Charlie thinking he can do it better than everyone else. Just like Roland. Just like Sandgaard..
I think a large chunk of the owners cash is going straight into the pockets of Methven, Rodwell and Scott.
I was going to say the same thing, at least the Appleton appointment confirms where we stand with this ownership now.
I wonder how long it will take for the ownership structure to start falling apart when they realise they can't do this on the cheap. I give it until March/April time.
I'll give it till Christmas if we're bottom six come the end of December.
So just what is the play here with these owners? Clearly not an ambitious one. Are they hoping to get lucky like Bowyer sort of did? Or is something more sinister going on?
Suspct so.
Seem to be hoping to fluke a few cheap signings working out so we get promoted to then sell the club at a profit, whilst making a profit on academy players.
How do you make a profit on academy players when the club makes a massive lose every year?
Preaching to the choir mate - you don't.
They might stem the bleeding a bit but if they don't invest and run the club well, we're staying in L1 and they're losing money.
So just what is the play here with these owners? Clearly not an ambitious one. Are they hoping to get lucky like Bowyer sort of did? Or is something more sinister going on?
Heard from a sauce that Methven was seen leaving B&Q with who he thinks was Sandgaard last night, talking about land registry and building regs? He couldn't hear too much as they were getting into the back of a blacked out van with Belgian plates.
So just what is the play here with these owners? Clearly not an ambitious one. Are they hoping to get lucky like Bowyer sort of did? Or is something more sinister going on?
Suspct so.
Seem to be hoping to fluke a few cheap signings working out so we get promoted to then sell the club at a profit, whilst making a profit on academy players.
How do you make a profit on academy players when the club makes a massive lose every year?
But Charlie says that anyone competent can get the operating loss down to £1m-£2m, so that’s not a problem?
Quote from article: “Now, this is something which some fans are starting to understand now, that SCMP has teeth because they are seeing other clubs placed under embargo and they are seeing other clubs having points deducted"
As of 15:15 on 13/09, 16 mins after the article was posted:
Really don't understand why the club would put this out on official channels when we keep getting told be very informed sources in here that CM has nothing to do with us!
Yes that’s a very interesting choice… not necessarily a bad thing if he’s involved in this spokesperson-type-capacity but it flies in the face of what was shared before the takeover.
Quote from article: “Now, this is something which some fans are starting to understand now, that SCMP has teeth because they are seeing other clubs placed under embargo and they are seeing other clubs having points deducted"
As of 15:15 on 13/09, 16 mins after the article was posted:
He doesn't say currently under embargo though does he? In the past 18 months alone Burnley, Cardiff ,Derby, Fleetwood, Gillingham, Oldham, Reading, Scunthorpe and Swindon have all been placed under embargo for various misdemeanors, and now with the new transparency rules, any club that does go under embargo, the world knows about it
Really don't understand why the club would put this out on official channels when we keep getting told be very informed sources in here that CM has nothing to do with us!
Almost as if @RonnieMoore has got it all wrong but I find that hard to believe.
Only this morning Colin was telling us Charlie had probably already left the club.
Apparently , there is a ‘flaky way around it’ by putting equity funding in. Either it’s OK to do that or it isn’t ? I think Methven is being disingenuous. He wont want more equity funding put in because it’s likely to dilute his equity stake, Also, if anything all of the investors are likely to prefer to put their money in as debt of some kind so that they feel that there is some chance of getting the money back ( although whatever happens the likelihood is that they will all take a haircut on their “ investment”) If they put the money in as equity, it feels like more of a permanent investment which is more likely to disappear forever which is why the EFL are happy with that type of funding.
The real news here is, if CM is to be believed, is that equity injections ARE possible, something we were told by those close to CM couldn't happen.
Of course, if they boost the turnover this year then, as CM says, they may need to do it again the years after but it is possible.
But we've already gone outside the budget which is, if glass half full, shows there is flexibility and a willingness to inject money if needed or, if glass half empty, the budget was too small and over reliant on shifting Kirk and McGrandles.
The other points are that U21s get older and so will come into account eventually if not sold so like equity injections it's not without longer term consequences.
Also that one of the two players not loaned out would most likely be McGrandles, a favourite of Appleton's at Lincoln.
“Why is it a problem? The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologizing for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
“Why is it a problem? The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
So he's telling us we couldn't support the wages of say Nombe for another 2 years after this, covered by equity injection.
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologising for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
His point about on going costs are valid, but if we have a known drag on expenses (McGrandles, Chuks, etc) and nobody wants them, why not just bung in the known cost of these players and make them stick to budget for the rest of the squad. It’s insane to hold your supposed ambition of promotion hostage to players you can’t get rid of. Or you sell your best players to cover the costs of the unwanted.
“Why is it a problem? The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
So he's telling us we couldn't support the wages of say Nombe for another 2 years after this, covered by equity injection.
