier to sell bits of the business if need be. RSK are unusual in often keeping the brand name of a business they buy, whereas the big US consultancies will tend to rename a newly-acquired business to match the rest. But they'll still own all or at least a large part of the businesses they name on their website.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
OK, so that confirms that RSK is a brand in the UK, but that the name will mean little or nothing overseas.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Hmmm.
I suspect overseas might well end up using the names/connections better known in those countries for networking purposes but I don't think it's necessary nor sensible to try and break that down in this kind of interview.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but my point is that 'RSK' (the name on our shirts) isn't going to mean much outside the UK.
Not great for 'International growth'.
The point being if he's focused international growth I doubt its the RSK brand name he is relying on outside of the UK.
Oh, OK.
Who is it then?
If you take a look at their website, you can see the international businesses who typically have “a RSK company” included in there branding. Alternatively, they have RSK as a prefix to the local company name (a little like RSM and UHY in the accountancy world). They’ve added a lot of new acquisitions in the last few years, so might see this as a way of raising their own brand name awareness (although it would obviously be better for them if we were at least at Championship level).
Other than that, seems like a sound business and one that we should be happy to be associated with.
OK, I won't labour the point ... but it's back-to-front.
No-one looks at a Company and says 'Yaay! They are an RSK company. I wonder if they sponsor a UK football Club?".
It starts with RSK. And no-one says "I saw that Charlton on TV. I wonder which RSK companies are in my country?".
If Sandgaard wants to introduce a global audience to Charlton, it needs a global brand. And you only get that at Premier League level (Championship maybe).
Try IKEA, Thomas. Or try putting a decent team together that will get promoted to the higher Leagues.
Anyway, time to shut up. We have irritated AFKA.
Yes, we're all pleased that we have some dosh coming in. But don't pretend that it's all part of some wonderful global strategy.
As I said earlier ... nice idea, Thomas. Poor implementation ... again.
After all these years, finally working in civil engineering consultancy comes in handy.
RSK are a fairly big name in our industry, and well respected. "Consultant" doesn't mean the same thing for us as in most industries - in engineering the standard arrangement is that the consultants design things, then contractors build it. Yes, they will be providing advice about environmental or planning matters, but a lot of their work will be designing the solution to the problem, not just writing reports with advice. There's a lot of overlap between civil engineering and environmental work, due to the big environmental impacts that engineering projects can have, meaning lots of work for environmentalists to try to design out the problems. RSK have specialised more in the planning and environment side of things, while the names you may have heard of as designers of bridges or roads, like Arup or Atkins, specialise more in the engineering, but all basically do both.
This is going to put me in an interesting situation at company sports events, as they're technically commercial rivals to my employers, albeit different specialisations mean we don't often bid against each other. Not going to be a great career move to wear a Charlton shirt with their logo on.
Never heard of them, no idea what they do to get money.
Sustainability is one of the biggest growth industries in the UK. If I had kids heading towards degrees and A Levels I would be encouraging them into this field. It is the future and will see exponential growth as people realise all other industries are pointless without a planet capable of supporting life.
I looked up some of their website, and one of the board members is called Nigel Board. There is a photograph of all the board members on their site and there is one especially interesting feature of the montage. It looks as if they get money by being paid to suggest things, like the care of soil on a construction site. Are they consultants? I was once told that a consultant will tell you 200 ways to have sex, but they wouldn’t have a partner themselves.
Let me guess, you are "wary" of them all because of their skin colour?
Who really cares assuming it is actually an income of some description and we haven’t sold ourselves short ?
It’s for TS to manage / balance the books in any event.
Never convinced any sponsor at our level is really getting much for their money / truly raising brand awareness and hence any income is surely a good deal fir the club.
I care.
I care about the type of company we have on our shirts especially that it is the same name on adult and kids shirts.
I care that the money is "honest" but I doubt many Chelsea fans do.
And as pointed out re: ITV digital I care that the sponsor is still going to be around in five years time
Henry Irving said:
valleynick66 said:
Who really cares assuming it is actually an income of some description and we haven’t sold ourselves short ?
It’s for TS to manage / balance the books in any event.
Never convinced any sponsor at our level is really getting much for their money / truly raising brand awareness and hence any income is surely a good deal fir the club.
I care.
I care about the type of company we have on our shirts especially that it is the same name on adult and kids shirts.
I care that the money is "honest" but I doubt many Chelsea fans do.
And as pointed out re: ITV digital I care that the sponsor is still going to be around in five years time
Comments
This is good insight @Swindon_Addick. From the OS, I understand that "RSK is a fully integrated group of over 130 environmental, engineering and technical services businesses".
So .. my question ... is RSK an International organisation (as Sandgaard seems to think) or is it an organisation of International companies (as I understood it)?
The key difference being that RSK may not be a well-known brand globally, although its component organisations (eg Althoff & Lang) may be well-known in their respective countries (eg Germany).
I just wonder if the plan to globalise CAFC fits with this.
My analogy is that RSK = John Lewis. Not many in (eg) China will have heard of John Lewis ... but they will know about Apple.
RSK is the name they'll be known by to most of their UK clients, and while most of us won't have heard of them, the people who run council highways departments or housing developers will.
Charlton Owner, Thomas Sandgaard, said: “We are really pleased to partner with RSK. International growth is a very important part of my plans for the club – RSK have offices and clients all around the world which will help us introduce a wider audience to Charlton.
Hmmm.
Cliff Stanford, founder of Redbus (and Demon Internet) died on the 24th of February:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/03/03/cliff-stanford-high-living-founder-demon-internet-hit-jackpot/
I care about the type of company we have on our shirts especially that it is the same name on adult and kids shirts.
I care that the money is "honest" but I doubt many Chelsea fans do.
And as pointed out re: ITV digital I care that the sponsor is still going to be around in five years time
I also care.
Yes, having the (clean) income is good.
But I care that any Company chosen with the stated intent of supporting a 'Charlton globalisation' strategy is a good fit.
Or is it another example of Sandgaard's good ideas and intentions, but coupled with an incorrect implementation approach?
I know people enjoy a bet but I do think they dont need encouraging to lose their money.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but my point is that 'RSK' (the name on our shirts) isn't going to mean much outside the UK.
Not great for 'International growth'.
As to honest & type of company they will always be legal and really we are describing preferences I think. 'Beggars cannot be choosers' (not quite literally) is the reality we face in most commercial aspects.
My real point was that at a League 1 level it really is 'small fry' and to have secured sponsor however unknown they may be is a positive and really need not be critiqued in detail to the point where some find (or seek to find) an issue with it. I remain amazed any sponsor stumps up.
Oh, OK.
Who is it then?
No-one looks at a Company and says 'Yaay! They are an RSK company. I wonder if they sponsor a UK football Club?".
It starts with RSK. And no-one says "I saw that Charlton on TV. I wonder which RSK companies are in my country?".
If Sandgaard wants to introduce a global audience to Charlton, it needs a global brand. And you only get that at Premier League level (Championship maybe).
Try IKEA, Thomas. Or try putting a decent team together that will get promoted to the higher Leagues.
Anyway, time to shut up. We have irritated AFKA.
Yes, we're all pleased that we have some dosh coming in. But don't pretend that it's all part of some wonderful global strategy.
As I said earlier ... nice idea, Thomas. Poor implementation ... again.