It does answer why 2 x 18 year olds have started every single league game this season. Also why we have 2 goalies like we do, hoping one comes good and can be sold for 500k or so. BUT, none of this "plan" is working so far.
So it seems that our immediate future is based on a projection of performance of every aspect of the club to a level that is at best highly unlikely. Time limited to achieve and no known plan for what happens should in the likely event “the plan” fails. Appleton has a job on his hands. I think we’re going to need a bigger boat.
No one here knows anything. Don't care how ITK the claims are, nor the opinions from so called experts. Wait and see, Bitch then if you have to.
Exactly - it’s airman’s guess nothing more
You think so? In my experience he doesn’t tend to post stuff that isn’t credibly sourced.
How could it not be a guess ? Who’s told him what ? He said a takeover was imminent once and it happened about 18 months later - my view / and it can only be a view - is that if things are going in the right direction, there will be backing - could be completely wrong of course
Well I said the next two weeks will be crucial once, and it didn’t happen at all. 🙂
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment). Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment). Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment). Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium. If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment). Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
It’s trivial in the context of a £10m operating loss in 2021/22. Even if that’s £6m in 2023/24, it’s 2.5% of the total so not really any kind of game changer. I’d imagine they would have overestimated ticket income alone by several times that, having no first-hand knowledge of the fanbase.
The problem as I see it is not that anyone is here with malign intent. It’s not an evil conspiracy. It’s just that Methven etc have to make unrealistic assumptions in order to get the investors on board. They are able to do so at no risk to themselves (since I doubt CM paid for his shareholding), in which case why wouldn’t you?
The problem for us as fans is that this house of cards is likely to fall down again.
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment). Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium. If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment). Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium. If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.
Selling Leaburn in January (with a loan back) would be a good decision. He’s not going to sign a new contract, so if we can sell him in January we will still get a good fee (especially as January is often inflated transfer fees) and then still hopefully keep him ourselves till the end of the season.
If the plan is promotion and then try to become more sustainable in the championship then I think that is a good plan.
If the money runs out after 2 years and we haven’t gone up, then it’s going to be like Sandgaard. They will cut costs while looking for some other idiot to buy us.
This is our cycle now, new owner comes in and goes for it for 2 years, realises they’ve spent £15m+ to end up league 1 mid table and then cut costs while they desperately try and find someone willing to pay them silly money for it. This will repeat until one of them gets lucky and gets us promoted, these ownership types are the best we can hope for at the moment
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment). Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium. If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.
Selling Leaburn in January (with a loan back) would be a good decision. He’s not going to sign a new contract, so if we can sell him in January we will still get a good fee (especially as January is often inflated transfer fees) and then still hopefully keep him ourselves till the end of the season.
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.
I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.
The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.
Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.
Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
Comments
a) financial restructuring (but that will benefit everyone and is likely to lead to wage inflation);
b) accelerated and exceptional player sales (but without significant major investment in the academy).
It’s way beyond “any kind of competence at all”, notwithstanding what has gone before.
🙂
charlton are a professional outfit with a manager, assistant and a goalkeeping coach for a squad of 20 +
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
The problem for us as fans is that this house of cards is likely to fall down again.
Kenny Achampong fitted in nicely 😉
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.