Certainly TS 5 year strategy of getting to the premier league seems to have altered. No money spent on players. Of course we have received money for Burstow and Pope sell on fee. Seems to have been focusing on savings in terms of staffing at the club. All a little concerning bearing in mind how he was very confident of driving us up the league's. The narrative has certainly changed. I really hope he knows what he is doing.
Certainly TS 5 year strategy of getting to the premier league seems to have altered. No money spent on players. Of course we have received money for Burstow and Pope sell on fee. Seems to have been focusing on savings in terms of staffing at the club. All a little concerning bearing in mind how he was very confident of driving us up the league's. The narrative has certainly changed. I really hope he knows what he is doing.
Apparently he’s increasing revenues by emptying the ground. Does he saw people in half and then produce them from cupboards as well?
I guess what we don’t see is the revenue generated from Charlton Tv. Some of the stay away will buy that each week instead of going as it is cheaper and easy to get around with VPN.
I have always wondered if the business sense, I assume he feels all the income is accretive but how much revenue is lost is the question. Any thoughts?
There is revenue from Charlton TV but it seems unlikely it stacks up as a business proposition on its own merits. The net revenue isn’t all Charlton’s and there are operating costs. The ex-pros are great on it and may well be worth the money but they aren’t working for nothing. That’s before you get to the ticket revenue it is cannibalising.
I am not saying I believe you can avoid the technological change, by the way, or that it’s not a good thing for fans, just that I doubt it works financially or that the numbers are particularly impressive in practice. In any event, it’s not a game-changer and ticket revenue will be down year on year as the season progresses.
i'm sure you're views are well founded airman but wouldn't it also be fair that you were often very critical of the ownership in the early to mid 90's in voice of the valley and look how that turned out so maybe, just maybe, things could turn out a lot better than you think
Pretty strange overall interpretation of VOTV in the mid 1990s. Even stranger if that was the case that the same board then asked me to set up and manage its comms team in the PL…
I was certainly sceptical about Roger Alwen’s stewardship pre-1994 and that view was shared by the people who nudged him aside.
I wouldn’t say stranger - if you’ve got somebody out there who keeps criticising, one solution is to bring them in, get them on your side and shut them up ??? You could be our new centre forward in a couple of days !!!
It says that shares can't be transfered, or recognised, if the EFL haven't passed that person as fit and proper. I think.
I'll have to have proper read of what it's amending to make proper sense of it. It's either an oversight in the original or been done for a specific reason.
My initial thoughts are that it's 95% nothing of any significance.
I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
It doesn't though does it?
If TS wanted to sell to ESI III he could just amend them first?
Although it would prevent a hostile take over so it has some benifit.
I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
It doesn't though does it?
If TS wanted to sell to ESI III he could just amend them first?
Although it would prevent a hostile take over so it has some benifit.
It does if it’s a condition of EFL membership to have such a clause.
I believe it was agreed at the EFL meeting that clubs should do this. Helps avoid the kind of legal tangle we got into pre Sandgaard. Hopefully gives Chris Farnell fewer opportunities to make mischief.
It doesn't though does it?
If TS wanted to sell to ESI III he could just amend them first?
Although it would prevent a hostile take over so it has some benifit.
It does if it’s a condition of EFL membership to have such a clause.
Though I’m not sure that is the case.
I am not sure it can be because that company aren't a member of the EFL?
Must agree that I am concerned about our future. Money in for Burstow and Pope. Nothing spent. Staff losing jobs. His son high profile job. Prices not particularly low for match day tickets. With teams around us in this league I cannot see playoffs a realistic target. Not keen on the communications coming out of the club from TS. That said I will be fully behind Ben and the team as I am desperate for us to get out of this league
Always behind our on the pitch team, crap or not. However, Sandguards "good will" tokens are being frittered away again and that is sad, because he saved us, make no bones.
What is his end game? Christ knows but I think Charlton will be in this division for quite a while. Garner is a bright light in the gloom this morning.
Are more now coming round to the idea that TS is looking to sell?
I struggle to see evidence that he wants to be here long term.
The only way he does that is by us getting promotion against the odds and using the increased TV revenue at Championship level combined with player sales to break even. I expect Leaburn to be sold within the next year or so and there are various others showing potential.
Even if we do that what’s the aim? To become a Championship/League 1 yoyo club? We won’t “do a Brentford” and make big profits on players without more investment in the team.
Stay in L1 and revenue will decrease (despite what TS claims) and we’ll be selling the odd youngster on the cheap to keep the club going.
Is there any obligation preventing TS from selling his lot for a quid? I can't see any. Would Roland get a say on what he does with the football club?
We're all just praying and hoping that he cares enough about it to not let that happen. But with his finances draining for f**k all reward it must be a closer and closer possibility?
Is there any obligation preventing TS from selling his lot for a quid? I can't see any. Would Roland get a say on what he does with the football club?
We're all just praying and hoping that he cares enough about it to not let that happen. But with his finances draining for f**k all reward it must be a closer and closer possibility?
Whoever paid the £ would still have to take on the liabilities, which is all TS really owns.