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologising for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
His point about on going costs are valid, but if we have a known drag on expenses (McGrandles, Chuks, etc) and nobody wants them, why not just bung in the known cost of these players and make them stick to budget for the rest of the squad. It’s insane to hold your supposed ambition of promotion hostage to players you can’t get rid of. Or you sell your best players to cover the costs of the unwanted.
What do you mean?
You either hang on to the player and pay them wages across the season even if you don't want them, but you can actually use them if desperately needed, and revisit selling them or loaning them out in Jan
Or
you pay them off, can't use the players because of that, but have still incurred the same/similar costs which is just money down the drain, and no way to recover any of the money in the future.
You can't pay them off and then go and spend more wages on different players, that's just spending even more money
“Why is it a problem? The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
So he's telling us we couldn't support the wages of say Nombe for another 2 years after this, covered by equity injection.
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologising for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
His point about on going costs are valid, but if we have a known drag on expenses (McGrandles, Chuks, etc) and nobody wants them, why not just bung in the known cost of these players and make them stick to budget for the rest of the squad. It’s insane to hold your supposed ambition of promotion hostage to players you can’t get rid of. Or you sell your best players to cover the costs of the unwanted.
What do you mean?
You either hang on to the player and pay them wages across the season even if you don't want them, but you can actually use them if desperately needed, and revisit selling them or loaning them out in Jan
Or
you pay them off, can't use the players because of that, but have still incurred the same/similar costs which is just money down the drain, and no way to recover any of the money in the future.
You can't pay them off and then go and spend more wages on different players, that's just spending even more money
Let me clarify with some made up numbers as an example. They may be a bit over the top to show what I mean.
Your player budget is $5m. Of that, you’ve got 4 players who you want to replace as they don’t fit in your team. They take up $1m in salary. To get replacement in, you need to offload the 4 players to free up the $1m. Nobody wants them. So you’re stuck. You can’t improve the team and you’re carrying passengers. The best you can hope is the you have youth players who can replace them.
Or, owners can say, I’m going to keep the wage structure, but we realize we’re stuck with these players that came with the team. So we’ll move their $1m out of your wage budget, and we’ll inject $1m as a one off. You don’t need to release them, they’re just not being included in the wage budget, you can still sell them, loan them or use them if you need. But the $1m is a one time injection to offset any FFP issues.
“Why is it a problem? The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
So he's telling us we couldn't support the wages of say Nombe for another 2 years after this, covered by equity injection.
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologising for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
His point about on going costs are valid, but if we have a known drag on expenses (McGrandles, Chuks, etc) and nobody wants them, why not just bung in the known cost of these players and make them stick to budget for the rest of the squad. It’s insane to hold your supposed ambition of promotion hostage to players you can’t get rid of. Or you sell your best players to cover the costs of the unwanted.
What do you mean?
You either hang on to the player and pay them wages across the season even if you don't want them, but you can actually use them if desperately needed, and revisit selling them or loaning them out in Jan
Or
you pay them off, can't use the players because of that, but have still incurred the same/similar costs which is just money down the drain, and no way to recover any of the money in the future.
You can't pay them off and then go and spend more wages on different players, that's just spending even more money
“Why is it a problem? The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
So he's telling us we couldn't support the wages of say Nombe for another 2 years after this, covered by equity injection.
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologising for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
His point about on going costs are valid, but if we have a known drag on expenses (McGrandles, Chuks, etc) and nobody wants them, why not just bung in the known cost of these players and make them stick to budget for the rest of the squad. It’s insane to hold your supposed ambition of promotion hostage to players you can’t get rid of. Or you sell your best players to cover the costs of the unwanted.
What do you mean?
You either hang on to the player and pay them wages across the season even if you don't want them, but you can actually use them if desperately needed, and revisit selling them or loaning them out in Jan
Or
you pay them off, can't use the players because of that, but have still incurred the same/similar costs which is just money down the drain, and no way to recover any of the money in the future.
You can't pay them off and then go and spend more wages on different players, that's just spending even more money
I would imagine he means that if you are an owner serious about promotion then instead of blaming the lack of investment on the wages of Chucks, McG, Kirk etc who we couldn't shift, then add equity in to cover their wages therefore taking out (equity covering) their wage contribution to the 60% rule.
Of course it means spending more money, but staying in this league will cost a serious amount of £££ and in 2 years our new owners will be in Sandgaard slash and burn/regretful of investment mode.
It just seems mad to buy us for £12M (if that number is accurate); then not invest for promotion because 2-3 players would tip you over a 60% t/o hurdle that is very easily circumnavigated.
The real news here is, if CM is to be believed, is that equity injections ARE possible, something we were told by those close to CM couldn't happen.
Of course, if they boost the turnover this year then, as CM says, they may need to do it again the years after but it is possible.