Garner has my full support. He is showing what a good manager he is. Sadly, he is joining Powell and Bowyer who didn't get that bit of support from the owner when they were on to something. For all his promises Sandgaard has shown he is the same camp as the crooks and idiots (he is the latter) that have been before.
He seemed to come out of nowhere and buy us on a whim, completely naive to the strength and difficulty of English football, backed up by his nonsense of PL footy in 5 years and wasting money on Schwartz.
He then pivoted away from frittering his money on transfers to focusing his money on Cat1 and failing to achieve that.
I ways though his budget stretched to 18 months in League One. It was his stated business plan.
We are now beyond that. I suspect like most people (even the wealthy) that he does not sit with millions in of spare cash in a bank account so would need to sell assets (Zynex shares most likely) to keep funding us and they are depressed since the club acquisition so he does not want to.
Would he cut his losses? Would there be a queue to pick us up with the new 15 year lease he has successfully negotiated giving RD even less incentive to sell The Valley and training ground.
Is there any obligation preventing TS from selling his lot for a quid? I can't see any. Would Roland get a say on what he does with the football club?
We're all just praying and hoping that he cares enough about it to not let that happen. But with his finances draining for f**k all reward it must be a closer and closer possibility?
Whoever paid the £ would still have to take on the liabilities, which is all TS really owns.
Fully aware of that Stu. We've been here before. Just wondered if there was any new mechanism preventing that from happening?
Are more now coming round to the idea that TS is looking to sell?
I struggle to see evidence that he wants to be here long term.
The only way he does that is by us getting promotion against the odds and using the increased TV revenue at Championship level combined with player sales to break even. I expect Leaburn to be sold within the next year or so and there are various others showing potential.
Even if we do that what’s the aim? To become a Championship/League 1 yoyo club? We won’t “do a Brentford” and make big profits on players without more investment in the team.
Stay in L1 and revenue will decrease (despite what TS claims) and we’ll be selling the odd youngster on the cheap to keep the club going.
This is the most worrying point for me. Even if we did manage to sneak up, TS would clearly the use the opportunity to try to break even and not invest in the squad, just like Roland did It would be just another wasted opportunity and we'd likely end up back where we started.
I find myself really disappointed in our transfer business again, because we seemingly left everything too late and ended up with egg on our faces by not getting the cover (at the very least) for a couple of key positions. Even semi-knowledgeable Charlton fans could see the gaps we had in the squad if it is to be believed we (incl. TS) truly held the objectives of getting promoted this year. Fully appreciate that the market for players can be volatile and risky, but the can-kicking approach to drag things out to the very last minute and then end up with nothing is not without targeted blame for our owner and his recruitment team. We won't know the full story, but the fact we've ended up with nothing means that we've let a lot of people down - the fans, the manager and the other players.
TS has a lot of banked credit for me for saving the club. I shall be eternally grateful for that and that carries a plenty of weight. The feast and famine approach to squad investment is frustratingly inconsistent - he backed NA heavily, but has now entirely dialled that back for BG. The lack of learning from the past about getting players in and signed early truly grates on me. You obviously can't control what players' agents are going to ask for. However, we should be moving heaven and earth to ensure the squad has everything it needs, be it first-team or squad players. I fear that the constant desire to spend as little as possible and extract the most value in re-sellable player assets has made that team lose focus on the bigger picture. I am not able to post-mortem what went wrong, but I sincerely hope they are able to ensure this doesn't happen again. The window as a whole meant that we did cut some chaff and generally fill all the holes, but we did seriously drop the ball at the end once again.
When TS made his statement earlier in the week, he said we were looking to "strengthen" up front and get "cover" at the back. A lot of us got quite excited by this - that means we'll pay a fee for someone up front and get a loan/small fee for the cover at the back, right? I got caught up in this too. However, on reflection of re-reading the statement, he said:
We have also been recruiting as part of the overall strategy for the club. We will have a period of probably two seasons where we are getting to the point of being financially break-even, or cash flow neutral.
This element is the most concerning, as what unfolded yesterday could be the planned norm for the next 3+ transfer windows. Given the widespread and reasonable unhappiness amongst many Charlton fans yesterday about the lack of transfer dealings, it won't take much for the boo boys to come out. A couple of blunt performances and/or injuries in the areas we want cover will likely mean dropped points.
If there was a manager to back, I feel it is Ben Garner. He's got us playing good football and I like his passion. This squad may well be able to get into playoffs, but it's infinitely more risky without the cover. Treating the squad as a collection of assets, rather than a vehicle for promotion is a dangerous game. The players are human - many of them have a vested interest in the success of the club and even the most dedicated player could have their confidence dented by the lack of bringing people in. I can't imagine Dobson or Clare being too happy about giving big performances every single week and then we don't bring in the players we can all see we need. Similarly, the manager must be frustrated. If they all don't see the point in giving everything because TS didn't invest, we're left with another potentially mediocre season once again.
I will happily be wrong about all of this if results continue on the pitch. If we keep playing well and players stay fit, we've got nothing to worry about. However, history dictates we will get those injuries and it is naïve to roll the dice and think we'll probably be fine. If Stockley gets injured, the replacement is a young (but exciting) lad with a handful of games under his belt or a square peg that needs to be molded quickly into a round one. I think the square pegs for the cover at the back are a little more plentiful and appropriate in comparison to the ones for Stockley, but it's still throwing a lot of young kids to the L1 wolves earlier than they probably should be.
Thankfully, we have a manager that might be able to pull this off, but his job did not need to be made any harder than it already is. Still got the faith in him and the bulk of the squad, but we're going to have to hope that we keep up our early pace and work our socks off.
Comments
I'll have to have proper read of what it's amending to make proper sense of it. It's either an oversight in the original or been done for a specific reason.
My initial thoughts are that it's 95% nothing of any significance.
If TS wanted to sell to ESI III he could just amend them first?
Although it would prevent a hostile take over so it has some benifit.
What is his end game? Christ knows but I think Charlton will be in this division for quite a while. Garner is a bright light in the gloom this morning.
I struggle to see evidence that he wants to be here long term.
The only way he does that is by us getting promotion against the odds and using the increased TV revenue at Championship level combined with player sales to break even. I expect Leaburn to be sold within the next year or so and there are various others showing potential.
Even if we do that what’s the aim? To become a Championship/League 1 yoyo club? We won’t “do a Brentford” and make big profits on players without more investment in the team.
Stay in L1 and revenue will decrease (despite what TS claims) and we’ll be selling the odd youngster on the cheap to keep the club going.
We're all just praying and hoping that he cares enough about it to not let that happen. But with his finances draining for f**k all reward it must be a closer and closer possibility?
He then pivoted away from frittering his money on transfers to focusing his money on Cat1 and failing to achieve that.
I ways though his budget stretched to 18 months in League One. It was his stated business plan.
We are now beyond that. I suspect like most people (even the wealthy) that he does not sit with millions in of spare cash in a bank account so would need to sell assets (Zynex shares most likely) to keep funding us and they are depressed since the club acquisition so he does not want to.
Would he cut his losses? Would there be a queue to pick us up with the new 15 year lease he has successfully negotiated giving RD even less incentive to sell The Valley and training ground.
Worrying times.
Just wondered if there was any new mechanism preventing that from happening?
TS has a lot of banked credit for me for saving the club. I shall be eternally grateful for that and that carries a plenty of weight. The feast and famine approach to squad investment is frustratingly inconsistent - he backed NA heavily, but has now entirely dialled that back for BG. The lack of learning from the past about getting players in and signed early truly grates on me. You obviously can't control what players' agents are going to ask for. However, we should be moving heaven and earth to ensure the squad has everything it needs, be it first-team or squad players. I fear that the constant desire to spend as little as possible and extract the most value in re-sellable player assets has made that team lose focus on the bigger picture. I am not able to post-mortem what went wrong, but I sincerely hope they are able to ensure this doesn't happen again. The window as a whole meant that we did cut some chaff and generally fill all the holes, but we did seriously drop the ball at the end once again.
When TS made his statement earlier in the week, he said we were looking to "strengthen" up front and get "cover" at the back. A lot of us got quite excited by this - that means we'll pay a fee for someone up front and get a loan/small fee for the cover at the back, right? I got caught up in this too. However, on reflection of re-reading the statement, he said:
We have also been recruiting as part of the overall strategy for the club. We will have a period of probably two seasons where we are getting to the point of being financially break-even, or cash flow neutral.
This element is the most concerning, as what unfolded yesterday could be the planned norm for the next 3+ transfer windows. Given the widespread and reasonable unhappiness amongst many Charlton fans yesterday about the lack of transfer dealings, it won't take much for the boo boys to come out. A couple of blunt performances and/or injuries in the areas we want cover will likely mean dropped points.
If there was a manager to back, I feel it is Ben Garner. He's got us playing good football and I like his passion. This squad may well be able to get into playoffs, but it's infinitely more risky without the cover. Treating the squad as a collection of assets, rather than a vehicle for promotion is a dangerous game. The players are human - many of them have a vested interest in the success of the club and even the most dedicated player could have their confidence dented by the lack of bringing people in. I can't imagine Dobson or Clare being too happy about giving big performances every single week and then we don't bring in the players we can all see we need. Similarly, the manager must be frustrated. If they all don't see the point in giving everything because TS didn't invest, we're left with another potentially mediocre season once again.
I will happily be wrong about all of this if results continue on the pitch. If we keep playing well and players stay fit, we've got nothing to worry about. However, history dictates we will get those injuries and it is naïve to roll the dice and think we'll probably be fine. If Stockley gets injured, the replacement is a young (but exciting) lad with a handful of games under his belt or a square peg that needs to be molded quickly into a round one. I think the square pegs for the cover at the back are a little more plentiful and appropriate in comparison to the ones for Stockley, but it's still throwing a lot of young kids to the L1 wolves earlier than they probably should be.
Thankfully, we have a manager that might be able to pull this off, but his job did not need to be made any harder than it already is. Still got the faith in him and the bulk of the squad, but we're going to have to hope that we keep up our early pace and work our socks off.