But we've already gone outside the budget which is, if glass half full, shows there is flexibility and a willingness to inject money if needed or, if glass half empty, the budget was too small and over reliant on shifting Kirk and McGrandles.
The other points are that U21s get older and so will come into account eventually if not sold so like equity injections it's not without longer term consequences.
Also that one of the two players not loaned out would most likely be McGrandles, a favourite of Appleton's at Lincoln.
Unless the injection is more of an advance from next years budget which I hope isn’t the case
There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
I just listened to the 30 minute podcast and it's worth a listen. Methven is obviously an intelligent bloke and talks a lot of sense. As alburyaddick says above, either equity injections are permitted or they are not permitted. The rules state they are permitted, so I agree with albury that Methven's comment surrounding this appears somewhat dubious. If a club has the means to sign a player and fund their wages for the contract length, I see no issue with it being funded through equity as opposed to loan and I don't see why the efl or whoever is enforcing the rules would be bothered. As Methven said, if a club was struggling in the next season then the efl can refuse to register any new players.
There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
You can't just "pay" off players.
They have to agree to it.
But assuming the player does agree the spend on paying them off is still spending on players so still hits your budget.
There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
You can't just "pay" off players.
They have to agree to it.
But assuming the player does agree the spend on paying them off is still spending on players so still hits your budget.
Ah ok cheers for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that would be some kind of way around it.
Could have been a case of paying them off (if they accepted) and then delving into the free agents. I imagine the players we were wanting to shift would have accepted it to get some cash and find a new club.
So realistically then our only chance of a really good budget is if we sell out The Valley consistently? Or am I reading this wrong
Comments
They might stem the bleeding a bit but if they don't invest and run the club well, we're staying in L1 and they're losing money.
Heard from a sauce that Methven was seen leaving B&Q with who he thinks was Sandgaard last night, talking about land registry and building regs? He couldn't hear too much as they were getting into the back of a blacked out van with Belgian plates.
Don't know if it means anything.
🤷🏻♂️
As of 15:15 on 13/09, 16 mins after the article was posted:
Only this morning Colin was telling us Charlie had probably already left the club.
Either it’s OK to do that or it isn’t ? I think Methven is being disingenuous. He wont want more equity funding put in because it’s likely to dilute his equity stake, Also, if anything all of the investors are likely to prefer to put their money in as debt of some kind so that they feel that there is some chance of getting the money back ( although whatever happens the likelihood is that they will all take a haircut on their “ investment”)
If they put the money in as equity, it feels like more of a permanent investment which is more likely to disappear forever which is why the EFL are happy with that type of funding.
Of course, if they boost the turnover this year then, as CM says, they may need to do it again the years after but it is possible.
But we've already gone outside the budget which is, if glass half full, shows there is flexibility and a willingness to inject money if needed or, if glass half empty, the budget was too small and over reliant on shifting Kirk and McGrandles.
The other points are that U21s get older and so will come into account eventually if not sold so like equity injections it's not without longer term consequences.
Also that one of the two players not loaned out would most likely be McGrandles, a favourite of Appleton's at Lincoln.
The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologizing for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
You either hang on to the player and pay them wages across the season even if you don't want them, but you can actually use them if desperately needed, and revisit selling them or loaning them out in Jan
Or
you pay them off, can't use the players because of that, but have still incurred the same/similar costs which is just money down the drain, and no way to recover any of the money in the future.
You can't pay them off and then go and spend more wages on different players, that's just spending even more money
I would imagine he means that if you are an owner serious about promotion then instead of blaming the lack of investment on the wages of Chucks, McG, Kirk etc who we couldn't shift, then add equity in to cover their wages therefore taking out (equity covering) their wage contribution to the 60% rule.
Of course it means spending more money, but staying in this league will cost a serious amount of £££ and in 2 years our new owners will be in Sandgaard slash and burn/regretful of investment mode.
It just seems mad to buy us for £12M (if that number is accurate); then not invest for promotion because 2-3 players would tip you over a 60% t/o hurdle that is very easily circumnavigated.
There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
Methven is obviously an intelligent bloke and talks a lot of sense.
As alburyaddick says above, either equity injections are permitted or they are not permitted.
The rules state they are permitted, so I agree with albury that Methven's comment surrounding this appears somewhat dubious.
If a club has the means to sign a player and fund their wages for the contract length, I see no issue with it being funded through equity as opposed to loan and I don't see why the efl or whoever is enforcing the rules would be bothered.
As Methven said, if a club was struggling in the next season then the efl can refuse to register any new players.
They have to agree to it.
But assuming the player does agree the spend on paying them off is still spending on players so still hits your budget.
Could have been a case of paying them off (if they accepted) and then delving into the free agents. I imagine the players we were wanting to shift would have accepted it to get some cash and find a new club.
So realistically then our only chance of a really good budget is if we sell out The Valley consistently? Or am I reading this wrong